Military Review

Four Musketeers, or Why is it Dangerous to Reread Dumas Novels?

236
When reading documents about the tragic events of the Great French Revolution (and not only French), the question often arises: why did people — and those who had recently lived relatively peacefully in the neighborhood, and completely unfamiliar — suddenly began to destroy each other so willingly and ruthlessly Based on belonging to a particular class or stratum of society? Without making any distinction between men and women, old and young, smart and stupid, cruel and not very ... Many researchers, historians, philosophers tried to answer this question. But, sometimes the answer can be found in completely unexpected sources, seemingly irrelevant to this problem. Most recently, in preparation for some kind of journey, I decided to download an audiobook to my smartphone for listening on the road. Something light, not too serious, so as not to fill the head with irrelevant problems on vacation. The choice fell on the classic and well-known novel by A.Dyum "The Three Musketeers", which I read as a teenager, and the original text was already forgotten. The main storyline, corrected by viewing various film versions of the novel, from very serious to parodies, remained in memory.



Still from the film "The Three Musketeers", directed by Richard Leicester, 1973


Four Musketeers, or Why is it Dangerous to Reread Dumas Novels?

British TV series "Musketeers", 2014



"Four Musketeers" Charlot


The result of the new reading turned out to be quite unexpected: I drew attention to the episodes that I had previously just ran with my eyes. And these episodes sometimes just shocked me. If to summarize the impression made on me by re-reading the novel, I will have to say that his characters this time seemed to me not so positive. And their behavior, in some cases, to put it mildly, is not too beautiful. For example, the noble Gascon nobleman d'Artagnan hires a servant named Planchet in Paris and does not pay him a stipulated salary. In response to Planchet’s legitimate requests to pay his salary debt, or, in extreme cases, to release him to another service, D'Artagnan severely beats him. This act causes the full approval of his friends of the Musketeers, who come to the delight of the "diplomatic talents" of the Gascon. The even more noble Athos demands complete silence from his servant Grimaud and does not speak to him himself: he must guess the wishes of his master by his glance or gestures. If Grimaud does not understand his master and is mistaken, Athos calmly and without any emotions beats him up. As a result, as Dumas writes (or rather, his next "literary negro"), poor Grimaud almost forgot how to speak. One should not think that A.Dyuma wrote an acute social novel denouncing the brutal manners of the time: nothing happened - all this is communicated between deeds and for granted. But back to the text. Here is a typical "little man", a downtrodden and unhappy haberdasher Bonnieu asks his noble tenant d'Artagnan (who owed him a decent amount for an apartment and is not going to give it away) protection and help in finding the missing wife. D'Artagnan eagerly promises that, and this, he begins to use unlimited credit from his landlord, demanding the best wine and snacks not only for himself, but also for his guests. But no assistance is provided, moreover, it allows the police to arrest him in front of their eyes, which causes confusion and displeasure even among his musketeers. And it is very easy to protect the haberdasher: d'Artagnan and his friends have both swords and pistols, and the police are unarmed. When the representatives of the law try to arrest the pretty wife of a haberdasher, who, without waiting for help, she herself ran away from custody, D'Artagnan would chase them alone, simply exposing a sword. And only now the Gascon still generously intends to provide real assistance to Mr. Bonacieux — he plans to replace him in the marital bed. It is also interesting behavior musketeers in hotels during the famous trip to England for the queen's pendants. Porthos, due to a trifle, got involved in a duel, was wounded and stayed in the hotel. The owner arranges for him the treatment at the local doctor and care. As a gratitude, Porthos threatens him with physical violence, and in general, demands not to disturb for such trifles as the payment of bills. Actually, he had the money - D'Artagnan gave him a quarter of the amount stolen by Mrs Bonacier from her husband, but Porthos lost it. And now, instead of trying to somehow come to an agreement with the owner, he is terrorizing the poor fellow who dares neither expel him nor complain to anyone. I think any of our "mate" from 90-s would have recognized that the noble Porthos is just a bespredelshchik and a scumbag and "bykuet not by concepts". The noble Athos is even more interesting: he is accused of trying to pay with fake coins, and this is clearly not about a prison or hard labor, everything will be safely resolved within an hour or two. But Athos is getting psyched, gets involved in a fight and, retreating, barricades in the master's cellar. The shelter is not very reliable: the cardinal would have a real arrest order, Athos would have been pulled out in 5 minutes. But, like the notorious "elusive Joe," no one needs Athos. Having found a fair amount of wine in the cellar, Athos forgets about everything and begins to do what he does best in this novel: he goes into the bout. The owner in the "privatized" cellar, he, of course, does not allow. And when d'Artagnan appears, the former earl acts according to the principle “that he has not eaten, then drank”: he spoils the remaining products and pours the unfinished wine. But this, of course, is just an innocent prank - this musketeer is capable of more. In a fit of drunken frankness, Athos tells us that he is not one of the last aristocrat: the count, "noble as Dandolo or Montmorency", "was the sovereign on his land and had the right to execute and pardon his subjects."


Mila Jovovich as Milady


And, finding on his wife's shoulder a lily stamp, “completely tore the dress on the countess, tied her hands behind her back and hung her on a tree” (nothing special: “just murder,” says Athos to d'Artagnan, shocked by this story). Let's stop for a minute and try to figure out what a minor girl could have done that she was branded as a criminal? Athos quickly replies: "I was a thief." But later it turns out that his wife was not a thief: a priest in love with a young nun stole church vessels in order to go with her "to another part of France, where they could live peacefully, because no one would know them there." While attempting to escape, they were arrested. The priest was branded and sentenced to 10 years. The executioner from Lille turned out to be the brother of this priest, he decided that an inexperienced young girl (about 14 years old, probably she was then) is to blame for the fact that she was seduced by an adult pedophile. Something very familiar, spinning on the tongue, but, I remember!

“Your hair, lips, and shoulders are your crimes, because you cannot be such beautiful in the world.”


He tracked her down and arbitrarily branded her. Meanwhile, the former nun who became a countess (according to Athos himself) was intelligent, educated, well-mannered and coped well with the role of the "first lady" of the county. Perhaps the girl is an orphan from a "good family" who was forcibly sent to the monastery by the guardian who appropriated her property. But Athos is too lazy to understand: he hung it - and there is no problem. So he does with a woman at that time equal to him in status. It is not difficult to imagine how the count addressed the "common people" who had the misfortune to reside in the territory subject to him. In general, the noble Athos was a typical "wild landowner." Is it any wonder that the descendants of the peasants, noble servants, innkeepers and other haberdashery, when the time of revolution came, began to destroy the descendants of Athos, Porthos, Aramis and D'Artagnan? Just because they were nobles. For too long, from generation to generation, hatred has accumulated and it has been too concentrated to figure out which of the former owners is right and who is to blame. The same thing happened in Russia.

So, the heroes of the novel treat people from the people almost as animals. And it doesn’t surprise anybody around: they behave in the same way as their colleagues, friends, relatives. But maybe among the people who are equal to themselves, these four were the embodiment and the standard of chivalry, the carriers of high moral ideals and possessed outstanding moral qualities? Alas, not everything is smooth here either. Porthos looks almost good against the rest: it’s just a close martinet, on such, in general, any army is holding on. He is also Alfonso, who is in the maintenance of a 50-year-old bourgeois (at that time, just an old woman). But these are Russian hussars, according to the anecdote, “they don’t take money from women” - the French royal musketeers take it with great pleasure. And no one calls Porthos not too flattering words like une catin or putaine, the only thing he hesitates is that his landlord is not a noblewoman.

With Athos, everything is much more serious: a former great master-tyrant, a misanthrope, an alcoholic and a degenerate with very strange notions of honor and unique moral principles. He does not consider it shameful to lose the property of his friend (d'Artagnan) to dice. And on an expedition for suspensions sent, being under investigation: he was recently released from prison under the honest word of Captain de Treville, who swore that until all the circumstances were cleared, Athos would not leave Paris. But what is the honor of his commander for a brilliant earl and what is an elementary feeling of gratitude? Most of the time, he is either drunk or in a state of apathy and indifference, "bright" intervals, during which he surprises everyone with refined manners and sound judgments, are rare and short-lived: "In the bad hours of Athos - and these hours often happened - everything was bright that was in him, went out, and his brilliant features were hidden, as if shrouded in deep darkness ... With his head down, with difficulty pronouncing certain phrases, Athos looked for hours at a time with faded eyes, then at the bottle and glass, then at Grimaud, who was used to obeying each of his sign, reading in the lifeless look of his master the slightest of his desires, immediately fulfilled them. If the gathering of four friends took place in one of those minutes, then two or three words uttered with the greatest effort — such was the share of Athos in the general conversation. But he drank one for four, and it had no effect on him, ”writes Dumas.

While the young wife sent to his death for the second time in her short life literally “rises from the ashes”, being in the role of a confidant and the closest employee of the greatest politician and statesman of France, the comte de la Fer fell to the level of an ordinary musketeer . Moreover, he was forced to fake his death, and hides his true name. Mr. Graf has done something very scandalous and bad: so serious that the usual excuse, they say, nothing special, “just murder,” did not work. And the crime is clearly more serious than the offense of a young girl who had the misfortune of becoming his wife. By the way, did you notice how readily, almost joyfully, does the earl get rid of his young, beautiful and immaculate spouse? And then he avoids women, preferring the company of wine bottles to them. Involuntarily appear thoughts about the impotence of Athos, or - about his latent homosexuality.

But Aramis - narcissistic hypocrite and hypocrite, caring for a little more than other women. Between times, Dumas reports that

"Aramis avoided giving up for fear that the veins on them could swell."


Later:

"From time to time, he pinched his earlobes to preserve their delicate color and transparency."


Next:

"He spoke little and slowly, often bowed, laughed silently, exposing his beautiful teeth, which, like his entire appearance, seemed to be carefully courting."


And more:

"Admiring his white and plump, like a woman's hand, which he raised up to cause a drain of blood."


And also:

“Hands that he (Athos) himself didn’t pay any attention to, despair Aramis, who constantly cared for his own with a lot of almond soap and fragrant oil.”


And finally:

"Aramis ... wrote a dozen lines in elegant female handwriting."


In general, the more “musketeer” was Aramis, in today's Europe I would definitely have descended on my own. And Dumas claims that he is the lover of the state criminal - Marie Aime de Rohan-Monbazon, Duchess de Chevreuse. And this is very serious.




Jean Le Blond, Duchess de Chevreuse


The list of charges against this lady is quite impressive:

The intrigue around the connection of Anna of Austria with the Duke of Buckingham (1623-1624) is the most harmless of them.


Rubens, Anna of Austria, portrait from the Prado Museum


The transfer of secret documents stolen from a lover to Spain, and the organization of the Queen's correspondence with the King of Spain (1637) is already more serious.

Finally, planning a coup in favor of Gaston Orleans, in which Louis XIII was to lose the throne.


Philippe de Champin, Portrait of Louis XIII. 1665 year


And part in the plot of the Count Chalet (1626) to assassinate Cardinal Richelieu.


Henri Motte, Cardinal Richelieu at the siege of La Rochelle. 1881 year


After the death of Richelieu, the duchess became a participant in the “Conspiracy of the Arrogant” directed against Mazarin (1643).

Remember history with a handkerchief that he so improperly raised from the ground and gave him d'Artagnan? Everyone usually explains Aramis' anger with his concern for the honor of a lady. No, everything is much more serious: a handkerchief is a ticket to Bastille, this is a password, a secret sign with which the duchess gives orders and orders to her associates. The second such scarf d'Artagnan will see Mrs. Bonacier. During the secret visit to Paris of the Duke of Buckingham (head of a hostile state!), The Duchess voluntarily leaves the place of his exile (Tours - Dumas is mistaken here, the Duchess is still active in Paris, but takes an active part in the intrigue) she leads the accomplices from the apartment of Aramis. And Aramis himself is misleading the people of Richelieu, successfully portraying Buckingham: “Some tall man, black-haired, with nobleman’s manners, resembling your stranger, D'Artagnan, accompanied by five or six people who followed him a dozen paces, approached he said to me: “Mr. Duke,” and then continued: “And you, ma'am,” already addressing the lady who rested on my hand ... favor getting into the carriage and do not try to resist or make the slightest noise. ”


Paul Van Somer, Duke of Buckingham (in pearls)


But this is not all: there is little betrayal in favor of the English Aramis, Dumas does not spare the hero and tells another interesting story. Aramis’s house is a beggar, and, having ascertained his identity, passes a purse with Spanish gold coins. And also a letter from de Chevreuse, in which the duchess calls the guest a Spanish grandee. Normal situation? A Spanish grand with pockets full of gold, instead of visiting the best houses and social salons of Paris, wanders around France in a beggar's costume. From the point of view of Aramis, everything is fine and in order, there is no reason for concern: just such an extravagant Spanish grandee who loves to change clothes and give gold to people he does not know. You can safely live on. However, we all understand perfectly well that Aramis received another "grant" from foreign "sponsors" - payment for services rendered previously, or an advance payment for future ones.

