Rival versions
19 April 2025 08:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
igenlodeI happened to notice another odd inconsistency between the final pages of the English and French versions of "The Three Musketeers". The French version states that à la suite d'un voyage qu'il fit en Touraine, [Athos] quitta aussi la service sous prétexte qu'il venait de recueillir un petit héritage en Rousillon, but my English translation renders this as "after a journey to Rousillon, [Athos] also left the service, under pretext of having succeeded to a small patrimony in the Blaisois". Which is basically the opposite -- and Rousillon is situated nowhere near the Touraine region, so where was Athos going at the time?
This online translation gets the geography the right way round, but then states that Aramis "had retired into a convent--only into which, nobody knew". And that has no basis whatsoever in Dumas' text, which tells us explicitly that it was a monastery at Nancy -- as does my (probably 1920-1940) English copy.
Since in later books Athos' property is seen to be situated conveniently close to the Duc d'Orléans' establishment at Blois (in other words 'dans le Blaisois'), I can only guess that somebody decided to alter the text for continuity's sake. (But just to confuse matters further, the Wiktionary page for "Blaisois" quotes a quite different passage from Dumas: en revenant d’un voyage qu’il fit en Roussillon, il quitta aussi le service, sous prétexte qu’il venait de recueillir un petit héritage dans le Blaisois! Which makes more sense, and is clearly what my translation was based on -- but where on earth does the random geography of my (1972) French edition come from, in that case?)
[Edit: I subsequently noticed another inconsistency in chapter 37(Comment [...] Athos trouva son équipement), where there is clearly a line of dialogue confusingly missing between two replies of d'Artagnan, and which turns out to be present in the English translation; so unfortunately this particular edition of the original text is clearly not reliable. Which is awkward.]
It does still leave open the question of what Rousillon (still nowhere near Blois) had to do with it. Possibly the expedition to Rousillon was so rewarding/exhausting/traumatic that it prompted Athos to finally resign from the regiment :-p
I had always assumed the 'pretext' was the claim of an inheritance and that he was actually returning to take up his true identity in his ancestral estates, but from what is said in "Twenty Years After" (je lui ai substitué la terre de Bragelonne, que je tiens d’héritage, laquelle lui donne le titre de vicomte et dix mille livres de rente), Athos genuinely did inherit this land -- presumably at this date -- and the title belonging to it. Even though he still uses his former title of La Fère, he apparently never returned there.
But while looking (in vain) for clarification on this point I happened to stumble across somebody else's fanfiction page. This turned out to be about a convoluted and ambitious -- although it failed to enthuse me -- epic that I had already seen on AO3, but I was tickled to discover that the authors shared my views on Oliver Reed (although not on Van Heflin, whom I remember finding a conscious disappointment). And not only that, but had actually *heard* of (and loved) the Russian version :-)
I would concur with their statement that the version of Athos in the BBC series "aligns with the 'steampunk-meets-V&A' aesthetic of the series. There is something 'Victorian' and 'Edward Rochester' in the character of this Athos" and that he is "moody, consistently inconsistent, and conflicted"; I just question the conclusion that the result is "not unlike the Dumas character" ;-p
I'd actually assumed that the BBC portrayal was based on Oliver Reed's performance in the role, often cited as iconic, especially in England.
But the writer describes Oliver Reed's Athos as "memorable for many viewers but miscast for others. His Athos is brutal rather than aloof and restrained.... In the 1989 film, Oliver Reed returns as Athos and makes him even more crude and brutal with little relevance to Athos in Dumas’ Twenty Years After or any other version of Athos" and concludes "Clearly, I am not a fan of this portrayal."
I wasn't, either ;-)
On the Russian version:
None of which is anything other than a random fan-opinion (and I definitely don't agree with everything the authors write on this page). I just enjoyed the sense of endorsement for once :-) Because Smekhov's Athos *did* strike me as being the first time I'd seen Dumas' version on screen; I don't know about 'French panache', but Tom Burke just comes across as too grumpy ;-p
(And I do think that stage experience -- which English actors traditionally have, and Hollywood actors traditionally don't -- seems to count for something in terms of subtlety of performance, though I don't see why that should be. You'd think it would be the opposite, since in the theatre you have to be able to project both voice and body language to the back of the gallery: what the Americans used to call 'barnstorming'.)
This online translation gets the geography the right way round, but then states that Aramis "had retired into a convent--only into which, nobody knew". And that has no basis whatsoever in Dumas' text, which tells us explicitly that it was a monastery at Nancy -- as does my (probably 1920-1940) English copy.
Since in later books Athos' property is seen to be situated conveniently close to the Duc d'Orléans' establishment at Blois (in other words 'dans le Blaisois'), I can only guess that somebody decided to alter the text for continuity's sake. (But just to confuse matters further, the Wiktionary page for "Blaisois" quotes a quite different passage from Dumas: en revenant d’un voyage qu’il fit en Roussillon, il quitta aussi le service, sous prétexte qu’il venait de recueillir un petit héritage dans le Blaisois! Which makes more sense, and is clearly what my translation was based on -- but where on earth does the random geography of my (1972) French edition come from, in that case?)
[Edit: I subsequently noticed another inconsistency in chapter 37(Comment [...] Athos trouva son équipement), where there is clearly a line of dialogue confusingly missing between two replies of d'Artagnan, and which turns out to be present in the English translation; so unfortunately this particular edition of the original text is clearly not reliable. Which is awkward.]
It does still leave open the question of what Rousillon (still nowhere near Blois) had to do with it. