Monday, March 18, 2013

The Three Musketeers [Re-read]


This is perhaps my third reading of Alexandre Dumas’ first installment of D’Artagnan Romances series: The Three Musketeers. I read it first as a child (the illustrated abridged version), then read it again several years ago in Bahasa Indonesia translation, and now I got the chance to read it in the English unabridged version, together with Melisa, Maria and Althesia. Surprisingly, even having been familiar with the main plot—especially with the cold-hearted Milady—I was still surprised by some little details scattered within this 555 pages, which I thought I have never known before. Or, was it because I have read Twenty Years After and The Man in the Iron Mask before this that made those details more sense? Maybe….

Anyway, this time I put more attention to the historical facts of this story, The Siege of La Rochelle—the war between France and England in 1627-1628 during the reign of Louis XIII—which I have neglected in, at least, my second reading. La Rochelle was the last city which was inhabited by the Huguenots at that time, and the Cardinal wanted to take it to entirely clean France from the remnants of Calvinism. But this war was also believed (at least according to this story) to be triggered by personal interests of Duke of Buckingham and the Cardinal—who both tried to gain Anne of Austria’s love. Yes! That’s what happened when two powerful people from two countries played at a high stake.

Richelieu in "Siege of La Rochelle", 1881 by Henri Motte

The third reading enabled me to see Cardinal Richelieu as an honorable gentleman, and not merely as an antagonist who would like to destroy the queen, as I perceived before. Even d’Artagnan and the three musketeers paid some respects towards the Cardinal, despite of their dislikes. Richelieu had a mixed feeling towards the four inseparable musketeers, he admired their nobleness, brave, and intelligence, but on the other hand, he would not rest easy while they kept intercepting and ruining his plans. His last interview with d’Artagnan grew my admiration towards the Cardinal.

Rereading this book has also given me chance to follow d’Artagnan from the very early of his career. I could see that the young Gascon had already been possessing courage, intelligence, witty and prudence, even when he was scarcely twenty years of age. One quality that marked his youth off his future life as an adult was his uncontrolled amorous passion. While falling in love with Constance Bonancieux, he could also cultivate a madly attraction to Milady. I am wondering whether, if d’Artagnan met Milady when he was more experienced in his career, would he still be fallen to her charm?

In The Three Musketeers, Dumas poured out all his humour and wittiness in describing his young musketeers’ adventures. He forced me to laugh out loud several times everytime the musketeers were teasing each other; at Aramis, for example, who would be blushing a great deal when the others could guess that ‘a cousin’ means a lady he was courting, and ‘money from selling poems’ came in fact from his lover, instead of a publisher who bought his writing. It was also comical how the musketeers could never save their assets very long; for example when they got four beautiful horses from Duke of Buckingham. Athos—whose weakness was in wine and dice—put the horses at stake, and lost his and d’Artagnan’s; Aramis—with his delicate heart—sold his in low price; while Porthos—well…this is the most hilarious—he made his horse to be delicious foods which the four musketeers enjoyed very much without realizing it at first (except Porthos)! LOL, this scene is very funny indeed! =))

And in that witty manner, we came to know each musketeers’ personalities and secrets. Athos has a noble manner and heart which was sometimes senseless, but he also suffered from a huge burden that made him often drawn in his somber mood, then passed his time in drinking. It was revealed in the end, that he was actually Count de la Ferre, who came from a high rank family in the kingdom, and had a dark history concerning his marriage with Milady. Aramis was a ‘beautiful’ gentleman who adored glamorous style, and had a divine passion to serve the Church as an abbé. It was revealed later that his passion in theology appeared not of any divine reason, but rather as a gloomy reason when his lover was abandoning him! Aramis was the most hypocrite from the four, and whose life was full of mystery and intrigue, but he has the most delicate style in diplomacy—one of the best of all. Porthos was a simpleton whose intellectual was perhaps behind the others, but he was a loyal friend, and of course as brave as others. Porthos was depicted as a handsome and well-built young man who adored high fashion and exquisite gourmets.

From the four, d’Artagnan was definitely the most intelligent one, although his emotional was too unstable to be their leader—we should give that to Athos instead, for his perfect calmness. It’s remarkable to see how the trust between the four was built up so quickly, one solid foundation to their true friendship. Everytime d’Artagnan rushed to pursue something urgent, the others would unquestionably follow his step, always believed that he must have a good judgement for that. And look how the three musketeers gave themselves up to d’Artagnan when they accompanied the Gascon to England for returning the Queen’s diamond studs—an incident which could have had triggered a war between England and France, even before the siege of La Rochelle, had d’Artagnan didn’t possess his iron nerve! What a brilliant and heroic rescue that was!

