07 May 2025

Marrying Lucy Percy

On a cold day in February 1617, two young ladies walked through the gates of the Tower of London. They were Lucy Percy and her older sister, Dorothy, and they had come to visit their father, the earl of Northumberland.

Lucy Hay, née Percy by Anthony van Dyck 
The two young women, both still in their teens, made their way through the Tower complex to the Martin Tower and went inside. Their father greeted them warmly and exchanged pleasantries. After a while, though, his demeanour changed. Suddenly, he ordered Dorothy to go back home to her husband. As she was leaving, he gave her another order: to send Lucy’s maids to the Tower so they could attend her. Lucy was to become a prisoner in the Tower. Her gaoler was not the state, but her own father.

Lucy Percy was the second and youngest daughter of Henry Percy, ninth earl of Northumberland. Born at Michaelmas in 1599, she was only six years old when her father was detained in the Tower after being implicated in the Gunpowder Plot. Her mother was Dorothy Devereux, sister of the fallen favourite of Elizabeth I, Robert Devereux, earl of Essex. Her court connections, however, did not end there. Through the Devereux line, Lucy could trace her descent back to Mary Boleyn, sister of Anne Boleyn. Possibly, as a result of Mary’s affair with Henry VIII, Lucy could count the king as one of her ancestors.


Lucy’s mother had ambitions for her, and in 1614, when Lucy was in her fourteenth year, she introduced her daughter at court. The young lady’s beauty - it was agreed that she was ‘the most lovely damsel in all England’ – her accomplishments and her sparkling personality were such that her success in court circles was guaranteed.


For her part, Lucy embraced life at court. She loved the ceremony, the masques, the feasting and the society. Not unnaturally, she soon attracted a string of admirers. Young, handsome men paid court to her and, in theory at least, she could have had her pick of them. However, while she enjoyed the attention, her heart would be captured by a much older man: Sir James Hay.

James Hay, artist unknown

Born c.1580 in Pitcorthie in Fife, Sir James Hay had spent considerable time in France in his youth gaining an education and acquiring good taste and refinement. It is believed by some that he had later served in the Gardes Écossaises of Henri IV of France and that he was introduced to King James by one of Henri’s ambassadors.


Hay was graceful, with strong, handsome features. Nevertheless, the overall shape of his face would later inspire the Electress Elizabeth to call him ‘Camel-face’ and address him as such in her letters to him. It is an indication of his character that he took this in good humour.


Hay had come to England in late 1603. He had served King James prior to his accession to the English throne, and now Hay hoped that his career would escalate still further. His presence at court and his status as someone who enjoyed royal favour would not be overlooked. ‘Notice was taken of a rising favourite,’ writes the courtier and politician, Anthony Weldon, ‘the first meteor of that nature appearing in our climate.’


King James recognised Hay’s abilities and showered him with various marks of his favour. Hay was created Lord Hay, although without a seat in the House of Lords. Later, he was appointed Gentleman of the Robes and, from 1613-1618, would hold the post of Master of the Wardrobe. During this time, he was elevated to the peerage as Lord Hay of Sawley in Yorkshire.


As Master of the Wardrobe, Hay was given a house on Upper Thames Street in Blackfriars. Here, he would host the lavish entertainments for which he would become famous. Highly fashionable, it was said of him that he always had to be ‘set out after the last edition.’


Lord Hay was politically ambitious and desired to be a significant figure at the English court. He had observed that James favoured English courtiers over the Scots, and Hay became a naturalised Englishman in 1604. This was a natural progression, for he was fond of all things English and he made it his study to become the quintessential English gentleman. Hay, therefore, formed close links with the English rather than the Scottish members of James’s court, a move that very much pleased the king.


Another means by which Hay could become more ‘English’ was to take an English wife, and this was also in accordance with the king’s own preferences. In 1607, Hay married Honora Denny, daughter of Lord Edward Denny, a match made ‘by royal mediation.’ Honora give birth to two children, James and Anne, no doubt named after the king and queen. She died tragically after suffering a miscarriage in 1614, the same year Lucy made her debut at court.


Exactly when Hay began courting Lucy is not known, but they were recognised as a couple by early 1617. In an age when marriage within the nobility was seen as a matter of state, with families and fortunes, estates and titles marrying, rather than individuals, the marriage of Lucy Percy and Sir James Hay would, nevertheless, be a love match.


It is easy to see why Hay fell for Lucy, and why she was the perfect bride him. She had youth and beauty, with a clear ivory complexion, large and expressive brown eyes, and an oval face framed by luxurious brown curls. She was also accomplished. As an excellent horsewoman and dancer, she possessed two of the most important qualities a courtier could possess. Lucy was also intelligent despite her rudimentary education, which had covered only those subjects deemed appropriate for a young lady of her status. She was alert and, even at this early age, was wise to the ways of the world around her. Observant, she learned everything she needed to know by carefully watching others at court. In addition to these qualities, her most valuable asset, as far as Hay was concerned, was that she was English.


