It’s almost impossible to believe, but tell me, do you get the feeling that all these portraits depict the same person? Pay attention to the shape of the lips, nose, eyebrows, chin, the size and setting of the ears, the texture and framing of the hair, the color of the eyes. Now tell me, are there many people of African descent with black hair and blue eyes? This combination is very rare. And so that they both dress in the same style, both were great writers, both revolutionary-minded nobles, both extravagant profligates, both loved to rummage through the "chronological dust of the chronicle of the earth", both loved to write about monarchs and other famous historical figures, both adored such hassle-free procedures As a duel, both bore the name Alexander and were almost the same age, I can tell you, such a coincidence is very, very rare. I’ll even tell you more, I have almost no doubt that all these portraits were made from the same person. Although two of them depict Alexander Dumas and two of them Alexander Pushkin.
Pushkin published the Sovremennik magazine. Dumas published the magazine "Musketeer", which in translation into Russian could mean nothing else but "Pushkin", because a musket is a medieval weapon of atrilleria, similar to the Cannon.
And let's also remember what was the last name with the letter D for the main character of Dumas' novel "The Count of Monte Cristo". Aha! Dantes! Isn't it a painfully familiar surname? Didn't the author of the novel want to tell us that a man under such a surname was completely unfairly branded as the murderer of the great Russian poet? Judging by these portraits, in the 1840s, after the famous duel, he was still alive and even very well fed! No, you say, this is not the same Dantes. That Dantes was called Georges, and Dantes in Dumas's novel was called Edmond. Fair remark! But the fact is that the novel "The Count of Monte Cristo" was preceded by Dumas's novel "Georges", somewhat less popular, but similar in plot. So it turns out that Pushkin survived his "last duel" and lived to see his gray hair! Isn't it great? But how could this happen?
It's very simple! As evidenced by the testimony of Pushkin's second Danzas, in the last duel the poet was wounded not in the stomach, but slightly lower. According to him, the bullet entered the upper leg and pierced the bone at the intersection of the leg with the hip joint. Although he says that the bullet then mysteriously entered deep into the stomach, it looks like the wound was not fatal. Pushkin recovered, but decided to say dead and waved abroad. It seems that Nicholas I supported him in this, since he was painfully courting Natalia Nikolaevna at that time. There, obviously, Pushkin had to make a living with popular adventure novels about all kinds of court conspiracies and intrigues, which he sipped a lot himself, so he was published under the pseudonym "Alexander Dumas". Did he decide in this way to escape from intrigue, to escape from debt, did he fulfill the will of God,who ordered him to “burn people's hearts with a verb bypassing the seas and lands,” or was he exiled abroad by Nicholas I on some special mission?
Probably he himself was the prototype of the noble Athos, who burned himself in an unsuccessful marriage and was forced to hide forever behind a fictitious name. The same is the fate of the Count of Monte Cristo, Lady Winter, and many other heroes of Dumas' novels. It seems that this was the fate of the author himself. I remember that as a child, when I read the novel "The Three Musketeers", I had some kind of special sympathy for Athos, and at the same time I could not understand how I could like a character who mercilessly hung his sixteen-year-old wife, who later turned out to be alive. This is probably due to the fact that something completely different was encrypted in this story. It was as if the cry of the author himself came to me: “Yes, you finally recognize me! Sometimes it happens that the dead are also raised."
But why was the author so angry with Milady that he cursed, branded, hung and beheaded her? How could anyone think of such a monster woman and then treat her so badly? And at the same time, all the merits of this "monster" were described with such trembling admiration that I terribly wanted to be like her. I could not understand what was the matter, but I felt that there was something strange and mysterious in this story. And it seems she was not mistaken. After all, if the author was Pushkin, and the noble Athos, hiding under the cloak of a musketeer, was also him, then Milady was none other than Natalya Nikolaevna. Remember Atos's song about Milady: “The bride of Count de la Fer is only 16 years old. There are no such exquisite manners in the whole of Provence. " And the truth! Pushkin wooed Goncharova exactly when she was 16 years old, and she attracted him precisely becausewhich was very much comme il faut (sorry, I don't know how to translate), that is, her manners were excellent. And he dealt with her so cruelly because it was in that year, 1844, when this novel was written, that she got married a second time (with her husband alive!) Probably so he expressed his grief over this. Milady also had a second spouse after Count De La Fer.
To once again make sure that no one other than Goncharova is encrypted in the image of Milady, let us pay attention to the fact that Milady most likely comes from the English M'lady, which is an abbreviation for My lady or My ladyship, that is, "my lady." But this means the same thing as Madonna (from Italian Ma Donna, that is, also "my lady"). It was Madonna that Pushkin called Goncharova:
My wishes came true. Creator
Promotional video:
He sent you to me, you, my Madonna, The purest charm, the purest specimen.
When she got angry and slapped him in the face, Pushkin joked: "My Madonna's hand is heavy." It was with this attitude of enamored hatred that the image of Milady was painted. She is beautiful, charming, adorable, but she is an independent femme fatale and a source of trouble.
In fact, Athos and Milady have other historical prototypes, the stories of which are somewhat reminiscent of Pushkin and Natalia Goncharova:
Armand de Sillegue d'Athos d'Autevielle (FR. Armand de Sillegue d'Athos d'Autevielle, 1615-1643) - died of a wound even before d'Artagnan was enrolled in the musketeers.
Milady - Countess Lucy Carlisle is considered her prototype, Buckingham's abandoned mistress, who out of jealousy became Richelieu's agent.
Although some of Milady's atrocities were similar to historical truth, the legend that Athos was married to Milady, and that she was hanged by him, but then survived in an incomprehensible way - this is pure fantasy of Dumas.
It is likely that in the three Musketeers, the author decomposed himself into three different personalities. There are three people sitting in it alone. Athos is a difficult, inert, disenchanted skeptic. This was his present. Porthos is a good-natured and simple person who wants to become the father of a family. This was his future. Aramis is a young seducer who enjoyed success with women, but did not take them seriously, wanting to save himself for the higher role of a clergyman. It was like his past. It seems that at least three famous personalities were hiding in the author. By the way, the word "musketeer" comes from the word "musket". This is a medieval gun of artillery, similar to a cannon, which means that the name “Three Musketeers” is probably encrypted “Three Pushkins”. And for greater recognition, all three of them, at the first meeting, challenge D'Artagnan to a duel for almost nothing!Pushkin was famous not only as a great writer, but also for the fact that in his short enough life he managed to get involved in 21 duels!
Could a person even live up to the 21st duel? I could! These were all playful, humorous duels. Not for the sake of bloody violence, but for the purpose of raising adrenaline in the blood. As a rule, Pushkin then remained best friends with his opponents, which is why he loved duels. The duels of the three musketeers were the same.
So he decomposed the main character of the work (himself) into three people, because this is the holy trinity: Porthos - the Father, Aramis - the Son, Athos - the Holy Spirit. This is quite logical. After all, if God created man in his own image and likeness, then probably, like God, man must be triune. Or, as the author put it: "One for all and all for one!" It is this trinity that explains the complexity of human nature.
But besides the prophet, the author was also a psychologist, and therefore he studied people of four different temperaments: Porthos - sanguine, Aramis - phlegmatic, D'Artagnan - choleric, Athos - melancholic. I think if you carefully analyze this novel, then you can find a lot of interesting meaning in it, which has not yet been fully disclosed. Dumas is considered a somewhat frivolous and superficial adventure writer, a little out of touch with reality. ABOUT! They read Dumas very superficially! In fact, Dumas's problem is only that the entertaining surface of his novels distracts the reader from the deep hidden meaning.
What about Twenty Years Later? Was this not a hint of his visit to Russia in 1859? Didn't anyone recognize him? Did they really not understand who Alexander Dumas was, even when he said that he translated the poems of Pushkin, Lermontov and Nekrasov into French? In general, he was a well-known expert in Russian literature in France. Dumas devoted a separate chapter to Pushkin in the second part of his notes, which were originally published in the form of separate essays by the writer on the pages of periodicals, and then were collected together and made up several volumes, which were repeatedly published in different editions and with different titles.
Pushkin has preserved the end of the Dubrovsky story in drafts. Dubrovsky hides abroad, then arrives in Russia disguised as an Englishman. It seems that a similar plan was carried out by the author himself.
By the way, oddly enough, the world famous "Russian" fairy tale "The Nutcracker", on the basis of which Tchaikovsky's ballet was written, was written by none other than Alexander Dumas! True, it was not Dumas himself, but his illegitimate son, but in her the main character has two personalities and two faces. Behind the ugly nutcracker hides a handsome prince who had some trouble with the mouse king.
But did they not guess even when they read Dumas' translation of Lermontov's poem "The Wounded", "Le Blesse";
Voyez-vous ce blesse qui se tord sur la terre?
Il va mourir ici, pres du bois solitaire, Sans que de sa souffrance un seul coeur ait pitie;
Mais ce qui doublement fait saigner sa blessure, Ce qui lui fait au coeur la plus apre morsure, C'est qu'en se souvenant, il se sent oublie.
“Do you see this wounded man lying on the ground in convulsions? He will die here, by the desert forest, and no one will ease his suffering; but the blood from his wound oozes with a vengeance and the pain of his heart is especially cruel because, immersed in memories, he knows that he is forgotten."
The original Russian version of this poem was never found. Lermontov probably wrote it after his "death" while abroad.
In conclusion, I will quote here lines from the poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila":
But you rivals in love
Live together, if you can!
Trust me my friends:
To whom fate is indispensable
A girl's heart is destined
He will be nice in spite of the universe;
It is stupid and sinful to be angry.
Could the person who wrote this have been so angry with Dantes for flirting with his wife that he really wanted him to die? In the poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila" Ruslan's rival Farlaf kills Ruslan and kidnaps Lyudmila from him. And what is he for this? Never mind! By the end of the poem Ruslan comes to life and forgives Farlaf. It seems that the duel between Pushkin and Dantes is a plot played out according to the same scenario. Dantes tries to kidnap Natalia Goncharova and kills Pushkin in a duel, but after the duel, Pushkin remains alive and sends him a note that he forgives him and asks that Dantes forgive him too.
I reread the poem "Ruslan and Lyudmila" and realized how closely it resembles the novel "The Three Musketeers". Firstly, both there and there were described "the deeds of bygone days, the tradition of deep antiquity." Secondly, both works are full of travel, adventure and love affairs. Thirdly, "Ruslan and Lyudmila" ends with the siege of Kiev. The Three Musketeers ends with the siege of La Rochelle. In addition, in both works there is a character who dies and is resurrected, in both works there is an independent emancipated woman as the personification of evil (Naina vs. Milady), and finally, in both works there is a triple warrior: Athos, Porthos, Aramis or Rogday, Rotmir and Farlaf. So the Three Musketeers are Ruslan and Lyudmila a la Francaise. And the idea of the triple warrior is probably borrowed from Russian epics: "Three Heroes". Let's take a look at the Bogatyrs Vasnetsov:
Well, yes, they are! Athos, Porthos, Aramis. It is in the same order from right to left. Is it a coincidence that this drawing was made in Paris, or was Vasnetsov initiated into some of the secrets of the Russian Paris emigration, which he wanted to tell us about?
Now let's look closely at the faces of the heroes. And who do we see? In the center is Karl Marx, and on the sides is Engels and young Lenin! At the time of this painting in 1898, Lenin was indeed 28 years old! It means it is not casual.
Note that Dumas predicted his death in the novel The Count of Monte Cristo, just as Pushkin predicted his death in the novel Eugene Onegin. How did they do it? I think this will be explained by the fact that both deaths were planned and not real. The life of this man did not end with the death of Dumas, just as it did not end with the death of Pushkin.
Nina Milova