Finally, D'Artagnan is a dishonest adventurer, who immediately begins to consider his fellow musketeers as steps for his career (as Dumas argues) and slowly collects dirt on them. Returning from London, the Gascon does not show the slightest interest in the fate of the musketeers who went with him. He goes on a search for them only after de Treville’s unequivocal demand, who asks: “Where are my subordinates who have gone with you" to the waters "? Do not you know? So go and find out. ”


Jean Armand du Peyre, Comte de Treville


But d'Artagnan is especially disgusting and mean about the former wife of Athos, the mysterious woman who is most often called Milady in the novel (My Lady, of course). In Russia, for some reason, many people call her also Lady Winter, although in reality she is Lady Clarke (the title of Baron Winter is the brother of her English husband). The young woman is seriously in love with the Count de Ward, whom D'Artagnan wounded during her mission, she sends a letter to the count in which she inquires about the health and possibilities of the meeting. The maid Catty mistakenly sends a letter to Planchet - d'Artagnan's servant. Allegedly in love with Mrs. Bonacieux Gascon, she enters into correspondence with the wounded earl. At the same time, he visits her house and makes sure that Lady Clarke is absolutely indifferent to him, but she is not indifferent to Cathy, which D'Artagnan easily seduces. Finally, Milady sets an intimate date for the pseudo de Ward, which takes place in the dark, and D'Artagnan enjoys the "favor" of a woman in love with another man. Then, fearing exposure, to finish the intrigue, Milady, on behalf of de Ward, writes a terrible insulting letter. A humiliated woman turns to d'Artagnan, as a person who already has a reputation as a dangerous duelist in society, with a request to protect her honor.

“To kill de Ward? Yes, with great pleasure,” replies d'Artagnan, “But not for free. And in this case money does not interest me.”

And again becomes the lover of Lady Clarke. But to fulfill his promise is not in a hurry. When Milady reminds him of him, he says:

“You shouldn’t kill de Ward - he has nothing to do with it, I joked it like that. It was funny, didn’t it? Let's go back to bed.”

To d'Artagnan's surprise, Milady does not laugh, but on the contrary, becomes enraged, while inadvertently showing him the stigma on his shoulder in the form of a lily. She tries to kill him, and the brave guard escapes from her bedroom and locks herself in Katty's room. His clothes became the legitimate trophy of Lady Clarke, he leaves the house in that she managed to give him Katie: "women's dress in flowers, a wide bonnet and cape, shoes with bare feet."

(- Alexander Kerensky is running?
- Everyone is running!)

Out of fear, d'Artagnan rushes down the street "to the cries of the patrolmen, who in some places set off after him, wailing rare passers-by" and hiding at Athos. Moreover, the servant of Athos, Grimaud, "despite his usual dumbness," greets him with the words: "What do you want, shameless person? Where do you go, slut? ”Further:“ Athos ... despite all his stolidity, burst into laughter, which was fully justified by a fancy fancy dress that presented his gaze: a hood that slashed to the floor, a skirt, rolled up sleeves and sticking out of a mustache on an agitated face ”.

Honestly, it is a pity that this episode was not included in any film version of this novel.

A little later, unfortunate Catty comes, who knew who came to the mistress at night under the guise of de Varda, and now helped d'Artagnan escape and is now afraid of her anger.

“You see, my dear, that I can do nothing for you,” D'Artagnan coldly meets.

But Aramis’s high-level mistress had just asked for a reliable maid. Katie is sent to Tours, to de Chevreuse. The poor girl can only sympathize - she fell from the fire into the fire: the duchess-conspirator in the event of what again gets off with a slight fright (the crow doesn’t peck out the crow), but who will believe that the English servant is not a coherent sent from London? Let us return to d'Artagnan: in the future, the courageous Gascon is literally shaking with fear at the thought that Milady can take revenge on him - right up to the repulsive reprisals she is accustomed to by Attos, who is accustomed to such dirty business.

So, the moral character of the heroes of the novel is very doubtful, but maybe they are selflessly loyal to France and the king, which completely atone for all sins? Also - missed the mark. "In love" with Constance Bonacieux d'Artagnan (who actually suffers from "spermotoxicosis") agrees to a very dubious undertaking - a secret trip to London to the first minister of a state hostile to France, while the purpose of the trip, in general, remains for him a secret - he is carrying a sealed letter: "To my Lord Duke of Buckingham, London" - such is the inscription on the envelope. What's in this letter? Maybe a state secret of extreme importance? And what do the two pendants conveyed by Buckingham mean? Maybe the war will start in 2 months? Or - another country has entered into an alliance with Britain, and France will have to fight against a coalition of two states? It is not known, however, that as a reward for his visit to London, d'Artagnan receives four horses with rich saddles from Buckingham and an expensive ring from the Queen. D'Artagnan's friends easily agree to take part in this adventure, and it seems that their main motive is the money that d'Artagnan has: the Musketeers have run out of money and are literally starving at that moment. And D'Artagnan has money because Constance Bonacieux stole it from her husband. And, this time, no one bothers that the "customer" is a thief. Hanging her, like Athos his wife, did not even occur to anyone. And then, during the siege of La Rochelle, Athos, overhearing the conversation between Richelieu and Milady, learns of the cardinal's order to kill Buckingham.


La rochelle


So, George Villiers, Baron Wadd, Duke of Buckingham, Stallmeister of the Court, Commander of the Order of the Garter, Lord Steward of Westminster, Lord Admiral of England. The king of England and Scotland, James I, in letters, takes turns calling him his wife and husband, and tenderly calls Steeny in honor of St. Stephen (whose face "shone like the face of an angel"). He retained his influence on the son of Jacob, King Charles I, who, after the death of his favorite, called him "my martyr." He pulled England into two unsuccessful wars for her - with Spain in 1625-1630. and with France, which began in 1627 and ended after his death in 1629. One of the most mediocre and despised politicians in Great Britain, whom A. Dumas playful pen turned into a positive hero.


Equestrian portrait of the Duke of Buckingham. Peter Paul Rubens, 1625 Year


Because of Buckingham, England entered the war with France, the duke does not want to hear about a compromise, now he is preparing an assault landing to help the rebels, his life is the death of thousands, and maybe tens of thousands of French. But D'Artagnan exclaims: "The Duke is our friend! We must warn and save him." To which, in his “light phase”, Athos reasonably remarks: now is military time, this will be regarded as treason, Bastille or scaffold awaits us. D'Artagnan agrees with him, but he refuses from the idea of ​​betraying France and his beloved king: you just need not go yourself, but send the servants: one to London, not to Bekingham, but to the English devil Milady (the same Lord Winter), another, for loyalty - to the queen.

“No,” said experienced conspirator Aramis (in her mind, apparently counting the size of the next fee), “It's also dangerous for the queen: better for one of my acquaintances to Tour” (for Duchess de Chevreuse to be the main manager of foreign tranches, of course passed)

In general, gentlemen Musketeers betrayed France. But the trouble is that they did not take into account the outstanding abilities of Lady Clarke, who was illegally arrested by their efforts immediately upon arrival in England. Taking advantage of the Musketeers ’denunciation of the Musketeers, who was not burdened with any evidence, as an excuse, Baron Vinter, who hates his daughter-in-law, seized her and, incomprehensibly, on what grounds, without charge and without a court decision, kept her locked up. But even in such conditions, Milady managed to fulfill the Richelieu order. At the end of the book, Baron Vinter (a high-ranking nobleman of the state with which France is at war!) Takes part in a disgusting comedy of self-righteousness over it, along with the musketeers. And one of the accusations is the faithful execution of the order of the head of the French government (the murder of Bekingham).

(Another highly dubious accusation is the murder of the accomplice of the state criminal de Chevreuse Constance Bonacieux).

Guys, this is already over the edge, is not it? This is not just treason, and not just espionage - it is a terrorist act against a trusted employee of Cardinal Richelieu, a political assassination committed in favor of a hostile country. Gentlemen Musketeers, if you do not agree with the policies of France and the methods of Cardinal Richelieu - resign, do not get royal salary, go to London and throw mud at your Homeland, it’s not new, neither the first nor the last. But you gave the military oath and now violated it. Fire and ax for gentlemen musketeers!

“You are cowards, you are miserable killers! Ten men have gathered you to kill one woman! ”, Milady says before her death, and it’s impossible not to agree with her.

It seems to me that Dumas was mistaken with the choice of heroes: a charismatic and strong girl with a tragic fate who fights with the enemies of France - she was worthy of becoming the true heroine of the novel.

Well, by all means the aristocrats who are bringing the revolution closer, if you trust the information that leads A. Dumas in their glorifying novel, they can hardly claim to be positive heroes.
Author:
236 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Andrey Yuryevich
    Andrey Yuryevich 30 September 2018 05: 26
    -10
    the author of the article is not too lazy to poke around in an adventure novel, and look for "social inequalities" and "crimes against humanity" .... we are waiting for a review of "Count Montecristo" (there is about a "prisoner" falsely accused, then on the run, suddenly rich and who became an oligarch), and we are still waiting, about the dissolute "Snow White and the Dwarfs of Perverts" (what kind of article are they up there? yes
    1. vladimirZ
      vladimirZ 30 September 2018 05: 40
      -14
      It seems to me that Dumas was mistaken with the choice of heroes: a charismatic and strong girl with a tragic fate who fights with the enemies of France - she was worthy of becoming the true heroine of the novel.

      Well, by all means the aristocrats who are bringing the revolution closer, if you trust the information that leads A. Dumas in their glorifying novel, they can hardly claim to be positive heroes.
      - from article

      So, the author, under the breath of A. Dumas, wrote novels, hell knows how, without the instructions of Ryzhov V.A., and now he powders the brains of people with his novels.
      1. Shurik70
        Shurik70 30 September 2018 22: 12
        +44
        Dumas did not write himself; it was written by "writers' negros".
        When written by chance, in addition to the desire of the "blacks", they reported the most common customs of the time. Which seem wild to us.
        As deeply as the Author of this article, I did not think in my childhood, but already at the first reading, D'Artagnan seemed to me a complete scumbag.
        The Soviet film (with Boyarsky in the title role) is much more colorful and romantic.
        Thanks to the Author, a very interesting article.
        1. Huumi
          Huumi 2 October 2018 11: 53
          +5
          I reread it 20 times in my childhood and then I already had questions to the heroes - drunkenness and mercenary activity for the sake of money and a bestial attitude towards the "lower" classes - even then I realized that money and women are at the forefront - to shove and shove from steel to leather swords. If only there was wine and money-women to follow ...
          1. sogdy
            sogdy 4 October 2018 18: 27
            0
            Quote: Huumi
            I re-read 20 times in childhood and then I already had questions

            And why didn’t you re-read the jokes about Stirlitz? But only the literary treatment of French jokes from the time of Richelieu? Even more ancient than the jokes about Vasily Ivanovich.
            The increased logic of thinking and behavior that does not correspond to reality is called idiocy in medicine.
            1. Huumi
              Huumi 4 October 2018 20: 09
              +4
              You yourself understood what you wrote about? -Rightly say, it’s better for the opponent to keep silent once again, you will marry a smart
        2. sogdy
          sogdy 4 October 2018 18: 20
          +1
          Quote: Shurik70
          Dumas did not write himself; it was written by "writers' negros".

          What are these "blacks". Are you at a loss? What are we talking about?
          Known secretaries Dumas father. Only five people. And his library, comparable to the imperial. So he was not a poor man.
    2. Roman Skomorokhov
      Roman Skomorokhov 30 September 2018 09: 16
      +71
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      the author of the article is not too lazy to poke around in an adventure novel and look for "social inequalities" and "crimes against humanity"


      And in vain ernichayte. Both. Interesting work, well laid out and easy to read. The novel is really ambiguous, as well as the continuation.
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 1 October 2018 16: 21
        +12
        Quote: Banshee
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        the author of the article is not too lazy to poke around in an adventure novel and look for "social inequalities" and "crimes against humanity"


        And in vain ernichayte. Both. Interesting work, well laid out and easy to read. The novel is really ambiguous, as well as the continuation.

