Cardinal Richelieu: Villian or Hero?

[bookworm101]

In the novel The 3 Musketeers, Dumas seems to portray the Cardinal as a villian. Can his acts be justified so that he is portrayed as a hero instead? Did he have good intentions behind his actions? Where is there proof of these acts of good in the book?

[bazarov]

From a historical view, Cardinal Richelieu was a very very bad guy, he played an important role in Bartolomeus night, when lot of French protestants(hugenots) were killed. As I can remeber the book, he wasn't very nice person, without any good intentions for anyone except himself.

[Boris239]

Baz, you are very very mistaken. The night of St. Bartholomieu happened in 1572 and is described in another Dumas novel "Queen Margot". Cardinal Richelieu wasn't even born at that time. The night was most likely organized by Dukes of Lorrane and Queen Mother Ekaterina Medici.
Cardinal Richelieu in fact was in fact a great politician who made really a lot for France. His representation in the book is completely wrong. He strengthened the royal power( it was progressive for the first part of 17th century) and managed to weaken Holy Roman Empire and Spain by supporting protestants in the 30 years War.

[bazarov]

Yes, a great mistake, I must admit I've realized what I wrote... Yes, in night from 24. on 25. August, if I remeber it correct. I've read that Dumas novel, and it was named Bartholomeus night, not Queen Margot.
Richelieu was a bad guy no matter of his great work in diplomacy, science and art; I can still remeber my history classes and stories about Medici-Richelieu ''friendship''.

[Boris239]

I haven't heard about the novel you mentioned, but there is a description of St. Bartolomieu's night in "Queen Margot". Probably my favorite is the description in Henry Mann's "Young years of Henry IV"
I'm not sure about "friendship" between Richelieu and Maria Medici. As far as i remember, he was one of the reasons of her imprisonment and exile. Who cares? She wasn't a good ruler anyway. Ekaterina may be evil, but she was damn smart

[bazarov]

I think it's a same book, I've made some research...
Richelieu was Maria Medici's protege in his early political life, she was the reason why he entered in Kings council, but many years later, when she tried to remove him from his position( prime minister), he was smarter and throw her out and to exile to something like C....
Richelieu wasn't good Christian, many dead people are on his soul, (hugenots, political oponents) and his politic lead to Thirty Year's War.

[Boris239]

Well, that's politics for you. Nobody says that he was a good guy- he was a good politician. I certainly don't care if he was a good christian or not- this is not very important for me and surely it says nothing about how good a politician is. I don't argue that he was responsible for the deaths of some of his opponents, but after all it was 17th century. Richelieu certainly held Machiavellian ideals in high regards.
He is also responsible for the siege of La Rochelle, but he couldn't allow a state within a state. He wasn't a fanatic at all- after all he supported protestants in Germany. Not just his politics led to 30 years war, and France certainly was pretty succesful in this war.

[bazarov]

I don't think that his religion is important is this or in any other situation, but he was cardinal, so he should have some higher princips, I guess; but that was 17th century, like you said...In those days even the popes weren't some good example for others.
Yes, the ends justify the means...

[Reepicheep]

The realistic blend of hero and villain in both sides is one thing that make this book so good. The "good guys" really aren't that perfectly good. And the "Bad guy" isn't really that bad. I only know the history from reading about it in the book so Im no help there but I think Dumas respected and admired Richelieu very much. To use my own words: Richelieu didn't go out of his way to hurt people for the sake of being evil but if you crossed him, you're hosed.

[JCamilo]

He is a huge Villain in the book. The fact that he accepts D'Argtangnan means little (means that he was defeated), he was one step of cutting his head off.
In real life he was a powerful political with great notion of power, holding it and using for his own ends and for the state (My only enemies are the enemies of France was one of his supposed last words). The portrait in the book is even sympathy, because Richelieu there is imposing even physically and are probally inspired by the many paintings that shows Richelieu with an imposing militar presence (he was a militar leader, but in the sense of inteligence and ruteless approach). His "political will" left to the next king (too young) when he was dying seems like a re-edition of Machiavelli's Prince.
Considering that the Musketeers themselves are highly flawed (they are jerks of highest order, tricking, cheating, big bullies and all) having him as a villain is just helpful.
Aldous Huxley also wrote about him (actually about Richelieu next guy, Father Joseph) and the image Huxley left is completely negative. It is interesting to compare them both.

[AthosESK]

The older I get when I reread this book, the less I think of Richelieu as a "villain." I think just as d'Artagnan's opinion of him evolves as he ages, and in the end ends up being on good terms with him, I think we are also meant to open up our minds and realize that nothing is ever black and white in the end.

[Sarasvati21]

I think Richelieu begins in The Three Musketeers as an antagonistic character, but he turns out to be alright by the end of the books.
Now, that's not saying that in real life he wasn't bad, but in the books Dumas develops Richelieu's character in such a way that, by the end, the reader comes to regard him in the same cordial way that d'Artagnan does.

[kiki1982]

I agree with AthosESK and Sarasvati21. I think for most of the book you see Richelieu as a really bad guy, his badness is kind of given a reason because of Mylady... The same for Rochefort (Richelieu's right hand).

I don't think he intended to have d'Artagnan decapitated. He was a consequent man and tried to keep civil war out of France. With a queen who is meddling as well, it's kind of hard... Although that queen didn't do badly with her British embassador... The war between France and Britain is in the book largly blamed on rivalry between Richelieu and Buckingham who both fancied queen Anne of France. Richelieu wanted her back and Buckingham wanted to keep her, so Richelieu made quarrel with the embassador of Britain so he leaves and consequently makes war with them. That's a good reason to kick the protestants out who, with the edict of Nantes had got some freedom and right of existence, but the catholics didn't really want that... With the alliance, because of the marriage of Louis XIII with Anne of Austria, part of the Spanish branch of the Habsburg family, France was also implicated in the religious wars with the protestants in the Low Countries. He probably really tried to keep that out of France, also with possible future problems in England in the back of his head.
In Vingts Ans Après - Twenty Years Later, he is admired for his consequency, which Mazarin wasn't really... Richelieu's politics were not so much about money but rather about what had to be done, and with a kng who is always 'bored' even at the battlefield it can't be very easy to maintain a popular and positive image of the king so the royal throne doesn't rock and the country as a whole doesn't get threatened...