Lucy Russell, née Harington, countess of Bedford
by William Larkin

For his part, Sir James Hay also had his attractions. Although a widower several years older than Lucy, he was a successful courtier, who could facilitate Lucy’s own court career. He was well-connected, with a wide network of friends and associates. Hay was attractive, and he possessed a quality that most women find irresistible: charm. He was good humoured, affable and sophisticated. 


As it was, the lovers had a powerful ally in the form of Lucy Russell, countess of Bedford. Lady Bedford, who was related to the Bruces, understood the merits of accepting the Scots into English court circles. She served in the household of Queen Anna as Lady of the Bedchamber. This was an important post, one that brought her into intimate contact with the queen. Moreover, she was a friend of both Sir James Hay and Lady Northumberland. Indeed, Lucy’s mother had probably named her daughter after her. Now Lady Bedford was running Hay’s campaign to marry Lucy. With such a powerful person on his side, Hay had no trouble winning over Lady Northumberland so that she was as eager for the match as Lucy.

There was one major problem, however. Despite his imprisonment, the earl of Northumberland insisted upon exercising his fatherly duty of selecting suitable husbands for his daughters. Dorothy and Lucy had other ideas. Dorothy had recently married a man of her own choice, Lord Sidney, the future earl of Leicester. Knowing her father’s antipathy towards the Sidneys, the wedding had taken place in secret the previous year. They announced their union only when Dorothy’s pregnancy could no longer be concealed. Northumberland angrily expressed his disapproval, but he could do nothing about it. The marriage had taken place and that was the end of the matter. Now it was Lucy’s turn. When Northumberland found out who Lucy wished to marry, his fury knew no bounds.


Northumberland hated the Scottish courtiers who had come to England with King James. He regarded them as upstarts and resented their taking the places, as he saw it, of the established English aristocracy. Thinking he wanted Lucy for her inheritance, he wrote to Hay, telling him that Lucy would get none of his money if she married against his will. This protest, however, was of no avail. Hay’s love for Lucy was disinterested. He loved her for herself, not for her money.

Henry Percy, 9th earl of Northumberland
by  Anthony van Dyck

Nevertheless, Northumberland forbade Lucy to marry Hay, declaring that he ‘could not endure that his daughter should dance any Scottish jigs.’ He thought he could break Lucy’s will if he applied the right tactic. He tried persuasion in the form of an astonishingly large dowry of £20,000 – almost £3 million in today’s money - if she would allow him to choose her husband for her. He then used intimidation: he threatened to keep her in the Tower if she would not give in to his demands.


Lucy, however, was headstrong. She knew her own mind and she wanted Hay. When she refused to relent, Northumberland resolved to carry out his threat. When Lucy and Dorothy came to visit him on that February day in 1617, he received them well enough but ‘after some caresses he dismissed his daughter Sidney [Dorothy] to go home to her husband, and to send her sister’s maids to attend her.’ Imprisoning his intractable daughter in the Tower, he thought, would be the only way to break her. He ‘meant not to part with her but that she should keep him company.’


As it happened, Hay was hosting one of his famous events that evening. He had laid on an extravagant supper and masque for visiting French ambassadors. However, ‘the chief and most desired guest’ was missing. Lucy was to have been the real guest of honour, and her absence was noted.

 The young lady was now housed in the Brick Tower. This was adjoined to the Martin Tower in which her father lived by a section of the battlements that acquired the name Northumberland’s Walk because the earl was fond of taking walks there.


That April, King James went on progress to Scotland. Hay, who was expected to accompany him, lingered in London, ‘his vain hope of obtaining my L[ord] of Northumberland’s daughter, being the chief cause of his stay.’


This was not to be, at least not yet. Northumberland continued his attempts to bend Lucy to his will, but he had seriously underestimated her resolve. At some point it occurred to him that gentler persuasion might be of more use.


Lodged nearby in the Bloody Tower for the murder of Thomas Overbury, the earl and countess of Somerset were nevertheless allowed to receive guests. The earl of Northumberland was among those whose company Lady Somerset very much enjoyed. Indeed, his attentions to this lady so much affronted Lady Northumberland that she eventually refused to visit him and sent their daughters instead.


That May, Northumberland allowed Lucy the freedom to make daily visits to the Somersets. This concession was partly in the hope that they would persuade Lucy to see reason, and partly so that he had an excuse to see Lady Somerset.

What Northumberland had not taken into account was that Lady Somerset would understand exactly Lucy’s predicament and be sympathetic. She, too, had risked much to marry the man she wanted, and her chosen husband was also a Scot. In the event, Lady Somerset encouraged Lucy to marry whom she pleased, much to Northumberland’s chagrin. She even enabled secret trysts between Lucy and James Hay. The ‘matter was so plotted, that where he [Northumberland] thought he her safest, there he lost her.’


At this point, Northumberland gave up. He severed all relations with Lady Somerset, calling her a bawd. Then, seeing that ‘he could prevail no more’ with Lucy, he sent her away. However, if Lucy thought she could go home to her mother, she was mistaken. Although Lady Northumberland was usually more than a match for her husband, this time she was alarmed by his anger with Lucy and Lady Somerset. She was afraid to take in her daughter. Instead, Lucy took up residence at the home of her beloved sister, who was staying at Baynard’s Castle at the time.