        I agree on 100%. Do not forget that Dumas is the son of the hero of the French Revolution and wrote many works under the influence of its still alive participants. So the disguised irony over aristocrats is quite visible in many of his works.
    3. another RUSICH
      another RUSICH 30 September 2018 09: 22
      +58
      And for me it’s such an excellent analysis of the work in a moral, social and patriotic perspective.
      Having grown up, the Soviet Dartanyan’s moral character didn’t delight me too much, but in our version of the Three Musketeers the meaning and plot of the novel was generally shocked and simplified to the utmost.
      A huge plus for the author for his work
      Strictly speaking, perhaps Dumas specifically went on to describe such difficulties in the character of the characters. If they were correct, it would not be interesting to read.
      And by the way, the cannonball in the head of Marshal Dartanyan is a well-deserved retribution of God
      But the image of Milady played for me with other colors. Somehow I never wondered who she was, and where she came from.
      Thank you
      1. Mikhail3
        Mikhail3 30 September 2018 12: 18
        +27
        And you re-read the version of The Three Musketeers, which was written by Bushkov. On the question of what is "uninteresting".
        I liked the article. By the way, in the Soviet Army before the Great Patriotic War (as well as, alas, during it), the issue of assault was very acute. Senior officers, to be honest, often climbed into the face of the younger ones, and there was nothing in response to them, because they seemed to be "allowed". Alas.
        All this moral "weirdness" is a legacy of the times in which the Musketeers lived. And Dumas was quite familiar with it. The Musketeers, like the rest of the nobility, were the very "specially trained people" in their original way. That is, they were a professional military class, fighting for the country and the master. And all the other "inhabitants" - no. That is why their morality seems so strange to us.
        The nobles, obliged to fight and die, considered everyone else, not obliged and unwilling to do this, people much lower than themselves. And when one person considers the other, in principle, to be inferior to himself, it always ends in abuses, corruption of the self-appointed "higher", hatred and death.
        All this is a long and multifaceted topic. I am writing an article about this ... per hour on a teaspoon. Once, the struggle for survival takes a lot of time)
        1. kalibr
          kalibr 30 September 2018 16: 44
          +6
          You have interesting materials! Write faster ...
          1. Mikhail3
            Mikhail3 1 October 2018 10: 25
            +3
            Thank. I’ll write it quickly ... But first, the article must be born in the field of mind, then pass a critical assessment there. This is long and hard. It’s even unpleasant, as if you were turning sandbags) Plus, my main drawback is that I understand many things, but not at all to others. And you need to write so that people understand me. This does not always work out for me, although in personal communication it turns out to explain practically anything from what I understand myself.
            In addition, the article will be such that they would not refuse to publish it again ...
            1. sogdy
              sogdy 4 October 2018 18: 45
              +1
              Quote: Mikhail3
              The Musketeers, like the rest of the nobility, were the very "specially trained people" in their original way.

              The reality about the Musketeers is Forty-five. Also Dumas-father.
              "The Three Musketeers" is a very anti-historical collection of anecdotes. Starting with a sword and a horse.
              I don’t mention that the musketeers (a very brief phenomenon in French history) never served the king (which of the four? Not counting their relatives), and the guard never served the Church and, especially, the cardinal, the first of which was Richelieu. On Mazarin, the significance of the cardinal and the French Church were completely lost. That's the story ...
        2. Huumi
          Huumi 2 October 2018 11: 56
          0
          The Musketeers always lived with a high probability of getting a combat sword in the chest. A piece of fighting steel in the chest gave a certain right to spit on honor
        3. Warrior2015
          Warrior2015 4 December 2018 21: 59
          +1
          Quote: Mikhail3
          I liked the article. By the way, in the Soviet Army before the Great Patriotic War (as well as, alas, during it), the issue of assault was very acute. Senior officers, to be honest, often climbed into the face of the younger ones, and there was nothing in response to them, because they seemed to be "allowed". Alas.
          All this moral "weirdness" is a legacy of the time in which the Musketeers lived

          There is not only a question of assault, how many moments of truly bestial behavior are shown not in the army, but simply in relation to ordinary citizens, Parisian inhabitants.

          By the way, relatively recently the French film "Milady" was released (in general - average), where many hidden moments of the novels are clarified.
    4. Frieda
      Frieda 30 September 2018 16: 47
      +14
      Quote: Andrey Yurievich
      do not be lazy to the author of the article, poking around in an adventure novel

      Have you read this novel yourself? So it is very different from the film adaptations. The article is excellent, but I think there is no need to review Snow White, unlike Snow White with the Dwarfs Charles Ogier de Baz de Castelmore, Comte d'Artagnan, Viscount de Bragelon is a completely historical figure.
      1. sergo1914
        sergo1914 1 October 2018 08: 29
        +3
        Quote: Rededi
        Quote: Andrey Yurievich
        do not be lazy to the author of the article, poking around in an adventure novel

        Have you read this novel yourself? So it is very different from the film adaptations. The article is excellent, but I think there is no need to review Snow White, unlike Snow White with the Dwarfs Charles Ogier de Baz de Castelmore, Comte d'Artagnan, Viscount de Bragelon is a completely historical figure.



        There is a German adaptation of Snow White. 18+. An extremely original look at the source.
        1. Lunic
          Lunic 2 October 2018 05: 29
          0
          0 responses or ratings to your comment ..... as if no one was watching ... or doesn’t admit that he was watching ...
          1. sergo1914
            sergo1914 2 October 2018 22: 13
            0
            Quote: Lunic
            0 responses or ratings to your comment ..... as if no one was watching ... or doesn’t admit that he was watching ...


            There were pros and cons. Now parity.
        2. Gestures
          Gestures 2 October 2018 14: 29
          +3
          Quote: sergo1914
          Quote: RededyaQuote: Andrey Yuryevichna is too lazy for the author of the article to poke around in the adventure novel Have you read this novel yourself? So it is quite different from the film adaptations. The article is excellent, but I think there is no need to review Snow White, unlike Snow White with the Dwarfs Charles Ogier de Baz de Castelmore, Comte d'Artagnan, Viscount de Bragelon is a completely historical figure. There is a German film adaptation of Snow White. 18+. An extremely original look at the source.
          For those who are not 18, Mr. A. Sapkowski, in the notorious cycle about the witcher, also Snow White and the Dwarfs was not bad.
    5. PAROOS
      PAROOS 1 October 2018 23: 26
      +4
      Europe at that time was a very nasty place. As almost simultaneously, a lot of works of art appear embellishing and romanticizing this rotten place. The order is obvious. Apparently the Jesuits fussed. You won’t praise yourself; for a week you walk like a charred one.
      1. Senior manager
        Senior manager 9 October 2018 05: 38
        0
        Quote: PAROOS
        Europe at that time was a very nasty place.

        Even now, European morals from the point of view of universal human morality are very far from the norm. BUT, I didn’t come up with: “Never allow yourself to evaluate every thing in a way that does not belong to the same time. One must correspond to the other. Sufi aphorisms”. The world is changing however.
    6. antivirus
      antivirus 2 October 2018 18: 50
      0
      this is how the steel was tempered and the "soft power" of colonial empires grew
    7. nickname7
      nickname7 7 October 2018 17: 01
      +1
      I think any of our "mate" from 90-s would have recognized that the noble Porthos is just a bespredelshchik and a scumbag and "bykuet not by concepts".
      The author is not aware of elementary things, the fact is that estate societies (criminal) cannot be deceived equal or higher in status. But persons of low status, then bish tirpil, to deceive and throw, this is not a mess, but rather necessary and necessary. Here is a nobleman to deceive, you have to answer. The class system is a discriminatory system in which part of the population is affected by their rights. The nobles were with the mentality and manners of the brothers.
  2. 3x3zsave
    3x3zsave 30 September 2018 06: 09
    +29
    Great article, Valery! Not very original, but very exciting! Thank!
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich 30 September 2018 06: 31
      -30
      Funny article, nothing more.
      Interesting parsing with the same positions "Crime and Punishment" and "Golden Calf"! yes
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 30 September 2018 06: 53
        +20
        Quote: Olgovich
        An interesting analysis from the same positions of "Crime and Punishment" and "Golden Calf"!

        I don’t know about the Golden Calf.
        But "Crime and Punishment" from this point of view was considered more than once. Hundreds of dissertations and millions of school essays. In general, a fertile topic for research was under the USSR
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 30 September 2018 09: 04
          -12
          Quote: Spade
          But "Crime and Punishment" from this point of view was considered more than once. Hundreds of dissertations and Millions of school essays

          Though one example?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 30 September 2018 19: 13
            +13
            Quote: Olgovich
            Just one example?

            School essay on "crime and punishment" of the times of the USSR ???
            1. Sofievka
              Sofievka 1 October 2018 08: 47
              +7
              If you look, then "Anna Karenina" is just the story of an eccentric, sexually dissatisfied woman, from this the whole novel is built
              1. Olgovich
                Olgovich 1 October 2018 11: 25
                +2
                Quote: Sofievka
                If you look, then "Anna Karenina" is just the story of an eccentric, sexually dissatisfied woman, from this the whole novel is built

                And if you read from the standpoint of the author of "Puss in Boots", then everything is also very sad there: either "eat the cat and sell the skin", then countless lies, then the murder of the owner of the house for the purpose of robbery and appropriation of property, then fraud on a large scale. .....
            2. Olgovich
              Olgovich 1 October 2018 11: 20
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              School essay on "crime and punishment" of the times of the USSR ???

              Dissertation !!!! Of which there are "hundreds".
      2. saigon
        saigon 30 September 2018 07: 39
        +27
        The article is not funny, it is very interesting in the light of modernity.
        To give, not to pay, to parasitize on what is not a normal occurrence for gentlemen of the nobility, so to speak, representatives of the ruling class.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich 30 September 2018 09: 10
          -13
          Quote: saigon
          The article is not funny, it is very interesting in the light of modernity.
          To give, not to pay, to parasitize on what is not a normal occurrence for gentlemen of the nobility

          Let me explain: it is ridiculous that from the positions (concepts) of TODAY is given an assessment of events centuries-old prescription.
          You can, in the same way, condemn cannibalism from the time of cannibals, but they would not even understand what they mean ...
          1. baudolino
            baudolino 30 September 2018 10: 25
            +17
            Let me explain: it is ridiculous that from the positions (concepts) of TODAY is given an assessment of the events of centuries ago.

            An article about the difference in the perception of the same text between a child who misses the "irrelevant" and an adult who reads carefully.
            Once I got an analysis of "Robinson Crusoe" (the full version, not adapted for children). So there in the text of politics there are more than "adventures".
            1. alstr
              alstr 30 September 2018 23: 01
              +12
              If he talks about this, then it is better to read "Quiet Don" carefully. It is written there that you wonder. and the Cossacks there are far from white and not fluffy, either white or red. For example, at 16 I could not understand how such a piece could be missed. Only then I read how it was.
              And forgive me, it was 100 years ago, and not 300 odd.
            2. Olezhek
              Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 20
              0
              Once I got an analysis of "Robinson Crusoe" (the full version, not adapted for children). So there is more in the text of politics than "adventures"


              Duc, Daniel Defoe was still that "journalist"
              An interesting personality, by the way, is in itself ...
            3. Nirag013
              Nirag013 1 October 2018 16: 43
              +2
              "So there is more than" adventures "in the text of politics.
              And what do you find surprising in this? In light of the fact that the book was written by the head of intelligence of the British Empire?
            4. pacific
              pacific 2 October 2018 10: 01
              +2
              Quote: baudolino
              Once I got an analysis of "Robinson Crusoe" (full version, not adapted for children).

