The Vicomte De Bragelonne by Alexandre Dumas

(Book Review)

            This book is the third book in the Three Musketeers series. See also my review of the original Three Musketeers and Twenty Years After.

The Title

          According to the Internet, the 3rd book in the Three Musketeers series is so huge, some 2,000 pages or something, that in English publication it’s usually published as a series of smaller books (W).

            (It’s unclear to me why the length of the book is only a problem in the English translation.  Do the French not have the same problems with the book binding?)

            Each publisher divides the book up differently—sometimes it’s published in 3 volumes, sometimes 4 volumes, and sometimes 5 volumes.  This leads occasionally to confusion about which book is which.

            Since I am downloading these books from Project Gutenberg [LINK HERE], I am following their divisions:

            Book 1: The Vicomte De Bragelonne

            Book 2: Ten Years After

            Book 3: Louise de la Valliere

            and Book 4: The Man in the Iron Mask.

            In the original French translation, The Vicomte De Bragelonne refers to the whole of the last book, but the book I am reviewing today is the English translation, which is just the first 75 chapters of the French The Vicomte de Bragelonne.

            (Did I manage to explain that without confusing everyone?)

            In the original French, this is just the beginning of a larger work, so it may be unfair for me to review the work in divisions not intended by the original author.  But I’ve decided to just review these books as I go along rather than try and hold them all in my memory until the end—be it fair or not.  But you may still want to keep that caveat in mind as you read my review.

The Review

          Since this is the same series by the same author, much of what I said about The Three Musketeers, and Twenty Years After, also holds true for this book as well.

            With some exceptions:

            I praised the original Three Musketeers for having a fast sense of pacing similar to a modern day novel.  But at this point in the series, that fast pace has been completely disregarded.  In fact, the opposite is now true: every plot point is now being drawn out for as long as possible.

            I’m beginning to get the sense that at this point Dumas is just trying to milk the rest of the story for as much money as he can get.  (Like Dickens, Dumas was originally serialized in newspapers and paid by the installment.)

            Whereas the first Musketeers book had a real sense of urgency about pacing and plot, this book is in no hurry to get anywhere.  For example we pause for a whole chapter to get the history of an inn where one of the characters is staying at.  We have another chapter devoted just to describing the political background in England.

            It’s actually not a bad pacing—it allows you to get more drawn into the story.  And the prose is still highly readable.  But it is different.

            In addition to a shift in pacing, another difference is that the Musketeers are increasingly becoming minor characters in their own series as the focus is now more on real life historical figures. 

            History was always a big part of this series, but it seems to be growing in prominence with each book.  At times, the young king Louix XIV almost seems to be the main character in this book, as several chapters are taken up describing his actions, and the Musketeers are completely forgotten for several chapters at a time.

            Not only Louis XIV, but also his clerk Colbert (W), the superintendent of finances Fouquet (W) and his inner circle, and across the English channel, General Monk (W) and King Charles II.

            Dumas continues to mix fiction and history, so these are all heavily fictionalized versions of their real-life counterparts.  And yet, as someone who loves history, I thought the way Dumas blended history and fiction together was fascinating.  (Conversely, people who don’t like history might want to consider themselves forewarned before starting this book.)

            [Alexandre Dumas was an expert on 17th Century history in his own right. (He published historical books such as Louis XIV and his Century)  And so, although he does fictionalize a lot of the history for dramatic purposes, he’s also not afraid to get into the details, and certainly gives the impression of knowing a lot about the nobles and poets of 17th Century France.]

           

            As with Twenty Years After, there’s a complexity allowed for French politics which is not allowed in English politics.

            In France, the young Louis XIV is struggling to get out from under the shadow of his regent Mazarin (W), and, added by Colbert, is trying to assert his authority and strength at the expense of the superintendent of finances Fouquet.

            Much of the book is sympathetic to the ambitions of Louis XIV, but Dumas, however, shows equally sympathy towards Fouquet.  The reader is shown everything from Fouquet’s perspective as well as Louis XIV’s.  And, as with Twenty Years After, the Musketeers themselves are divided again.  (D’artagnan supports Louis XIV, but Porthos and Aramis are working for Fouquet.)

            When it comes to English politics, however, these books are unashamedly pro-royalist. The restoration of Charles II is presented as a great moment for civilization.  (As someone who takes an anti-monarchist point of view, I would view the Restoration as a step backwards for England.  But, as with the previous books, I try and just swallow my politics and try and enjoy these books for their storytelling.)

Other Notes

* I continue to enjoy the cloak-and-dagger intrigue of these books, such as all the plotting Fouquet and his circle did to try and save their friends from the hangman

* In the first half of this book, General Monk is one of the main characters, which I thought was interesting.  (In the history books I’ve read, General Monk is usually just glossed over as a transition figure between Oliver Cromwell and the restoration of the monarchy, but Alexandre Dumas I think does a fair job of rescuing Monk from obscurity and showing what a fascinating a figure he really was.)

* In my review of The Three Musketeers, I said part of what makes the book interesting is how flawed all of the heroes were.

            But this apparently does not extend to the sons of the Musketeers.  The character of Raoul, Athos’s son, is presented as much too perfect a picture of filial devotion, which makes him a very boring character.  (This was true in Twenty Years After as well, actually).  But I’ll have to reserve final judgment until I see how the whole story develops.

Link of the Day

Noam Chomsky (July, 2013) "The Corporatization of the University"