This was only a temporary measure, however. Shortly after Lucy’s release, Hay travelled to Scotland to join the king. Before he left, he settled Lucy into his house at the Wardrobe, with £2,000 for her maintenance until his return.


In July, Lady Northumberland moved to Syon House, her home on the banks of the Thames that she had inherited through her first marriage. By this time she had overcome her fear of her husband’s anger and she took Lucy with her. Here, the two women could escape the worst of the summer heat, but they would not be alone for long.

The king’s progress had drawn to a close and the courtiers were beginning to make their way back to England. Among the first of them was Sir James Hay. He lost no time in attempting to win over the earl of Northumberland and, if possible, to have the £20,000 Lucy had been promised. In the end, he was unsuccessful in securing the money. This, however, was of little consequence to him, for he insisted that his ‘affection was above money,’ and he set ‘only a valuation upon his much-admired bride.’


At this point, the wedding was a certainty. It would take place without the blessing of the bride’s father, who continued to fume and seethe in his Tower apartment. The bride, of course, required someone to give her away, and King James was more than happy to oblige. Since he was still in Scotland, the happy couple had no option but to wait as patiently as possible for his return. As Chamberlain wrote, the impatient Lord Hay ‘thinks it long till the king’s coming that he may consummate his marriage.’


As it was, Hay sought to mitigate some of the frustration by taking a house in nearby Richmond Park. He would visit Lucy and her mother on a regular basis. Lady Northumberland, however, took her duties as chaperone very seriously and refused to allow Hay to dine with them. As such, he would be ‘commonly in her house from morning till dinner, from dinner till supper, and after supper till late in the night.’ Soon, his barge became a regular feature on the Thames. Still, 1617 was a good summer for venison and salmon, so it can be imagined that the fare was very good at both Richmond and at Syon House.


Lucy on the far left, looking over the
 shoulder of Henrietta Maria by Honthorst
Finally the long-awaited day dawned. The wedding took place on 6 November 1617 at the Wardrobe. That night, the wedding supper was attended by Prince Charles and the king’s new favourite, George Villiers, the future duke of Buckingham. The king, who had fulfilled his promise to give away the bride, was also ‘exceeding merry all supper time.’ Lucy ‘knelt while the king drank her health, and she drank his.’  


Throughout their long and eventful journey to the altar, Lucy and Sir James had never given up on their love or lost sight of their goal to marry. Although a love match, both partners also gained materially from their union. For Sir James, it was another important step on his journey to find his place as an Englishman at a court where two very distinct nationalities strived to co-exist. As for Lucy, the new Lady Hay, who was still only eighteen years old, her marriage to Sir James allowed her to make further progress towards a glittering and intriguing court career.



 

All quotations taken from The Letters of John Chamberlain, volume 2.

10 February 2025

Katherine Howard, Thomas Culpeper and the ‘Master Culpeper’ Letter

The relationship between Katherine Howard and Thomas Culpeper has intrigued historians for many years, but what was its true nature ? The infamour 'Master Culpeper' letter might offer a hint.

The following is an extract from my 2016 biography, Katherine Howard (John Murray)...

The story of their supposed intimacy, as related by Thomas Culpeper in his own words, began when Katherine’s servant, Henry Webb, brought him to the entrance between her privy chamber and the chamber of presence. Here, she ‘gave him by her own hands a fair cap of velvet garnished with a brooch and three dozen pairs of aglets and a chain’. She then said to him, ‘put this under your cloak that nobody see it.’ Culpeper replied, ‘alas, madam, why did not you this when you were a maid?’ Katherine said nothing and the two parted.

A short while later, they met again; this time, Katherine was clearly put out. Piqued at Culpeper’s response to her gift, she asked him, ‘is this all the thanks you give me for the cap, if I had known you would have spoken these words you should never have had it.’ Katherine was angry because Culpeper’s response made it clear that he had wrongly taken it as a love token. At the most, she would have expected him to thank her, not to remind her of their past relationship. That she told him to hide the cap under his cloak shows that she feared that others might misconstrue its purpose, as Culpeper had done, and spread dangerous gossip about his apparent favour with the queen. Katherine herself had been very wary of letting others catch her with items that might be inter-preted as courting gifts, as the business of the French fennel clearly showed. 

However Katherine was incapable of remaining angry with anyone for very long. As with Henry Mannock before him, she soon forgave Culpeper his transgression. Shortly after their second meeting, Culpeper became ill. That Katherine sent him ‘at diverse times flesh or the fish dinner by Morris the page’, suggests that his illness lasted for at least two days. After that, the meetings ceased and Katherine, if not Culpeper, promptly forgot about them. The timeframe of these events can roughly be determined from Culpeper’s statement. They were initiated on Maundy Thursday, 14 April, and continued only while the court remained at Greenwich. Since the court left that palace on 27 May, it is evident that the three recorded incidences of contact between Katherine and Culpeper took place during a period of just over six weeks. By any standards, these encounters were sporadic to say the least and can hardly be taken as indication that Katherine was betraying Henry. 

What had prompted Katherine to arrange the reunion with Culpeper? Although he remembered their meetings vividly and could recount them in some detail, Culpeper never said why the queen had sent for him in the first place. The answer can be found in a letter written by Katherine to Culpeper at the time.


Master Culpeper, I heartily recommend me unto you, praying you to send me word how that you do. It was showed me that you were sick, the which thing troubled me very much till such time that I hear from you, praying you to send me word how that you do. For I never longed so much for [a] thing as I do to see you and to speak with you, the which I trust shall be shortly now, the which does comfort me very much when I think of it, and when I think again that you shall depart from me again it makes my heart to die to think what fortune I have that I cannot be always in your company, yet my trust is always in you that you will be as you have promised me and in that hope I trust upon still, praying then that you will come when my Lady Rochford is here, for then I shall be best at leisure to be at your commandment. Thanking you for that you have promised me to be so good unto that poor fellow my man which is one of the griefs that I do feel to depart from him, for then I do know no-one that I dare trust to send to you and therefore, I pray you take him to be with you that I may sometimes hear from you one thing. I pray you to give me a horse for my man for I had much ado to get one and therefore I pray send me one by him and in so doing I am as I said afore and thus I take my leave of you, trusting to see you shortly again and I would you was with me now that you might see what pain I take in writing to you. 

Yours as long as life endures, Katheryn 

One thing I had forgotten and that is to instruct my man to tarry here with me still, for he says whatsoever you behove14 him he will do it and… 

Intriguingly, Katherine breaks off at this point. It is possible that she added the postscript after she had summoned her messenger; then, he or she having arrived before she had finished, Katherine ended the letter anyway because she had said all that she wanted to say. Differences in handwriting and the colour of the ink show that this letter is written in two hands. The first eight words (in bold) are in the hand of an amanuensis. Katherine then took over and finished the letter herself. 

What, then, was Katherine trying to say to Culpeper? Lady Rochford once remarked that Katherine ‘trusted Culpeper above her own brother’, that is Charles Howard, who, like Culpeper, was a gentleman of the privy chamber. But Lady Jane did not elaborate upon in what regard Katherine trusted Culpeper. The answer lies in his position in the royal household. Culpeper was one of the king’s favourites and was known to have ‘succeeded Master Nourriz, who was in like favour with his master’. Henry Norris had occupied the senior position in the privy chamber until he was implicated in the downfall of Anne Boleyn and executed. Culpeper had intimate access to the king and was well placed to provide Katherine with information about her husband’s health and his ever fluctuating moods. More importantly, Culpeper could warn her of any indication that Henry was angry, perhaps because she was not yet with child; he could also listen out for any gossip about her, and report on speculation that her husband was considering repudiating her in favour of Anne of Cleves. Throughout Katherine’s queenship, this topic would surface time and again, to her consternation and grief. 


Katherine, therefore, cultivated Culpeper’s friendship. He was, in many ways, a good choice. Their previous relationship made him well-disposed towards her, he was related to her, albeit distantly, and was one of her husband’s favourites; more importantly, he was in the king’s confidence. For Culpeper, too, the arrangement had its uses. Considering that his master was ageing and increasingly infirm, it was prudent to look to the future. Although Prince Edward was a Seymour, and his family would play a major part in the regency, Katherine, as dowager queen, would still be in a powerful position. She was someone whose favour was worth cultivating.

18 March 2024

‘The Supernatural and the Ethereal in the Character of Milady de Winter’ by Josephine Wilkinson

It was a dark and stormy night

 

Alexandre Dumas uses this now clichéd phrase, which he borrowed from Edward Bulwer-Lytton, to open Chapter 65 of his novel, The Three Musketeers. It comes almost as a shock to the unsuspecting reader because it seems oddly uninspired, jarring as it does with the originality and wit of Dumas’s usually carefully thought-out prose. Yet, by this point in the novel, the reader has been following an unaccustomed path for quite some time. Gradually, perhaps imperceptibly, The Three Musketeers had long taken on an unexpected quality.


   The Three Musketeers is arguably the most famous and cape-and-sword novels ever written. In d’Artagnan, it gave the world one of the greatest and best-loved literary heroes. The novel has been translated into many languages and appeared in countless editions since it was first published in Le Siècle as a roman feuilleton in 1844. It is usually, and quite rightly, described as a historical romance, an adventure; yet, as the novel progresses, it takes on an increasingly Gothic character spiced perhaps with a dash of Romanticism.

   Traditionally, the elements of the Gothic novel include the macabre, the fantastic and the supernatural. The action usually takes place against the setting of ‘haunted castles, graveyards, ruins and wild picturesque landscapes.’[1] While, at first glance, The Three Musketeers does not appear to fulfil these criteria, closer scrutiny reveals that at least some of them are present. For example, the Musketeers and d’Artagnan meet over breakfast at the Bastion Saint-Gervaise, a coastal fortress that had been breached and abandoned by all but the dead. Constance takes refuge with the convent at Bethune. Milady is held captive in Lord de Winter’s gloomy castle outside Portsmouth. Her judgement and execution take place against the backdrop of the afore-mentioned dark and stormy night.