              Has anyone ever thought that all the "classical" works that we studied at school were not written for children? They were addressed primarily to adult contemporaries of the authors.
              These are the tales of Pushkin, the brothers Grimm, Andersen; and the adventures of Robinson Crusoe, the Musketeers, Edmond Dantes, Robin Hood, Captain Daredevil, etc. etc. And all these works need to be considered on a scale of values ​​of an adult, and not a snotty kid or a tearful girl.
              And we were forcibly shoved in works, the authors of which did not even imagine that children would read them. When in the school curriculum, when influenced by public opinion: "every child should know / read write the name of the book", or:" how, you have not read name of the book? ".
              I am sincerely glad that at one time I received the best Soviet school education in the world, and even in a good school. But still, in any case, as children, we adapted the heroes of books to fit our vision of the world. And many then all their lives live with that, still childish, knowledge.
              At the age of 40, I re-read War and Peace, and my attention was drawn to completely different paragraphs that were interesting to me in the 9th grade. The same is with Chekhov. And from Dostoevsky to this day, she turns back from my heart - our "little Russian" tried, because she herself was immensely delighted with Fyodor Mikhailovich and with Mr. Raskolnikov in particular. And I sincerely tried to drive into our heads the same love for the author.
              All this together: children's inexperience, naivety and unwillingness to "digest" serious thoughts (moreover, the inability to notice them), the requirements of the school curriculum and the desire of adults to give us a really good education, led to the fact that we perceived many literary characters distorted, not at all the way the authors intended. And for many, this childhood impression remained for the rest of their lives.
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 3 October 2018 08: 53
                +4
                We wondered. We thought a lot) In general, what do you think is a classic, and why did it become like this? Actually, because classical works are such "nesting dolls". They are written for all ages at once, and even for all levels of intelligence, which is able to grasp them at least initially.
                A child and an adult read DIFFERENT books, although the books are the same. This is the classic - when you grow up, and the book opens up for you again, completely different. Or you're not growing. Or you are not capable of growth, and then the classic for you is "useless tediousness."
                I once grew to the next level and was amazed to realize that this process of rediscovering a book is akin to ... a fighter’s mystical journey! It was a discovery for me ...
                1. pacific
                  pacific 13 October 2018 19: 14
                  0
                  I agree with you. I add that sometimes a work is revealed under a completely new angle, depending on what mood you start the next re-reading of. Most often this happens when reading poetry. Apparently because poetry itself is more emotional than prose, well, the volume of the work is less - the mood does not have time to change.
          2. saigon
            saigon 30 September 2018 15: 40
            +9
            Actually, the Christian commandments are 2000 years old and all the actions of some of the characters of Dumas go against them.
            To deny that modern moral and ethical standards (of European civilization) are formed by Christianity, and even then betrayal and deception are not good.
            1. Nirag013
              Nirag013 1 October 2018 16: 48
              +7
              Absolutely right! Honesty, fidelity to duty and oath, love of the motherland - the same as now, that three hundred years ago.
          3. Huumi
            Huumi 2 October 2018 11: 59
            -1
            Plus, but there are fundamental rules of honor and dignity, in the same place, and I re-read the trilogy several times, there is an object of money and profit. For honor, especially the heroes did not stand, stuck the blade into the opponent and okay, you can thump further
          4. nickname7
            nickname7 7 October 2018 17: 13
            0
            From the attitude of modern society, to judge the Middle Ages, this is certainly not constructive, but the author does not judge, he wondered about the causes of the civil war. This reason is discrimination of the majority of the population, secondly, commodity-money relations (capitalism) developed and rich merchants and industrialists appeared who were not tired of being noble, to endure discrimination. It can be said that the nobles with their gang mentality did not fit into capitalism.
        2. Roman Skomorokhov
          Roman Skomorokhov 30 September 2018 09: 18
          +17
          Quote: saigon
          The article is not funny, it is very interesting in the light of modernity.


          Just about, a little more - and such Dartanyans will start legalizing here. As for Aramisov, at least I'll throw off a dozen names now. From the sphere of politics.
          1. saigon
            saigon 30 September 2018 15: 43
            +2
            It is good that the Counts de la Fer have not yet survived.
            An interesting fact the Maginot line broke through the Nazis defeating the fortifications in the area of ​​LA Fer
        3. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 1 October 2018 10: 32
          +7
          Again. When the war happened, the nobility and aristocracy of those times sat on horsemen and went into battle. Die. Such was their duty, duty, the very thing that the person then received along with the nobility. Yes, they were scared. Yes, they have done things. All this is true.
          But keep in mind in your reasoning - Mr. Bonacieux, if the Spaniards had come to Paris, he would simply have started selling haberdashery to them. And the Chevalier d'Artagnan would have been lying dead somewhere in the suburbs. Or he would have brushed aside somewhere on the border without a chance, but continuing the fight out of honor. This should be remembered when thinking about those times.
          1. Olezhek
            Olezhek 1 October 2018 11: 49
            +2
            Again. When the war happened, the nobility and aristocracy of those times sat on horsemen and went into battle. Die. Such was their duty, duty, the very thing that the person then received along with the nobility. Yes, they were scared. Yes, they have done things. All this is true.



            Oddly enough - yes
            The nobles were obliged to fight ... and were the backbone of the army.
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 1 October 2018 12: 38
              +5
              And that is precisely why they had the right not to pay the bills, to lie and to run into the face, who would have to, or even nashampurivat? And homeland to trade? Imagine the situation that our fellow officers behave in such a way ... The fact that nobles were mowed down in the root in all countries where it has boiled up and splashed out is nothing surprising and reprehensible. According to merit. The Russians were lucky, they were used and many adapted. Although everything was in full swing in the souls, come on?





              Oddly enough - yes
              The nobles were obliged to fight ... and made up the backbone of the army. [/ Quote]
              1. Mikhail3
                Mikhail3 1 October 2018 17: 33
                0
                I do not justify them. But understand. And you?
            2. nickname7
              nickname7 7 October 2018 17: 21
              0
              But the nobles, there was one big problem - the lack of discipline, they are like puffed turkeys. Feudal army, semi-anarchic. It’s impossible to accomplish some complicated tactics by the army.
          2. Olgovich
            Olgovich 2 October 2018 05: 26
            +7
            Quote: Mikhail3
            But keep in mind in your arguments - Mr. Bonacieux, if the Spaniards had come to Paris, he would simply have started selling dry goods to them. And the Chevalier d "Artagnan would be lying somewhere in the suburbs killed

            Not at all: History knows thousands examples of city defense, when ALL citizens, including women and children, went to the walls and fought.
            There is also such a thing as "people's militia".
            The same story knows thousands of examples of how "those obliged to fight and die" lived on, surrendering
      3. Tatyana Bochkareva
        Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 03: 35
        0
        Why "from the same positions" consider "The Golden Calf" and "Crime and Punishment"? It is incomparable in principle. Both the "golden calf" and "Crime and Punishment" are works of a global scale, the questions that are raised there - questions of morality, questions of spirituality, eternal questions that each reader must answer for himself. These works are analyzed in a different way.
    2. seti
      seti 30 September 2018 08: 16
      +21
      Quote: 3x3zsave
      Great article, Valery! Not very original, but very exciting! Thank!

      Totally agree - great article. Everything is brief, dignified and to the point. All these four notorious bastards and Richelieu simply failed to forgive them and even gave the enemy of France Artanyan the position of lieutenant of the royal musketeers at that time.
      Dumas did not write novels something like this is a mistake. As the well-known Daniel Dafoe did not write something like novels.
      Writers of those times and spying in half with politics are inseparable.
  3. Same lech
    Same lech 30 September 2018 06: 09
    +12
    Well, if you delve into any medieval work, then there you can find a lot of enemies of the people ... what to do what about times oh people.
    However, reading Saltykov Shchedrin or Alexei Tolstoy, our society was not angelic either ... in general, everything is known in comparison.
    Human morality always corresponds to the spirit of the times, and I often read with amazement the statements that one can jump into bright Communism (Socialism) from the Middle Ages bypassing rotten or decaying Capitalism.


    1. Cat
      Cat 30 September 2018 07: 12
      +33
      I fully support the opinion of the respected Anton (3x3zsave) - the article was a success!
      Even as a child, when reading Dumas, I was strained by some moral and ethical incidents, which contradicted my upbringing as a pioneer. In today's article by Valery, I found not only answers to those half-forgotten questions, but also something more. So many thanks to Valeriy for the pleasure received this morning from reading his "analysis"!
      Now a little digression. Traditionally, recently, the works of Dumas Jr. are treated as "light pulp fiction"! Some even try to equate his works with Dontsova and others like her. I had a completely different attitude towards the books of Aurora. And boldly I put Dumas on a par with the historical novels of Druon, Hugo and other Frenchmen. Why? Dumas wrote his books for all ages, so a young man and a sage will find his own in his lines. How many times the Author has proved it.
      1. vladcub
        vladcub 30 September 2018 15: 41
        +3
        The namesake, I agree: Dumas has interesting books for all ages.
        Somehow it so happened that in "Three Musketeers" the main characters revered meanness and decency. When you read in your youth, you try not to notice the negative features of the characters, or even justify. For example, I told myself that they are all noble, but Aramis has a little wormhole.
        P.S. In his youth, Dumas's favorite book is "The Three Musketeers", but he got older and began to highlight: "The Count of Monte Cristo" there is less controversy
    2. another RUSICH
      another RUSICH 30 September 2018 09: 36
      +16
      Why go so far?
      Take Soviet cinema. The same Ryazanov
      The Irony of Fate:
      In fact, the only positive and undeservedly unhappy hero there is Hippolytus
      However, Ryazanov turned everything inside out, singing drunkenness
      Love affair at work:
      The only positive hero is Samokhvalov, who from tact cannot directly tell a crazy woman to keep up with him
      But, for some reason, it turns our sympathies on the nerd-loser who decided to taunt the Blue Stocking. Here is a noble deed. Well, I’m silent about the secretary-gossip
      Although ... And what, Shurochka is a negative hero? Caring for others is the meaning of her life. Yes, not far away, yes, stupid, but sincere and friendly
      By the way, Ryazanov has a lot of such tricks!
      1. marline
        marline 2 October 2018 10: 35
        +1
        Hippolytus - a hysterical woman, instead of supporting the bride in a difficult situation, made a scandal and an ugly fight.
        Samokhvalov is a careerist. Moreover, in the realities of Russia, squealing was never considered positive. And recall, who decided to put on the post of head of the department of light (light) industry his friend, a schoolmate, a nerd-loser? And who suggested the nerd-loser to seduce the Blue Stocking? (yes forced practically, using the drunk state of a nerd-loser)
        Secretary-gossip - unlike Samokhvalov in the trade union committee did not knock.
        Shurochka - it was time for Shurochka to go to the bookkeeping department to work, which she was reminded of with 2 times.
        1. another RUSICH
          another RUSICH 27 November 2018 08: 46
          0
          So what? Does this make Nadia and Lukashen good heroes?
          You understand that the final speech of Hippolytus in the bathroom is the quintessence of the meaning of the film. Ryazanov was well aware that he was manipulating the sympathies of the audience. Hippolytus's speech - mocking sarcasm over the viewer
          And about Samokhvalov ... remind me, did Samokhvalov go to seduce the mumra?
          But Novoseltsev became drunk in the process, and for the process, and not before his visit to the world at a party?
          Samokhvalov careerist? But Novoseltsev is not a careerist?)))
          He worked with the constant thought that it would be nice to increase it.
          And who, by the way, threw the idea to Samokhvalov about the head of the "light industry"?
          Review a pencil movie by writing facts, not emotions
      2. Tatyana Bochkareva
        Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 03: 39
        0
        By the way, Akhedzhakova at an evening in memory of Ryazanov said that if he were alive, she would be with them. That is, just as she would have yelled about the need for Russia to repent of everything. So we need to seriously think about what kind of director he was and what he carried in his films.
  4. kloss
    kloss 30 September 2018 06: 11
    +9
    Interesting stuff. Thanks to the author for him
  5. Jerk
    Jerk 30 September 2018 06: 14
    +2
    Most of all touched by "Dumas' literature". Especially considering that he himself was not very white - Quarteron laughing
  6. Monster_Fat
    Monster_Fat 30 September 2018 06: 19
    +27
    ABOUT! The author needs to read Emile Zola, over there, he will find the sources of "decay", but already of a higher formation, bourgeois society. In general, the author noticed interestingly the details that you omit when reading at a "young" age, when you consider "the main thing" at all, not just at 40, let alone at 60. No wonder they say: "each age has its own color."
  7. Vard
    Vard 30 September 2018 06: 25
    +18
    In the fifth grade, a trainee appeared at our school ... she taught literature. And then it was precisely this way that this novel was presented. What is good ... a critical attitude to life has appeared, more than once helping out in life situations ...
    1. Barmal
      Barmal 2 October 2018 00: 38
      +1
      You are terribly lucky with a literature teacher, this is a trump ace in the sleeve - to be able to disassemble the movie you read, watched and allows you to make less mistakes in life.
  8. TAMBU
    TAMBU 30 September 2018 06: 36
    +16
    Fine. I draw the attention of the author to the wine that the musketeers drank throughout the entire novel. At the first opportunity, they preferred Spanish wines. As far as I remember, Milady consumed exclusively Spanish wine, while in those days Italian wines dominated throughout Europe, being considered the best of the best. By the way, the French shmurdyak drank from hopelessness ... =)
    1. Vladislav 73
      Vladislav 73 30 September 2018 12: 40
      +3
      Quote: TAMBU
      By the way, the French shmurdyak drank from hopelessness ... =)

      Bravo! He laughed heartily! good laughing
    2. nerd.su
      nerd.su 1 October 2018 13: 58
      +3
      Quote: TAMBU
      I draw the attention of the author to the wine that the musketeers drank throughout the entire novel. At the first opportunity, they preferred Spanish wines.