Although not the best from the series, The Three Musketeers has set a good base for the d’Artagnan Romances; it’s less serious, it’s historical, it’s witty, it’s really entertaining. Four swords—instead of stars :D—from me for the four musketeers. I know now why Dumas gave the title “three” musketeers instead of “four”, it’s because d’Artagnan is the center of the whole series, so it should be: d’Artagnan AND The Three Musketeers, d’Artagnan: Twenty Years After, etc.

One favorite quote of mine, from the last intriguing interview of d’Artagnan and Cardinal Richelieu, a passage which showed d’Artagnan’s noble and brave character—which basically represented all the four musketeers’ characters. This interview was very crucial, because it would fix d’Artagnan future (life or death), and this was d’Artagnan's answer for his ‘defense’….

My Lord, I swear to you that I have not for one instant thought of defending my head against your eminence. I will submit to whatever punishment your eminence may please to inflict. I do not cling to life sufficiently to fear death.

~~~~~

*I read the Wordsworth Classics 1993 edition*

*This book is counted for*


12 comments:

  1. I read this book many years ago, and I also failed to see the subtleties of Richelieu's character...but for some reason I found him intriguing at the time. I haven't read any of the rest of the series, though. Perhaps his character is tweaked a bit in the next books? Or is he not even a character in the later books?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately Richelieu only made his appearance in Three Musketeers. In Twenty Years After, Mazarin has succeeded him, and he's a villain, not even a gentleman. You must read at least Twenty Years After, Rachel, even if you won't read the whole series. Our four friends developed much (of course, after 20 years!), and their strong friendship and noble principles more distinguished in it too. One of the best classics I've ever read so far...

      Delete
  2. I prefer to stick to the adventure than confusing myself with the political intrigues :))
    I love how you described our four main characters in the review, it was them that makes this book so enjoyable. You know I think you got a point, Dumas should make the title: D'Artagnan AND the Three Musketeers, it's funny how he in purpose "drowned" D'Artagnan's name on the title(s). Now I am curious on how the sequels will be, how will the characters grow, etc. It seems that I should add the sequels on my Classics Club list...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the political intrigues only distinguish our four friends' nobleness, and I think it's the main aim Dumas has written these series, to commemorate the bygone noble qualities of the great gentlemen.

      Delete
  3. i can see tons of scene lost from the Serambi's edition..for example the part when they received horses from Duke of Buckingham :(

    i really confused why Dumas gave the title "Three Musketeers" instead of "Four Musketeers" and now i know why..thank you for that. Now i am looking for reading Twenty Years After.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm surprised at how many was missing from Serambi's edition compared to the unabridged version. Thank God I chose to re-read it this year, it's so entertaining!

      Delete
  4. I LOVE this book. But you know my thoughts. It will be useless to say anything here, except that I quite agree with you about Richelieu. He's a smart and worthy politician. The four respect him, though they don't love him, that's certain.

    Okay. I give up. Athos has noble manner which is sometimes senseless. Brilliant description. His honour comes so near to stupidity at times. But I love him. (I have to stop here before I start fangirling.)

    I am soooooo lazy to read Man in the Iron Mask. Can't find it in my heart to do so. :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew even before reading your comment, that there will be (at least) one "love Athos" thing here... :P.

      Do you think we need to read Vicomte de Bragelonne and Louise de la Valliere also?

      Delete
  5. The timing for re-read for me is quite short, even though I like it more than my first attempt to read it two years ago (don't know why it 'stuck' in the middle), I cannot get the feeling only the adventures and several historical parts. I should take another time to (again re-read) enjoying the story before move to the sequels.
    You know, first I only like d'Artagnan, now I like Athos too :D (or feeling sorry for him to be exactly) ... you should see Oliver Platt plays Porthos, it's so funny :D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you should read the unabridged version to get the original Dumas' genius in historical telling, and wittiness.

      Delete
    2. Definetely I will do that :D and preparing reading other books in this series too :D

      Delete
    3. Oh, Twenty Years After is even better than Three Musketeers, I think, so don't miss it! ;)

      Delete

What do you think?