   Yet, it is the supernatural qualities within The Three Musketeers that lend the novel its unexpected Gothic character. While some novels of the genre include ghosts, Dumas gave his readers death and resurrection. This is seen with both d’Artagnan and Athos. In d’Artagnan’s case, upon discovering the murdered Constance, he ‘uttered a cry and fell beside his mistress, ‘as pale and icy as she.’[2] It is as though he fell dead beside Constance, but he did not, of course, he had merely fainted. Athos rushes to him and embraces him tenderly, as d’Artagnan gently weeps. ‘My friend, be a man!’ he urges. ‘Women weep for the dead – men avenge them!’ To this, d’Artagnan, who has undergone a resurrection of sorts, replies: ‘Oh, yes, yes...if it be to avenge her, I am ready to follow you.’

   Dumas makes d’Artagnan and Athos avenging angels, for Athos, too, has tasted death. Seriously wounded during a duel, Athos ‘had rallied all his powers to bear up against his pain…finally defeated by it, [he] fell onto the floor as if he were dead.’[3]

      It is difficult to argue with David Coward’s assessment of The Three Musketeers as an ‘unashamedly masculine book.’[4] It is dominated by men: d’Artagnan, the Musketeers, Tréville, Louis XIII, Cardinal Richelieu, the duke of Buckingham, to name the most important ones. Naturally, there are female characters, but they tend to be depicted as little more than stereotypes. D’Artagnan’s mother is an obvious mother type, weeping for her son as he departs the family home to make his way in the world with her home-made balsam tucked into his saddlebag. Constance is a helpless heroine, who has to be rescued and looked after. She is also angelic, having been ‘an angel upon earth, before she became a saint in heaven.’ Anne of Austria, as a queen, fulfils a classic fairy-tale trope. She is an authority figure, certainly, but she is also a lover, and this makes her vulnerable. Like Constance, she must be watched over by men: the Musketeers; but she must also be protected from men: her husband and Cardinal Richelieu. Then there is Milady de Winter.

   It is with Milady that The Three Musketeers is at its most sinister. There is a darkness to Milady. She is an unsettling enigma, whose character transcends the role that Dumas had originally created for her. Initially, Rochefort was to be villain the piece. He and d’Artagnan became enemies from the moment d’Artagnan arrived at Meung. However, Dumas changed his mind and promoted Milady into the role of chief antagonist.

   Milady’s connections are spiritual. She works for Richelieu, a cardinal. She has associations with convents and churches, for example, the Benedictine convent at Templemars, where she lived as a young woman. She retreats to the convent of the Carmelites at Bethune following her escape from England. Milady also attends church, where she is discovered by d’Artagnan, who sees her at the church of Saint-Leun. Curiously, Milady singles out Aramis as the one who should be allowed to live. This is because he is the secret lover of Mme de Chevreuse, a fact that could perhaps be used to blackmail him: ‘he may be made useful,’ she says. More importantly, for most of the novel, Aramis experiences an inner conflict with his calling to the priesthood.

   Milady personifies several character stereotypes, all of which are negative: she is a harlot, a femme fatale who leads men astray. This is evinced by her beguiling qualities, which attract the then vicomte de La Fére to her. The vicomte, whom the reader will come to know as Athos, will fall deeply in love with Milady, marry her and make her the first lady of his province. Later, she uses her seductive powers to persuade the gullible Felton into killing the duke of Buckingham on her behalf. She is, therefore, an irresistible Eve figure tempting men towards their doom - in the case of Athos, to his descent into drunkenness and melancholy; for Felton, the consequences are more dire still, for he will be executed for his crime.

   An assassin, Milady makes several attempts to kill d’Artagnan: by having him shot during the siege of La Rochelle; by a poisoned bottle of Anjou wine; by asking for his head in exchange for that of Buckingham. Her brother-in-law, Lord de Winter, notes her ‘habit of assassinating people.’[5]

   Several times throughout the novel, Dumas makes various characters speak of the ‘weakness’ of women, but for Milady, weakness is easily overcome, or, more likely, it is feigned. It is clear that Milady is a character unlike any other. Most of the Gothic elements within the novel focus on her. She personifies the fantastic, the supernatural.

   From the beginning, Milady does not appear to be real. She possesses an almost fairy-like quality, which is reflected in her appearance: ‘She was pale and fair, with long curls falling on her shoulders, large blue languishing eyes, rosy lips, and hands of alabaster.’[6] When d’Artagnan catches his first sight of her at Meung, her beauty is all the more striking to him because it is ‘completely different from that of the southern country which he inhabited.’ Already we see Milady and d’Artagnan as opposites, with one appearing as the reverse of the other. Milady’s ‘head appeared through the window of the carriage, like a picture in a frame.’[7] Rather than a flesh and blood woman, Milady appears like a portrait, a beautiful imitation of a woman. She is ethereal, surreal, unreal. Yet, if Milady is not a real woman, what is she?

   D’Artagnan saw in Milady’s soul ‘abysses whose depths were dark and unknown.’ She: 

exercised an inconceivable power over him – he hated and adored her at the same time. Never had he believed that two sentiments so inconsistent could exist together in the same heart, creating, by commingling, a strange and, in some respects, a diabolical love.[8]

    At a point in the story where Athos does not yet realise Milady’s true identity, he urges d’Artagnan to renounce her: ‘a kind of intuition tells me that she is a lost creature, and that there is something fatal in her,’ he warns.[9] D’Artagnan admits that this woman, who is like ‘a dark cloud on the horizon,’ frightens him. Athos expresses the hope that Milady’s presence in d’Artagnan’s life would leave no ‘fatal trace.’