      I am now convinced that Portuguese wines are much better than French sourness. And Portugal, by Russian standards, can be considered a region of Spain.
    3. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 1 October 2018 17: 40
      +2
      Well yes. Italians and Spaniards at that time did the best ... barrels. Cooper business (extremely complex and responsible) was then well developed. And they knew how to make large clay vessels. And in other countries there were problems with this. Who will like wine, from which rushing with resin so that already knits a mouth? The barrel is bad - we’ll cover it with tar ... So the rubbish came out. Gradually the French tightened)
  9. Dart2027
    Dart2027 30 September 2018 07: 09
    +5
    It seems to me that if the real d'Artagnan, who was just one of the confidants who performed the secrets of the instructions of Cardinal Mozarini, read Dumas novel and met the author, Dumas would not have said hello.
  10. parusnik
    parusnik 30 September 2018 07: 10
    +15
    Ordinary noble life of the XVII century. described in the novel, no more .. It also happened that a nobleman who had no money for a servant could catch a random passerby on the street so that he would take off his boots before going to bed ...
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 30 September 2018 07: 26
      +6
      Quote: parusnik
      Ordinary noble life of the XVII century. described in the novel, no more .. It also happened that a nobleman who had no money for a servant could catch a random passerby on the street so that he would take off his boots before going to bed ...

      The question arises ---- and how correctly described? How correctly could a person of the 19th century describe what was much earlier? Even today there are books, films on historical topics, but far from reality, and even then .... Here everything is one to one ---- this is how the author saw it, so he wanted to show it!
      1. parusnik
        parusnik 30 September 2018 11: 15
        +9
        The question arises ---- and how correctly described?
        ... Courtille de Sandra is known for his book Memoirs of Monsieur d'Artagnan, Sorel, Scaron, de La Bruyère, Moliere, Renyard ... There are many sources. Nothing, A. Dumas did not have to invent ... And then, the lower classes with great "love and tenderness" during the Great French bourgeois revolution, destroyed the nobility - "the best of the classes" ..., at least for the fact that not to be caught in the evening by a nobleman in order to take off his boots for the night ..
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid 30 September 2018 12: 57
          +3
          Unfortunately, I have read very few authors from your list. I meant, Alexei, as far as possible, to find out the reality at that time. To whom it was available .... Secrets, intrigues, dressing up, treason ... Iron Mask .....
    2. Koshnitsa
      Koshnitsa 30 September 2018 13: 22
      +1
      And more recently, there was such a device in the village, called a footman, for removing boots.
    3. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 29
      +3
      The ordinary noble life of the XVII century. described in the novel,


      Like this - it is strange to reproach the author of a historical novel for the historicity ...

      I love the ancient / ancient history, so in the descriptions of the heyday of the Roman Empire met between times the mention of breeding a variety of fish (including large ones) on the estates of slave owners
      And about the guilty slaves fed to these fish (alive!) By enlightened slave owners who read and worship Plutarch ...
    4. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 1 October 2018 17: 49
      +3
      Ordinary noble life of the XVII century. described in the novel, no more .. It also happened that a nobleman who had no money for a servant could catch a random passerby on the street so that he would take off his boots before going to bed ...
      You know ... When I was young, stupid and very interested in dragonfly and handicraft, I came across descriptions of weapons that used the French "bottom" in those years. There were such things, but in such quantities! Moreover, these were not strange Chinese perversions, made more for fun, it was all harsh, clumsy and very even working.
      Let us also remember that it was impossible to take away weapons from people then. Well, except that it was forbidden to wear a sword, if not a nobleman, and then not so much by law as by a noble's willingness to pierce a fool who had put on a sword "not according to class." And many fencing teachers were not nobles at all, but they wore the sword without problems. Outraged by the violation of class prohibitions? Well take it away ...
      In general, whoever ripped off the boots from there, and with what result, it was a very guarded question. Another thing is aristocratic gangs who created real horrors for fun. That's what it was. Their order of life there was, of course, unhealthy.
  11. andrewkor
    andrewkor 30 September 2018 08: 04
    +4
    And I liked Bushkov's joke novel (who wrote about Piranha) "D * Artanyan is the cardinal's guard". A genius joke, so to speak!
    1. Roman Skomorokhov
      Roman Skomorokhov 30 September 2018 09: 20
      +7
      Quote: andrewkor
      And I liked Bushkov's joke novel (who wrote about "Piranha")


      Bushkov is primarily a historian, and is known precisely in this environment. Therefore, the echo novel came out quite excellent.
      1. andrewkor
        andrewkor 30 September 2018 10: 49
        +2
        Yes, Bushkov's talent is multifaceted from "Unknown War", "Secret Mission" to "Piranha". But, since we are talking about the Musketeers, I mentioned him, to the point, I hope.
      2. sergo1914
        sergo1914 1 October 2018 08: 34
        +3
        Quote: Banshee
        Quote: andrewkor
        And I liked Bushkov's joke novel (who wrote about "Piranha")


        Bushkov is primarily a historian, and is known precisely in this environment. Therefore, the echo novel came out quite excellent.


        Is Bushkov a historian?
        PS I liked the novel about the cardinal. I reread some old things sometimes. Still written by him. But call him a historian ...
        1. Essex62
          Essex62 1 October 2018 13: 10
          -1
          Historian, do not even doubt it. It’s not only the stiffened fruit of the professional mafia, but the one who thinks, analyzes the available documents, which he personally extracts and draws conclusions on the basis of common sense, and not something that someone once wrote. The overthrow of authority is the main driving force of historical science.
          1. nerd.su
            nerd.su 1 October 2018 14: 03
            +5
            Quote: Essex62
            The overthrow of authority is the main driving force of historical science.

            This is the main driving force of graphomaniacs, forcing them to scribble article by article. commentary after commentary, imbued with an idea gleaned from a little book of a fellow for disorder and replacing authoritative sources with it.
            1. Essex62
              Essex62 2 October 2018 18: 33
              -2
              Everyone's authority is different. To your authorities, I have, for example, a stable ..... (not in print). Bushkov literally explains on his fingers - refutes many historical notions of the Borzopissists, for the sake of those in power. Well, or, as you put it, the graphomaniac who launched a grandiose misconception about, who do not know not statehood, not the crafts of stupid nomads who rushed (with what fright?) For more than seven thousand miles and scattered all the cool European gangs-squads and remained in this territory not how much not missing your beloved steppe. And just Novgorod godfather Yaroslavich turned out to be cooler and bent everyone else forcing them to pay tribute and cover. This is exactly what is very much in human nature for all times and peoples. Common sense, in assessing historical events, is what the modern historian should be guided by. Little is it that the "authoritative" spat and how much he grabbed for it.
              And do not be rude, and even frustration and belching is formed. I sneezed at your authority.
              Quote: bot.su
              Quote: Essex62
              The overthrow of authority is the main driving force of historical science.

              This is the main driving force of graphomaniacs, forcing them to scribble article by article. commentary after commentary, imbued with an idea gleaned from a little book of a fellow for disorder and replacing authoritative sources with it.
              1. nerd.su
                nerd.su 3 October 2018 10: 00
                +4
                Yes, you, my friend, a running case!
                The power of the powers that be, the notions of the scribblers, the grandiose disinformation. Yes, some nomads are nonsense, but one little book, where everything is told according to the concepts of "godfather Yaroslavich" is of course a real historical science.
                Why should you be rude, only chlorpromazine will help you, burn napalm further ...
      3. dropout
        dropout 1 October 2018 15: 23
        +4
        I have great respect for the talent of Bushkov, but to call him a historian is a big stretch. He is a talented interpreter of history and can see the forest behind the trees.
        1. Michael_Zverev
          Michael_Zverev 7 October 2018 08: 35
          0
          Bushkov’s early works are no doubt not even a golden one, but a diamond fund of Russian science fiction, but his delights in history and biology are an exposition of the stupidities of folk historians and creationists, to call him a historian is the same as to call a flat-earth geographer.
  12. Boris55
    Boris55 30 September 2018 08: 05
    +4
    "Three Musketeers"? This is about how four men tried to hide the wife's fornication from the fifth? I read it once - not any male solidarity! No, in order to protect chastity, so on those you - protect the libertines. Maybe that's why the West is degenerating?
  13. wooja
    wooja 30 September 2018 08: 25
    +5
    amusing, but no more, the Marxist classic said that morality was always class, and he was right ... On the other hand, time was such .... frank, I’m the boss - you d - to ... very modern modernity, but as the French say-- with all changes, the main thing remains unchanged, politics, big money, power, change people very much, and for the heroes of Dumas it’s a way of life, for Dumas himself life itself ... that he saw and wrote, romanticism is very arbitrary concept ..., honor and truth only for their own people, and even then not always, and so is a normal mafia life by concepts.
  14. The comment was deleted.
  15. kudinoffnikol
    kudinoffnikol 30 September 2018 08: 47
    0
    I decided to read "The Golden Key or the Adventures of Buratino". A.N. Tolstoy. And there is often violence.
    The author, through his work, shows a slice, a layer of social life. Dumas wrote for those who knew how to read, and this was the top of society. The "Three Musketeers" for their time was a product of mass consumption.
    1. Boris55
      Boris55 30 September 2018 08: 55
      -5
      Quote: kudinoffnikol
      I decided to read "The Golden Key or the Adventures of Buratino". A.N. Tolstoy. And there is often violence.

      Everyone sees only what his brain is ready to see. Video from 1 min.

  16. Lieutenant Teterin
    Lieutenant Teterin 30 September 2018 08: 55
    +4
    The author so diligently analyzed the novel by Dumas, while forgetting about one thing. Dumas wrote his novel in 1844, in post-revolutionary France, when Louis Phillip, a man of liberal views, joined the revolution of 1792 in power. Then it was "ideologically true" to scold the Old Order and expose the nobles of that era to be scoundrels, liars, libertines, idlers, and generally the center of all the negative features of humanity. So do not be surprised at such passages in the novel by Dumas. Man carefully worked out the social order.
    1. Alexei
      Alexei 30 September 2018 10: 45
      +9
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      Then it was "ideologically true" to scold the Old Order and expose the nobles of that era as scoundrels, liars, lecheries

      And in your opinion, the nobles loved and respected commoners? If they were handsome (not like in Dumas's novel), then why did the moneylenders and shopkeepers rise up? Too many class contradictions have accumulated. Perhaps Dumas "embellished" the existence of that time, but how people behave in relation to the same people, only with a lower social status, we see today, although only yesterday we were sitting at the same desk with them.
      1. Lieutenant Teterin
        Lieutenant Teterin 30 September 2018 12: 42
        +3
        I will answer the question with a question: why are you sure that the nobles were surely obliged to despise and abuse the common people? In the end, the welfare of the aristocracy depended on taxes collected from them.
        Quote: Alexej
        but how people behave towards the same people, only with a lower social status, we see today, although only yesterday we sat at the same desk.

        But this is a matter of education. People with real noble education are always polite and sensitive to other people. Read the book by Olga Muravyova “How to Raise a Russian Nobleman”, there are examples of such behavior. In contrast, rudeness and contempt for those who have recently been close is characteristic of just the nouveau riche with "peasant-proletarian" education. Rather, with a complete absence thereof.
        1. Nehist
          Nehist 30 September 2018 12: 56
          +5
          Good evening, Lieutenant !!! I rarely agree with you and Olgovich, but here you are right, the truth is not in everything ... The nobles were different !!! A significant example of the classics of Russian literature by A. Pushkin Captain's daughter! So not everything is so rosy
          1. Koshnitsa
            Koshnitsa 30 September 2018 13: 20
            -1
            Of the hama, the pan is the most ham (C)
            Folk wisdom
        2. Alexander Greene
          Alexander Greene 30 September 2018 14: 50
          +7
          Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
          Read the book by Olga Muravyova “How to Raise a Russian Nobleman”, there are examples of such behavior. In contrast, rudeness and contempt for those who have recently been close is characteristic of just the nouveau riche with "peasant-proletarian" education.

          Only the dents from the gentlemen of naval officers to the lower ranks was the norm in the tsarist fleet, and therefore no one is surprised that many officers from the noblemen were decided after the February revolution.
          1. pacific
            pacific 2 October 2018 12: 50
            -2
            Quote: Alexander Green
            Only the dents from the gentlemen of naval officers to the lower ranks was the norm in the tsarist fleet, and therefore no one is surprised that many officers from the noblemen were decided after the February revolution.

