Even if it were not a matter of history that Arwedicks went over to the Roman Catholic Church and died a free man in Paris, as may be seen by an inspection of the certificate of his death preserved among the archives in the Foreign Office, one sentence from the note-book of M. de Bonac would be sufficient to annihilate this theory.  M. de Bonac says that the Patriarch was carried off, while M. de Feriol, who succeeded M. de Chateauneuf in 1699, was ambassador at Constantinople.  Now it was in 1698 that Saint-Mars arrived at the Bastille with his masked prisoner.

Several English scholars have sided with Gibbon in thinking that the Man in the Iron Mask might possibly have been Henry, the second son of Oliver Cromwell, who was held as a hostage by Louis xiv.

By an odd coincidence the second son of the Lord Protector does entirely disappear from the page of history in 1659; we know nothing of where he afterwards lived nor when he died.  But why should he be a prisoner of state in France, while his elder brother Richard was permitted to live there quite openly?  In the absence of all proof, we cannot attach the least importance to this explanation of the mystery.

We now come to the promised extracts from the ’Memoires du Marechal de Richelieu’: 

“Under the late king there was a time when every class of society was asking who the famous personage really was who went by the name of the Iron Mask, but I noticed that this curiosity abated somewhat after his arrival at the Bastille with Saint-Mars, when it began to be reported that orders had been given to kill him should he let his name be known.  Saint-Mars also let it be understood that whoever found out the secret would share the same fate.  This threat to murder both the prisoner and those who showed too much curiosity about him made such an impression, that during the lifetime of the late king people only spoke of the mystery below their breath.  The anonymous author of ’Les Memoires de Perse’, which were published in Holland fifteen years after the death of Louis xiv, was the first who dared to speak publicly of the prisoner and relate some anecdotes about him.

“Since the publication of that work, liberty of speech and the freedom of the press have made great strides, and the shade of Louis xiv having lost its terrors, the case of the Iron Mask is freely discussed, and yet even now, at the end of my life and seventy years after the death of the king, people are still asking who the Man in the Iron Mask really was.

“This question was one I put to the adorable princess, beloved of the regent, who inspired in return only aversion and respect, all her love being given to me.  As everyone was persuaded that the regent knew the name, the course of life, and the cause of the imprisonment of the masked prisoner, I, being more venturesome in my curiosity than others, tried through my princess to fathom the secret.  She had hitherto constantly repulsed the advances of the Duc d’ Orleans, but as the ardour of his passion was thereby in no wise abated, the least glimpse of hope would be sufficient to induce him to grant her everything she asked; I persuaded her, therefore, to let him understand that if he would allow her to read the ‘Memoires du Masque’ which were in his possession his dearest desires would be fulfilled.