   In The Three Musketeers, Milady is likened to a supernatural being on several occasions. More than a mysterious figure, she has magical powers, she is an associate of Satan; Medusa; a phantom who haunts the dreams of those who see her. Most often, she is simply a demon. Milady does evil simply ‘for the infinite and supreme enjoyment of doing so.’[10] Anything she touches becomes polluted, such as the ring she gives to d’Artagnan.[11]

   Milady’s apparent magical power becomes evident when she is facing execution. She tries to bribe two of the Musketeers’ valets, Grimaud and Mousqueton, and frighten them into helping her: ‘A thousand pistoles for each of you, if you will help me to escape,’ she tells them; ‘but if you give me up to your masters, I have avengers near, who will make you pay dearly for my death.’ Athos overhears this and orders the two valets to withdraw: ‘she has spoken to them, and they are no longer safe,’ he explains.

   As an associate of the devil, Rochefort asks Milady to give his compliments to Satan.[12] Her singing voice has ‘all the charm, all the power, all the seduction, with which Satan had endowed it.’[13] Milady possesses the powers of Medusa: upon discovering the fleur de lys branded onto her shoulder, d’Artagnan is stricken with horror, and ‘he remained silent, motionless and frozen on the bed.’[14] As a phantom who haunts men in the night, Milady ‘having once appeared to anyone, would never more allow him to sleep in tranquillity.’[15]


   More commonly, however, Milady is seen as demonic. D’Artagnan, Porthos and the valet, Bazin, recognise her as such.[16] The Puritan Felton, another victim to Milady’s Medusa-like qualities, also has his doubts:

 ‘Who are you? What are you?’ exclaimed he, clasping his hands, ‘are you an angel or a demon? Are you Eloas or Astarte?’[17]

    However, the one who is most aware of this characteristic of Milady is her husband, Athos. At one point in the narrative, Aramis warns d’Artagnan that ‘woman was created for our ruin, and it is from her that all our miseries come.’[18] Athos, as he listened to Aramis’ Pauline-inspired assessment of women, ‘frowned and bit his lips.’ He remains silent, but he is disturbed by Aramis’ words. He knows something that Aramis does not, but he will open his heart only to one man, d’Artagnan.

   Athos tells d’Artagnan a love story during which the reader finds out that Milady was not always evil.[19] She was ‘as beautiful as Psyche,’ the goddess of the soul, a beautiful woman whom people, including priests, compared to Aphrodite. Despite her youth, she was only sixteen when Athos noticed her, she possessed ‘the soul less of a woman than a poet.’ More than merely pleasing, she ‘intoxicated the heart.’ Athos married her and took her to live in his castle. He made her the ‘first lady of the province.’ In this, she ‘maintained her station admirably.’

   While the young couple were out hunting together, Milady fell from her horse and fainted. It was at this point that Athos saw with horror the fleur-de-lys that had been branded onto her shoulder. ‘The angel was a demon,’ he tells d’Artagnan. ‘The miserable young girl was a thief.’

   Athos now exercised his powers as grand seigneur. Without hesitation, he stripped her of her clothes, tied her hands behind her back and hanged her from a tree. D’Artagnan was shocked: ‘a murder,’ he cried. ‘Yes,’ replied Athos, ‘a murder, nothing more.’ Athos fell silent. He had now become as pale as death.

   Athos had believed Milady to be dead, but he was wrong, Milady was not dead – but had she somehow managed to escape from the noose, or had she returned from the grave? If the latter, she was not the only one.

   Athos’ first face-to-face meeting with Milady since that incident, occurs in a scene following her interview with Richelieu.[20] During the interview, she has secured permission to assassinate d’Artagnan, who has thwarted her plans and ‘cruelly insulted’ her. Appearing before Milady, a figure of hatred and accusation, Athos has taken on a spectral quality. He tells the terrified woman that he has returned from ‘the other world’ specifically for the pleasure of seeing her. Ironically, Milady, upon realising that Athos is aware of what has passed between her and Richelieu, an interview she believed had taken place in secret, tells him: ‘You must indeed be Satan.’ Athos is indifferent to this slur, even accepting of it: ‘Perhaps so,’ he replies nonchalantly.

   ‘You are a demon let loose upon the earth,’ Athos tells Milady. ‘Your power is great, I know; but you know also, that with God’s assistance men have often overcome the most terrible demons. You have already crossed my path. I thought I had crushed you, madame, but I either deceived myself or hell has resurrected you.’ He continues: 

hell has resurrected you…hell has made you rich, hell has given you another name, hell has almost endowed you with another face; but it has not erased either the stain upon your soul or the brand upon your body. 

    Confronted by Athos, Milady, who is described as a ‘creature,’ who has ‘nothing of a woman in her nature,’ is ‘as pale as a corpse.’ As Athos raises his pistol towards her, she utters ‘a hoarse sound which had no resemblance to the human voice but seemed rather the growl of some savage beast.’ Pressed against the wall with its ‘gloomy tapestry, with her hair dishevelled, she looked like the appalling image of Terror.’

   Disarmed of the letter given to her by Richelieu, in which she was given carte blanche to act according to her will, she goes to England to continue her plan to assassinate the duke of Buckingham. As her ship arrives at Portsmouth,

the fog thickened the darkness still more and formed around the beacons and lanterns of the jetties a circle like that which surrounds the moon when the weather threatens rain. The air was melancholy, damp and cold.[21]

Here, Dumas muddles his chronology. The assassination of Buckingham occurred in August. Dumas sets the scene in December. The weather reflects Dumas’s view of rainy England, but he also uses the gloomy conditions as a metaphor for the ethereal Milady now reaching her destination. The wild picturesque landscapes so necessary to Gothic literature allow the elements to provide the perfect backdrop for what is to come. This motif will be seen again as the novel progresses.

   Milady is met at the harbour and driven to Lord de Winter’s castle somewhere outside Portsmouth. At one point, 

surprised at the length of the journey, she looks out of the window to see where they were taking her. She could no longer see houses, but trees emerging from the darkness, like vast black phantoms chasing one another.

 Arrived at last at her destination, Milady is met with ‘an iron gate at the entrance of a narrow road leading to a forbidding castle, massive and isolated.’ As she alights from her carriage, the scene plays out against the sound of waves crashing on the rocky coast. Milady will be imprisoned in the castle. Imprisonment is a theme of Romanticism, while Milady is, for A. Craig Bell, ‘a typical Romanticists creation of villainy, without shades.’[22]

   The theme of isolation is continued when Milady returns to France, with the house in which the headsman of Bethune lives. It is a small house, ‘isolated, lonely and melancholy.[23] That it is painted in a reddish colour adds to the unsettling atmosphere of the place and the sense of foreboding it inspires. Within, the trappings of the headman’s interests are seen. He has a laboratory, on the table of which lies a skeleton. He is in the process of reassembling it, and it is complete apart from the head, which still lies on the table. It is a macabre preview of Milady’s ultimate fate.


   It is fitting, also, that having discovered the dead Constance, murdered by Milady, Athos traces the route his wife had taken to escape the convent by means of spots of blood she has left behind. As night descends, d’Artagnan and the Musketeers, with their valets, make their way to where they know Miladyis hiding. They present a melancholy tableau, ‘bleak as despair, gloomy as revenge.’

   It is now that Dumas makes use of the ‘dark and stormy night’ as the setting for what is to come. With this chapter, the story of Milady moves inevitably towards its conclusion: 

It was a dark and stormy night. Large clouds swept across the sky, veiling the brightness of the stars; the moon would not rise until midnight.

   Sometimes, by the flash of lightning that lit up the horizon, the road could be seen, stretching out white and solitary before them; then, the flash extinguished, all was dark once again.[24]

 Yet again, the elements obligingly provide both a backdrop and a metaphor for the horror to come: the judgement of Milady and her subsequent execution.

   Entering Milady’s house, Athos appears as a ‘spectre of vengeance.’ He has ‘the solemn voice and powerful gesture of a judge sent by the Lord himself.’ It is imperative that Milady is judged and is not assassinated, for that would be a crime and the Musketeers, d’Artagnan, Lord de Winter and the headsman are not murderers. They have all experienced the wickedness of Milady at one time or another, in one form or another, and her death must be just.


   Athos once again refers to Milady’s demonic nature: ‘You are not a woman’ he tells her, ‘you do not belong to the human race; you are a demon escaped from hell, and to hell we shall send you back.’

   The headman binds Milady’s wrists. She ‘sent forth two or three wild screams, which had a startling, melancholy effect, as they were borne on the night and lost themselves in the depths of the woods.’ The night colludes with the ten men presiding over the death of Milady, whose cries vanish into the darkness of the night.

   In a final, desperate attempt to save her life, Milady offers to enter a convent. This is a return to the spiritual life she had led before she had met Athos: ‘I will become a nun,’ she cries, but it is too late. For Milady, no convent can offer sanctuary. ‘You were in a convent,’ the headsman reminds her, ‘and you left it to destroy my brother.’ The headsman of Bethune is the brother of the young priest, Milady’s lover, with whom she ran away from the convent of Templemars before she married Athos.

   Milady is then executed. The method selected is beheading. Claude Schopp points out that her death ‘is that of a vampire.’[25] Following her execution, her remains are thrown into the Lys. The name of the river reflects the fleur de lys that is burned onto Milady’s shoulder, offering a sense of symmetry to her fate and closing the circle of her criminal life.

   The river forms part of the border between France and Belgium, or the Spanish Netherlands as the Musketeers would have known it. While Dumas does not explain why Milady should not be killed on French soil, the material point is the river itself. A river is running, or living, water, over which supernatural beings are unable to cross. This should mark the end of Milady in this world and the next – it should, but it will not, for Milady will return to haunt d’Artagnan and the Three Musketeers in the form of her son, Mordaunt.[26]


   Having discovered Mémoires de M. d’Artagnan by Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras, Dumas was particularly intrigued by the names of the three musketeers, Athos, Porthos and Aramis. He was struck by the episode concerning d’Artagnan’s dalliance with Milady. In Courtilz’s work, he discerned the foundations of an exciting historical romance.

   Inspired, Dumas set down a rough draft of a narrative and sent it to his collaborator, Auguste Maquet, with a copy of Courtilz’s book for his opinion. If Maquet felt equally inspired, he failed to show it. Instead, he merely paraphrased the first few chapters of Courtilz and returned it to Dumas with a view to discussing how the plot and the characters should progress. In this, they disagreed. For Maquet, the novel should be written as a study of seventeenth-century manners, the book peopled by long-forgotten figures of the period. Their stories, he suggested, would be a more developed and dramatic version of Courtilz’s pseudo-memoir.

   For Dumas, on the other hand, Mémoires de M. d’Artagnan provided the starting point for a story that would allow him to do what he did best – to take great figures from the past and set them within whatever narrative framework best suited them. He took the somewhat one-dimensional characters he had found in Courtilz and transformed them so that they were both believable and relatable. The stilted and pedestrian dialogue of Courtilz became charming, amusing, meaningful and flowing. The action now took place against settings that were familiar with readers, painted as they were in the vibrant colours of the Parisian streets, battlegrounds, inns, palaces and musketeers’ lodgings.


   Dumas’s ‘unashamedly masculine’ novel is a masterclass of the swashbuckling escapade, a story of friendship and heroism – the historical romance that its author had envisaged. However, as the story progresses, The Three Musketeers increasingly becomes a battle of apocalyptic proportions. The spirts of good (d’Artagnan and the Musketeers) face the all-powerful spirit of evil (Milady), playing out what Schopp calls a ‘mime of catholic eschatology.’ In this context, the judgement of Milady reflects the general judgement of the last days.

   For Simone Bertière,

Milady’s character takes on an increasingly disturbing profile over the pages, and, once her identity is discovered, she reveals herself to be satanic. The struggle which pits her against our heroes then becomes a battle of Good against Evil.[27] 

   David Coward reminds readers that Dumas’s fiction is primarily ‘based on the principle of conflict.’ From the beginning of The Three Musketeers, he sought to ‘seed’ the novel ‘with evil as a counterweight to d’Artagnan’s nobility of heart.’[28] Coward agrees with Bertière’s interpretation, noting that the narrative is ‘dominated by d’Artagnan’s battle to the death with Milady, which acquired an epic dimension because it is also an allegorical battle between Good and Evil.’ At the same time, Milady’s branding is ‘a deliciously melodramatic touch, adding a frisson of horror.’[29]

   Milady ultimately serves as a force of evil to counterbalance the good of d’Artagnan and the Musketeers. As the novel continues, she becomes increasingly important to the plot - to the point that several chapters in the second half of the novel fail to mention d’Artagnan or the Musketeers at all. The focus instead is entirely upon Milady and the situation in which she then finds herself.

   The Three Musketeers, therefore, can be read on several levels: a historical romance, an adventure, a celebration of male friendship and heroism. It is also undoubtedly, and unexpectedly, an allegory of eschatology, in which good overcomes evil. However the novel is approached, the ghost of Milady de Winter will be seen running through the pages, haunting the reader, as she has haunted d’Artagnan and the Musketeers, long after they have read the closing lines.

 

Notes

 

1, Drabble (ed), p.405.

2, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 63,

3, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 3.

4, Dumas, Coward (ed), p.xviii.

5, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 50.

6, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 1.

7, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 1.

8, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 35.

9, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 35.

10, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 50.

11, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 38.

12, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 62.

13, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 53.

14, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 37.

15, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 48.

16, The Three Musketeers, Chapters 47, 48.

17, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 55.

18, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 9.

19, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 27.

20, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 45.

21, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 49.

22, Bell, p.196.

23, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 64.

24, The Three Musketeers, Chapter 65.

25, Dumas (Schopp), LXXV.

26, Mordaunt appears in Twenty Years After, the immediate sequel to The Three Musketeers.

27, Bertière, p.187.

28, Dumas (Coward), p.xvi.

29, Dumas (Coward), p.xvii.

 

Bibliography

 

·       Bell, A. Craig, Alexandre Dumas: A Biography and Study (London: Cassell & Company Limited, 1950)

·       Bertière, Simone, Dumas et les Mousquetaires: histoire d'un chef-d’œuvre (Paris: Librairie générale française, 2010

·       Coward, David (ed) see Dumas

·       Drabble, Margaret, The Oxford Companion to English Literature, fifth edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)

·       Dumas, Alexandre, The Three Musketeers edited by David Coward (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991-92)

·       Dumas, Alexandre, Les mousquetaires. I, Les trois mousquetaires. Vingt ans après, Alexandre Dumas; éd. établie par Claude Schopp (Paris: le Grand livre du mois, 1997)

·       Schopp, Claude (ed) see Dumas


Marrying Lucy Percy

On a cold day in February 1617, two young ladies walked through the gates of the Tower of London. They were Lucy Percy and her older sister,...