            Zubotychiny to the lower ranks ceased to be the norm in the navy already in the 80s - 90s of the XIX century. By the time of the Russo-Japanese War, fighting in the navy became an extremely rare phenomenon and was condemned by the public opinion of the naval officers. This was mainly the fault of the "skins" - the conductors and the sergeant (ie those who experienced the "school of massacre" on their own skin).
            And after the February revolution, the "revolutionary sailor masses" "decided" first of all those whom their leaders from Tsentrobalt pointed out. Those. those officers whose influence and authority among the sailors were dangerous to the revolutionary leaders. And among the dead officers were full of people from non-nobility estates.
            For comparison, in the Black Sea Fleet, where the influence, first of all, of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries was small, there were no excesses after the February Revolution. The reprisals against the officers began in the summer of 1917 after the arrival of a large delegation of the Baltic "brothers" and their successful propaganda of the crews of the Black Sea crews. It is to this historical moment that Vice Admiral A.V. Kolchak threw his golden saber overboard, known to many from the melodrama "Admiral".
            It's funny that the first "Baltic landing" hastily left Sevastopol, almost immediately after arrival, without even having time to start campaigning. The problem of the "paratroopers" was that almost all of them were mummers - professional revolutionary agitators, but never sailors, although they were dressed in naval uniforms. The Chernomorsky got through them at once and did not even listen to these mummers. The repeated propaganda "landing" of the Baltic agitators already consisted of serving sailors and, in many respects, therefore, was successful
            1. Alexander Greene
              Alexander Greene 2 October 2018 19: 24
              +1
              Quote: pacific
              The massacres of officers began in the summer of 1917 after the arrival of a large delegation of Baltic "brothers"

              The massacres in the Black Sea Fleet began because the sailors remembered the bestial attitude of the officers, and also how they dealt with the insurgents on the cruiser Ochakov
              1. pacific
                pacific 13 October 2018 19: 03
                0
                ... the sailors remembered the bestial attitude of the gentlemen of the officers, as well as how they dealt with the rebels on the cruiser "Ochakov"

                You, dear, it seems to me, interpolate the realities of the 25th century with a service life of 7 years, for the XNUMXth century. Let me explain: by PMV, the fleet's service life was, if I am not mistaken, XNUMX years. Those sailors who really could remember uprising on "Ochakovo" retired to the reserve by 1914.
                And agitators told the sailors of the Black Sea Fleet in 1917 about the uprising on "Ochakov", placing the accents they needed.
                Did you know that "lieutenant" P.P.Schmidt at the time of the uprising of the cruiser "Ochakov" was already a captain of the 2nd rank? And that in none of his revolutionary appeals, telegrams, addresses did he ever indicate his military rank?
                "Lieutenant" P. Schmidt is the same Soviet legend as the death of the torpedo operator F. Samonchuk on the "Thunder" in the Moonsund battle. I am not saying that this is bad - after all, we were brought up on these heroic legends. But these are still legends, and the real facts are somewhat different.
                And this is exactly what the author writes about: in "The Three Musketeers" by A. Dum and, especially, in the film adaptation of Jungvald-Khilkevich, we saw / read the legend, but the reality was still different.
                But the paradox is that the legendarization of real facts contributed to our upbringing. And who knows what we would have become if in childhood we had not taken on faith this and many other legends, which supplanted the historical information polar facts?
      2. Koshnitsa
        Koshnitsa 30 September 2018 13: 21
        -8
        Moreover, only the noble landowners knew and understood the peasant.
        All the fools-populists and commoners there were terribly far from the peasant.
        1. Alexander Greene
          Alexander Greene 30 September 2018 14: 51
          +7
          Quote: Koshnitsa
          -3
          Moreover, only the noble landowners knew and understood the peasant.

          That is why the stables "caressed" him with reins.
    2. Alexander Greene
      Alexander Greene 30 September 2018 14: 46
      +3
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      Then it was "ideologically true" to scold the Old Order and expose the nobles of that era to be scoundrels, liars, libertines, idlers, and generally the center of all the negative features of humanity.

      And in what Dumas lied?
    3. sergo1914
      sergo1914 1 October 2018 08: 35
      +2
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      The author so diligently analyzed the novel by Dumas, while forgetting about one thing. Dumas wrote his novel in 1844, in post-revolutionary France, when Louis Phillip, a man of liberal views, joined the revolution of 1792 in power. Then it was "ideologically true" to scold the Old Order and expose the nobles of that era to be scoundrels, liars, libertines, idlers, and generally the center of all the negative features of humanity. So do not be surprised at such passages in the novel by Dumas. Man carefully worked out the social order.


      And here Vladimir Ilyich Lenin planted another bomb?
    4. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 31
      +1
      Dumas wrote his novel in 1844, in post-revolutionary France, when Louis-Phillip was in power, a liberal man who joined the 1792 revolution of the year. Then it was "ideologically correct"


      And you dig deep ...
    5. Antares
      Antares 1 October 2018 11: 59
      -2
      Quote: Lieutenant Teterin
      Dumas wrote his novel in 1844,

      Well, we are discussing it from the height of the 21st century .... morality has changed .. society has changed ..
      Even Dumas wrote from the height of his time, and has already changed. And then we have completely changed. It’s not up to us to judge either the musketeers or L Dumas .. Let’s start to become Dumas ourselves, at least approximately to criticize a famous person.
    6. Tatyana Bochkareva
      Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 03: 48
      0
      Well, read, for example, Boccaccio, "Decameron" ... True, this was much earlier. And Italy. No, well, France is not like that, no) There is also democracy and purity and nobility of morals from time immemorial) Ospidya, when will you stop praying to the West?
  17. wooja
    wooja 30 September 2018 09: 10
    0
    we should not judge the author by our standards, at that time it was the norm and since then little has changed, the ways the heroes of the duma went to success --- this is another question, but the fact that society accepted these ways is a fact, a goal justifies the means
  18. D. Dan
    D. Dan 30 September 2018 09: 11
    +4
    In the USSR, these heroes were idealized, with a film with Boyarsky :) I read Dumas and I say, correctly he revealed the morals of this scum. Thugs and drunks, and killers.
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 30 September 2018 12: 58
      0
      What are they drunks and killers? Children of their time !!! I wonder how you would behave in those realities?
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 32
        0
        Children of your time !!! I wonder how you would behave in those realities?


        Better not ask .... am

        France would have shuddered ....
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 30 September 2018 14: 59
      +2
      There is a good movie. "Good bad evil". And there is a scene of a meeting of two brothers. Tuco and Padre Ramirez. And Tuko (a scumbag, something else) directly told his brother that he was simply afraid to become a bandit, and ran away from problems to the monastery when it was necessary to feed the younger ones. Live with wolves, howl like a wolf. And that's all.
      Living in a good place and communicating only with those circle of people who are self-pleasing, it is difficult to see the whole picture. And now it is not so clear.
  19. Loginoff
    Loginoff 30 September 2018 09: 12
    +9
    Cardinal Richelieu is the only good hero in the musketeers :).
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 33
      +1
      Conditionally positive.
      All the same, the current politician of that time and the organizer of a very efficient special service ...
    2. mmaxx
      mmaxx 9 October 2018 16: 12
      0
      That one is a scoundrel. I decided to destroy the whole queen in the eyes of the king. A married woman in the eyes of her husband. Just undermining the foundations of the state. No, just to serve. For a salary.
  20. Curious
    Curious 30 September 2018 10: 13
    +11
    The distant school years, literature lessons and an essay such as "The Social Vices of France in the XNUMXth Century in the novel by A. Dumas" The Three Musketeers "were directly recalled.
    Only one question, who would now remember this novel and Dumas himself, if he had written not an adventurous story without claims to deep penetration into history and disclosure of social conflicts, but a novel about the fate of the nobility, on which society rests, about a "monarchy without foundations" as a result of Richelieu's activities, which ultimately led to the victory of the revolution?
    Someone read the novel "Saint Mar" by De Vigny? The same time, the same places, practically the same heroes. Only Dumas knows practically everything, and de Vigny is experts.
  21. Alexei
    Alexei 30 September 2018 10: 31
    +4
    Thanks to the author, I haven’t neigh for a long time laughing
  22. Moskovit
    Moskovit 30 September 2018 10: 35
    +5
    Dumas described the customs of that era, why did he have to embellish them? Was he supposed to make from the Three Musketeers "Vasek Trubachev and his comrades" according to the behests of comrade Ryzhov?
    Two centuries have passed, and the book is in demand. And this is for the writer the best quality mark.
    1. VLR
      30 September 2018 12: 34
      +16
      Andrey Yuryevich, vladimirZ, Curious, Moskovit
      Unfortunately, you did not understand the meaning of the article. She is not against the novel, which, of course, is in demand, but has long faded into the background, hidden by numerous film adaptations - fewer and fewer people get to the original text. The article, firstly, that the novel has a "second bottom", which few people pay attention to. This is exactly where I started this article, and what literally hit me in the eyes when I read it again. And, secondly, that Dumas' colors are confused: black is passed off as white, and white as black. The great statesman of France Richelieu is slandered, exposed by some petty vindictive intriguer, the insignificant pervert Beckingham is romanticized. An unhappy girl with a broken fate, who is the only one fighting for France in the pages of the novel, is exposed as a monster. And the musketeers betraying France, each of whom is full of "skeletons in the closet" (and which Dumas, by the way, does not spare - literally "cuts the truth-womb", giving compromising evidence after compromising evidence), contrary to the facts set forth in the novel, are perceived by everyone as heroes positive. This is Through the Looking Glass, and the Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors, how Dumas did it this way is simply incomprehensible, some kind of black magic, Koroviev and Behemoth are resting. The filmmakers unanimously followed the easiest path, simplifying the storyline to the level of a primitive scheme, not giving viewers even the slightest chance to doubt the "nobility" of the Musketeers or the "villainous nature" of Milady. And the novel is, in fact, much deeper than it seems, and indeed, it is read differently at 15 and at 50.
      1. Nehist
        Nehist 30 September 2018 13: 11
        -2
        Dear Author !!! You just now found what was hidden in the novel? So Dumas Sr. has all his novels with hidden implications. It is a pity that you tried to adjust the current realities to those !!! Notice the narrow-minded visitors to the site immediately saw (precisely after your article) that all the heroes are completely negative through and through !!! And this despite the fact that many of them read all parts of the novel more than once and were written with delight !!! The fact that many visitors to this site through and through lies and hypocrites has long been clear !! You have only emphasized this in your article. Unfortunately, the novel itself is a work of art and from historical facts there is very little. Re-read the Bible 30 times. Just thoughtfully !!! TPM of contradictions is even greater than the wagon hidden under the texts ... Everything will depend on your perception !!! hi
        1. another RUSICH
          another RUSICH 30 September 2018 17: 47
          +2
          Oh my god!
          ))))
          Neighing, thanks))
          Did you read the Bible 30 times?)))
          Seriously?
          I’m sure that not one!
          More precisely, we can once, and then, only not the Bible, but the "Funny Gospel" of Leo Taxil's mediocrity
          Stop lying)
          1. Tatyana Bochkareva
            Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 03: 53
            0
            There, in the Bible, contradictions from the first page. And the name of these contradictions is LEGION. No wonder the Pope declared that it’s time to utilize the Bible and create a new scripture)
            1. another RUSICH
              another RUSICH 27 November 2018 08: 31
              0
              To get started, read at least one page.
              And about the head of Catholics, discard the link, pzhlst
        2. Cat
          Cat 30 September 2018 21: 02
          +6
          Quote: Nehist
          Dear Author !!! You just now found what was hidden in the novel? So Dumas Sr. has all his novels with hidden implications. It is a pity that you tried to adjust the current realities to those !!! Notice the narrow-minded visitors to the site immediately saw (precisely after your article) that all the heroes are completely negative through and through !!! And this despite the fact that many of them read all parts of the novel more than once and were written with delight !!! The fact that many visitors to this site through and through lies and hypocrites has long been clear !! You have only emphasized this in your article. Unfortunately, the novel itself is a work of art and from historical facts there is very little. Re-read the Bible 30 times. Just thoughtfully !!! TPM of contradictions is even greater than the wagon hidden under the texts ... Everything will depend on your perception !!! hi

          For a long time we Alexander did not engage in polemics.
          With all due respect to you, today Valery in his article does not reveal the implications and the second bottoms of Dumas's novel and his work, but shares his impressions. Which I consider valuable for example. By the way, very, very successfully "Dumas' painting on the carnation of history" sparkled with new colors.
          Although I am surprised that none of the members of the forum noted the most important value of Dumas's books, because for many his "Musketeers" were the first where we first plunged into the history of France! For the majority of 12-13 years old, the Cardinal was synonymous with Richelieu, Louis 13 - the king of France, the Huguenots, etc.
          In fact, the works of Dumas were for us a "gateway" into the history and the history of France in particular.
          I don’t know how others, but I drove into the palace of history with a musketeer’s sword (Dumas), on a knight’s horse (Druon), a kilt (Walter Scott), in a horned helmet, with a tube in his teeth and a parrot on his shoulder. It was then a reversal to the Younger son, Tsushima, Port Arthur, Requiem .....
          Sincerely, Vlad Kotische!
        3. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 30 September 2018 23: 57
          +2
          Quote: Nehist
          Notice the narrow-minded visitors to the site immediately saw (precisely after your article) that all the heroes are completely negative through and through !!! And this despite the fact that many of them read all parts of the novel more than once and were written with delight !!!

          In childhood I read, and for some reason did not write. And, yes, I was not very enthusiastic about them. I just could not understand, for example, how it is possible to have an old woman-lover, take money from her, and even dine with her and her husband as a centenary chicken, of which he was delighted.
      2. Curious
        Curious 30 September 2018 15: 39
        +1
        Vladimir, yes, I understand what the article is about. The question is how much the described "second bottom" - corresponds to reality.
        Firstly, do you fall into an anachronism, evaluating the morality of the XVII century from the point of view of the morality of the XXI century? Are you sure that from the point of view of contemporaries the actions of the heroes of Dumas are immoral?
        Secondly, it is worth considering the laws of the genre. A socially adventure feuilleton novel, created for entertainment purposes and in which historical events are explained solely by the personal motives of the characters and where the whole plot is based on the conflict between Richelieu and Buckingham. Other heroes here are simply inappropriate, otherwise they would have long forgotten about the novel. So I wanted to say something.
      3. kalibr
        kalibr 30 September 2018 16: 27
        +4
        Oh, Valery, I didn't want to write, but ... So no one, in my opinion, argues with you. But life was like that. Each nobleman was his own master. Remember our Famusov? "A nobleman, even more so, not like another, and drank and ate differently." (In case it is a favorite if that). Life was like that! It was in the order of things to get drunk, to overeat and to create delights. Beating a commoner is the norm. The state is me, the king said. But ... what is a king to me if my family is older? Many thought so. So the fact that you emphasized the vices of the heroes of the novel is good. They are TWENTY YEARS LATER and VICONT DE BREJELON hasn't gotten any better. But ... that was their life then. That's all. The norm, so to speak. Exceptions were rare ... or maybe they never existed!
      4. Stalkeroon
        Stalkeroon 1 October 2018 08: 42
        +1
        Everything to the point. This is the difference between a good novel. In it, a 15-year-old will find and discover something for himself, and a 50-year-old for himself. When you re-read some works after 5 years, for example, then after another 5 years, and you always find something new for yourself, then that slipped away then. This is the beauty.
        And Richelieu Dumas later rehabilitated posthumously at 20 years later)))
        PS. From school, Milady sympathized and did not really like Constance ....
  23. Koshnitsa
    Koshnitsa 30 September 2018 13: 19
    +1
    Quote: another RUSICH
    And by the way, the cannonball in the head of Marshal Dartanyan

    Beautiful soldier's death
    1. mmaxx
      mmaxx 30 September 2018 14: 55
      0
      Laughed in his youth, found his place and became a worthy man who died with dignity.
    2. Antares
      Antares 1 October 2018 12: 02
      0
      Quote: Koshnitsa
      Quote: another RUSICH
      And by the way, the cannonball in the head of Marshal Dartanyan

      Beautiful soldier's death

      Anne and Serge Golon (Fr. Anne et Serge Golon or Sergeant Golon, Fr. Sergeanne Golon)
      Roman Angelica. Way to Versailles. The fate of the second husband is the cannonball in the head.
      They like such deaths (they are not uncommon for that time). They shot from cannons along such a trajectory that it was not uncommon to blow their heads ...
      (Fir-trees, here's an example of how you can write in VO --- The trajectory of cannon volleys in novels) wassat
  24. vladcub
    vladcub 30 September 2018 13: 21
    +3
    Quote: Banshee
    Quote: Andrey Yurievich
    the author of the article is not too lazy to poke around in an adventure novel and look for "social inequalities" and "crimes against humanity"


    And in vain ernichayte. Both. Interesting work, well laid out and easy to read. The novel is really ambiguous, as well as the continuation.

    I agree with you: there is a lot of ambiguity. Personally, it hurt me to read how Porthos died and here I agree with the author: this is a pretty lump
  25. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 30 September 2018 13: 43
    -8
    It’s necessary to ban the aphthora so that I don’t wean it from reading fiction))) And since it’s been a long time since I switched to fiction. In general, fiction is not much different from fiction.
  26. mmaxx
    mmaxx 30 September 2018 14: 53
    +3
    The meaning of such an article is only to neigh over the past from the side of the present in the spirit of Zadornov. Why evaluate the people of those times now? The same Dumas said that the story of his day is the nail on which he hangs the picture. And he wrote the customs of that era. He liked her. Morals were like that. Only behind the books of Dumas the author of the article sees only nobles. Well, yes, it was written about them. And the fact that, in fact, before the Parisian commune, the French proto people were also a bunch of cattle can be read in the same Dumas. The mores of the common people are also described by him. It was better not to go out into the street at night. The streets about which he wrote were across the road (or rather a moat) from the Louvre. And a man who, at an opportunity, could not rob, rob, deceive or kill in those days was not considered a man. But Dumas is proud of both of them and praises the French in every book. You need to read it more, not just The Three Musketeers. He has a lot there. And at the beginning of the 20th century, not much has changed.
    And why on earth did Baron Osman rebuild Paris? Look at the map. It consists of areas that used to be markets. And with churches nearby. And then straight streets with rays from each square. It was built at the end of the 19th century. And no one hid why. Then, in order to occupy the area, it would be possible to shoot any street with cannons a bit without reaching the same square clearly in a straight line. When the proletariat rebels again and begins to plunder. French barricade - what is it? This is the junk and furniture of those who lived in this quarter. And not the property of workers, etc.
    That's all about morals.
    Here's an old French fun - Savat. The noble youth had nothing to do with the habit of doing landings in the workers' quarters and kneading everyone there in the face, who only got on the road. Just like that. True, the French are a nation with their own concepts. Working gopot began to fight back. And then they simply agreed on the next arrow. So, that knead arms-legs-muzzle.
    And this happened to us. And in our country, the nobles were not very attuned to their people. Got the 17th. You can remember a lot about the British. At home, they did not stand on ceremony with anyone.
    It’s just that people didn’t live like that. And how it can turn out, we also know from the 90s. Do not judge and so on.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 36
      0
      And the fact that in fact, before the Paris commune, the protonary French was also a crowd of cattle can be read at the same Dumas. The morals of the common people are also described. It was better not to go out at night.


      Yes, and after the Commune, and even during her ...
      The rule of slaves was much worse than the rule of the gentlemen ...
      1. NordUral
        NordUral 1 October 2018 12: 29
        0
        Olezhek, and what will you be?
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 1 October 2018 12: 33
      0
      It’s not necessary to simplify everything like that, I will say it even easier. The cardinal is a statesman, and the musketeers are members of organized crime groups, collaborators and bandits.
      1. mmaxx
        mmaxx 6 October 2018 08: 11
        0
        Richelieu is a great man without any further ado. This is what d'Artagnan himself spoke about in later times.
        And the musketeers are just unhappy children of poor fathers. Find out the story of how they got there. The musketeers are still super cool. And the opportunities to get out from below were then what they were. Admonished, fell into the eyes of a nobleman, attached himself. All. In our history, the same thing was all the time. We have our own Dumas. Valentin Pikul. They also roll a barrel on it.
    3. Tatyana Bochkareva
      Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 03: 58
      0
      Have people changed so much now? But nothing, that at school, for example, taught friendship and nobility, and the grown children of the 90s began to betray, sell and kill their friends and their homeland? You do not find a relationship?
  27. Catfish
    Catfish 30 September 2018 15: 43
    +7
    Quote: Nehist
    Notice the narrow-minded visitors to the site immediately saw (precisely after your article) that all the heroes are completely negative through and through !!! And this despite the fact that many of them read all parts of the novel more than once and were written with delight !!!


    Good afternoon, Alexander!

    Why did you decide that "narrow-minded" site visitors saw everything right after the article? You undertake to judge people even without really knowing them. Let's not talk about childhood impressions, the dear Author has already said everything about this, and in adulthood, probably few people have read this book. It was easier for me, I read the novel for the first time somewhere right after military service in the SA and something immediately hit my eyes. Without details, again, the Author has already laid them out on the shelves. My first impressions at that time:
    1/. Athos is an alcoholic with a clear schizophrenic bias.
    2 / .Aramis - a hypocrite and an adulterer.
    3 /. Porthos - fanfare and glutton.
    4/. d "Artagnan is a young repository of all previous vices.
    5/. The whole four together are not pure at hand, and most importantly, they act against the most progressive statesman of their own country, against the interests of their own country, at the same time helping the dissolute queen to hide the fact of her betrayal to her crowned husband.
    This is the main thing that caught my eye at the first (and last) reading of the novel. Therefore, I did not read anything more about the adventures of this four. It became uninteresting. Yes, and better books were found. hi

    Many thanks to the author and gratitude for the most interesting material. drinks
  28. vladcub
    vladcub 30 September 2018 16: 43
    +2
    I would like to say that even in school I paid attention, etc., but I will not lie: then I was in a hurry for the plot, and if the characters had sloppiness, I found an excuse for them. Later I began to think that they were positive characters, but in the service of some dubious personalities: Anna of Austria, Mazarin. In my opinion, Dumas himself, in his book "Twenty Years Later" through the mouth of Athos, says that they served the wrong thing.
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 1 October 2018 12: 28
      0
      A. Bushkov slightly corrected this story.
  29. Oleg Kolsky 051
    Oleg Kolsky 051 30 September 2018 17: 47
    +2
    Another small touch to the maral portrait of four rogues in cloaks - when they sipped free wine, Athos (obviously not burdened with a sense of conscience) argues that 50-80 pistols can be pulled from this sucker Bonacieux. Yes, these aristocrats, so to speak, in their own circle didn’t very well choose the means, and even with the common people .... Remember at least Bussy the same type of noble decanter.
  30. another RUSICH
    another RUSICH 30 September 2018 17: 54
    +4
    Quote: mmaxx
    And in our country, the nobles were not very attuned to their people. Got the 17th

    Reread the story again. The 17th year is not about the attitude of the nobles and the people. And the Bolsheviks did not throw off the tsar. In February, even Lenin did not suspect that his small party, at that time, in half a year would turn the country upside down
  31. vindigo
    vindigo 30 September 2018 18: 40
    +1
    Thanks for the interesting review. Honestly, I tried to read this book, but did not master it. And there was no time. About musketeers I know only about films and read fragments from the book. But even then, I had a conflict in the positivity of the heroes themselves. Everyone around me considered them heroes, searched for prototypes in history, but I saw in them some loafers, drunkards who were eager for strange women. I had a gap of patterns, so to speak.
  32. bober1982
    bober1982 30 September 2018 19: 08
    -2
    An absurd article, if not more, about the French revolution, the author of the article spoke out of place.
    If you follow the logic of the author - Pinocchio, Dunno, these are immoral types, parasites.
    1. Stalkeroon
      Stalkeroon 1 October 2018 08: 52
      +1
      Pinocchio and Dunno became much better by the end of the books. They realized that they lived wrong, made the right conclusions, and corrected themselves. So this analogy is completely out of place.
      1. Olezhek
        Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 38
        +1
        If you follow the author's logic - Pinocchio, Dunno, these are immoral types, parasites.


        Actually, "Pinocchio" is a kind of "Crime and Punishment" for little ones ...
        Read (listen) you will not regret ...
        1. bober1982
          bober1982 1 October 2018 18: 30
          +3
          I would advise reading Dunno on the Moon, by the way this is a very serious book, in all seriousness I say.
          1. Karenius
            Karenius 1 October 2018 18: 38
            0
            Quote: bober1982
            I would advise reading Dunno on the Moon, by the way this is a very serious book, in all seriousness I say.

            I still can’t understand where Nosov had such deep knowledge about a bunch of penta bandyuki
            1. bober1982
              bober1982 1 October 2018 18: 44
              +4
              Quote: Karenius
              where did Nosov have such deep knowledge

              Consumer society, advertising, loans and other delights of today's life - Nosov reliably predicted everything, a great writer.
              1. Karenius
                Karenius 1 October 2018 19: 00
                -2
                In Denmark and Co., all this is also present in society, but it does not interfere with communism there. :) Everything comes from the authorities.
                1. Tatyana Bochkareva
                  Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 04: 04
                  0
                  Oh, the horses pulled themselves up. You first study the economy in principle. What kind of government in Denmark, where are the loot being pulled from, how do government clans work there, with whom are they connected, etc. Well, in terms of size, do not forget to reconsider Denmark, the size of a maximum of the Leningrad region and Russia. And yes, who sponsors them, while Russia scrambles out herself.
  33. skeptical
    skeptical 30 September 2018 19: 17
    +1
    In his youth (in his student years) he read the book excitedly. Loved their adventures. After two weeks I decided to re-read. Now I noticed that it had slipped away from me before. Since he knew what was happening, he turned to the little things in their lives. Yes, they are drunks, in the morning they start drinking, and then they are looking for someone to fight with. Drunk until the evening.
    1. bober1982
      bober1982 30 September 2018 19: 32
      0
      Dumas' books - for teenagers, were read by Remarque in their youth.
      Quote: skeptik
      Yes, they are drunks, in the morning they start drinking, and then they are looking for someone to fight with. Drunk until the evening.

      Directly according to Erich Maria Remarque, the real immoral type was, therefore, probably they liked to read it in Soviet times, the severe atmosphere shovel too strangled, strangled ....
      1. NordUral
        NordUral 1 October 2018 12: 26
        +1
        bober1982, and how did you not suffocate?
      2. Tatyana Bochkareva
        Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 04: 05
        0
        Somehow the atmosphere of the scoop did not drown you. For some reason ...
    2. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 40
      +1
      Yes, they are drunks, in the morning they start to drink, and then they are looking for someone to fight.


      But interesting is not it?
      Captivates, fascinates?
      Cards, wine, women ...

      But imagine the "sad little bastards" who serve France and the king from morning till night?
      Boredom, do not find?
  34. Snoop
    Snoop 30 September 2018 21: 07
    +2
    I don’t know, I personally didn’t write from this novel in my youth))) Then everyone was delighted with the film. I started reading the novel after watching the movie. And the rejection went. In the novel, everything is not so complicated. Moreover, the main characters in the book are not so noble.
  35. Old Michael
    Old Michael 30 September 2018 21: 28
    +2
    The analysis is very professional.
    Another question - and in the days of Dumas, were the criteria good / bad the same as today?
    Yes, there are eternal concepts like friend / enemy, betrayal / honor. But somewhere between them there are still comrades and friends, and selfish interest ... Even the apostles of Christ were, to put it mildly, not sinless.
    And what are the criteria for a twenty-year-old prankster with full pants of ambition and hormones with absolutely empty pockets?
    I think you should not look at Dumas for either politics or sociology.
    Somehow, at the same age, I had a chance to talk closely with a lady who doesn’t understand Russian in Russian (don’t think that from Wed Asia). Should I have crept in a suspicion that she is a Brazilian spy?
    Well, let's also dissect the "White Sun of the Desert". There are also enough miracles. One pretzel in the ceremonial uniform waved at the peacock ("Peacock, you say ... Heh!"). Another foreign woman was dragged into the desert in order to instill in them high moral and patriotic qualities. Well, the third ... Also, in general, almost D'Artagnan, only with a rifle. Was.
    And the movie is super-duper!
    1. Tatyana Bochkareva
      Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 04: 09
      0
      http://kob-media.ru/?p=19310 "Дело было в Педженте", второй смысловой ряд "Белого солнца пустыни"
  36. Alf
    Alf 30 September 2018 22: 22
    +1
    Maybe I misunderstood something, but how can a woman confuse a man at night? Didn’t they show a nose from the moment the Gascon came to his departure from under the covers? Even in the dark, a person’s face is visible, especially at point blank range. Or did my lady want it so much that it didn’t matter who was fighting? Or did she, by appointing a date to de Varde, not know him by sight?
    1. Tatyana Bochkareva
      Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 04: 09
      0
      When I read, I also did not understand))))))))))))
  37. Old Michael
    Old Michael 30 September 2018 22: 40
    +3
    Once again - a deep bow to the author!
    A long time ago there were no publications in VO where you read almost ALL comments with pleasure (or maybe evil trolls get laid on Sundays?).
  38. Catfish
    Catfish 30 September 2018 22: 54
    +1
    Who about what ... laughing
  39. Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich
    Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich 1 October 2018 01: 50
    +3
    Now we are waiting, with the transformation of Edmond Dantes into ... Andrei Chikatilo ?! :-)))
    1. NordUral
      NordUral 1 October 2018 12: 23
      +1
      Do you have arguments for this?
  40. M. Michelson
    M. Michelson 1 October 2018 02: 23
    +6
    Leaving aside Dumas (who for some reason chose heroes of the feudal arrogant king to be the musketeers king, and not subordinates to the cardinal statesman cardinals of the guards, making them already antiheroes), let us dwell on the attitude of the musketeers to commoners.
    And this comes from the early Middle Ages, when Europe was under Germanic occupation; and the system of government was created by the Germans, dividing the population into clean and unclean; the latter became simply agrarian slaves. Therefore, supporters of the theory of "socio-economic formations" openly hang noodles, calling "feudalism" a more progressive system than ancient slavery. In fact, if in the Middle Ages the position of a slave was in some way better than antiquity, then this was not due to development, but on the contrary with savagery: even the masters had forgotten how to exploit regularly.
    Centuries have passed. Individual strangers (Hungarians, Poles) joined the German aristocracy. Stable territories began to form, and on them the population began to form into a nation. And the aristocracy began to see itself as national (a poor philologist who unearthed that the name of France comes from the "Boshes" of the Franks was already thrown into the Bastille). And so in France the gentlemen became "French". And the attitude towards commoners remained German. As can be seen from the novel.
    1. Olezhek
      Olezhek 1 October 2018 09: 43
      0
      In fact, if in the Middle Ages the position of a slave was in something better than antiquity, then it was not connected with development, but vice versa with wildness: even the masters have forgotten how to exploit regularly.


      An interesting idea, by the way ...
  41. Molot1979
    Molot1979 1 October 2018 02: 42
    +2
    In essence, everything is correct. I will add that Dyrtanyan's big friend, Lord Winter, is also that brute. In the first book, he calls himself the elder, then the younger. But "20 years later" dot the and. The son of my lady throws the uncle the accusation not only of the death of his mother, but also of theft of the title. Who does not remember, the sweetest uncle threw the nephew into the trash and grabbed the lordship for himself. In this connection, the question arises, who actually organized the elder brother that illness with bluish spots all over his body, which finished him off in three hours? The lordic blamed Milady for everything. But on the basis of the totality of the facts, it could easily be he himself. English history knows many such criminal cases.
  42. DimanC
    DimanC 1 October 2018 06: 04
    +2
    The funny thing is that I read about D'Artagnan's love affairs in passing, and did not read the chapter "All the cats are gray at night" at all. But even then (as a child) I was struck by the phrase about how Buckingham, entering London, at full gallop knocked a passer-by to death and galloped on, not at all caring about the future.
  43. Altona
    Altona 1 October 2018 07: 53
    +1
    Pourquoi pas, pourquoi pas ... Why not?

    Cunning, back off, play spin
    Living the enemy with the light
    But what is life? And life is
    A continuous duel with death.


    Wild morals in general. Early and then late romanticism, so to speak. Robin Hood is also not very moral with a look. But this is c'est la vie and à la guerre comme à la guerre.
  44. solovald
    solovald 1 October 2018 07: 57
    +1
    A funny analysis, but as they say - "about times, about morals"
  45. LeftPers
    LeftPers 1 October 2018 07: 58
    +3
    Another proof that any information can be submitted in completely different aspects, often directly opposite.
  46. Altona
    Altona 1 October 2018 08: 04
    0
    Quote: Snoop
    I don’t know, I personally didn’t write from this novel in my youth

    ------------------------------
    All this romantic crap I personally had to read during the summer holidays with my aunt at 13-14 years old. She is a teacher of literature and the Russian language and all this is in her personal library. I was more attracted to Jules Verne with his "technical" novels, and I really read them.
  47. Stalkeroon
    Stalkeroon 1 October 2018 08: 57
    +1
    Quote: OldMichael
    One pretzel in the ceremonial uniform waved at the peacock ("Peacock, you say ... Heh!"). Another foreign woman was dragged into the desert in order to instill in them high moral and patriotic qualities.

    Only you forgot to mention that at the end of the film - I feel sorry for the power. And died. And Sukhova simply hung the women around her neck without asking for consent. He could, in principle, simply turn around and leave his way.
    1. Tatyana Bochkareva
      Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 04: 12
      0
      He died in principle from the fact that he listened to his woman.
  48. Avior
    Avior 1 October 2018 09: 17
    +2
    With Athos, the author clearly got excited.
    But the Duchess de Chevreuse is underestimated.
    Or read the story inattentively. winked
    The case when the duchess, having decided for entertainment to deprive an accidentally met priest of the opportunity to avoid the ashes after death, seduced him.
    But in reality it was Athos, and he did not show either female misogyny or homosexuality, but succumbed to seduction so intensely that the duchess suffered, as they say.
    And she tossed the child then to his father.
    And here Athos showed that he was a gentle, loving and caring father, quite positive.
    By the way, Partos turned out to be very economic, and kept his possessions when he received them, in perfect condition.
    1. Avior
      Avior 1 October 2018 10: 08
      +1
      I would like to understand with what joy someone put a minus to this post?
      Athos hates that? Duchess protects?
      Or just out of dislike for me, regardless of the text?
      IMHO, you need to introduce a restriction on the minus - no more than two per day and no more than 30 per month, so that people are more serious about putting minuses rather than sculpting them wherever they fall, otherwise it seems that the case’s business lives on, although mute and wrote am
    2. Tatyana Bochkareva
      Tatyana Bochkareva 27 November 2018 04: 13
      0
      It is easy to be a good father when servants look after their son.
  49. Rumata-estorskii
    Rumata-estorskii 1 October 2018 09: 26
    0
    Well, here: "Lieutenant Rzhevsky came and vulgarized everything."
    We all know perfectly well that Europeans are still ... and at all times, but this is Dumas, this is a Soviet film: "bye-bye, swinging feathers on hats", "Canalya !!" etc. How can I revise it now !? Now this article will constantly sit in my head.
    1. Avior
      Avior 1 October 2018 10: 01
      0
      with movies in general there is such a problem - the less you know about the creation, the easier it is to watch.
      When I found out that a lion in the Striped Flight was shot on the set only because sleeping pills didn’t act on him, and he needed to be shot faster, I now have the film itself and especially the scene in which the dead lion is killed, I look differently sad sad
      1. Rumata-estorskii
        Rumata-estorskii 1 October 2018 11: 25
        0
        Now I won’t be able to review this film either ... :(
    2. NordUral
      NordUral 1 October 2018 12: 20
      +1
      You somehow endure the Kremlin organized crime group without a nervous breakdown? Is the truth about medieval bandits so bothering you?
      1. Rumata-estorskii
        Rumata-estorskii 2 October 2018 14: 08
        0
        Do you personally know me? How did you determine that I support someone?
  50. alebor
    alebor 1 October 2018 10: 54
    0
    I wonder what the novel would turn into if its main characters were virtuous and respectable? They would conscientiously go to the service every day, they would angrily condemn all kinds of love affairs and marital adultery, they would not only not participate in duels, but also inform the authorities about their participants, because a duel is a crime, it was forbidden by a special royal edict, they were would be teetotalers and observe all religious fasts. As a result, instead of a "juicy, fragrant, lively" novel, we would get some kind of "Lives of the Saints" suitable for "educating youth", but not interesting to anyone and forgotten a few years after the publication of the novel.
    As for Milady, "a charismatic and strong girl (wow" girl "- an aunt who has been married at least twice) with a tragic fate" worthy of being the main heroine of the novel: no matter how spoiled D'Artagnan was, it's hard to imagine so that he stooped to try to poison his enemy by pouring poison into his wine, shoot him from around the corner, or kill his mistress out of revenge.
    In general, about the heroes of this novel, I remembered the famous phrase of Pushkin: "A cruel age, cruel hearts." After all, as far as I know, Dumas, before writing the novel, read the memoirs of the XNUMXth century.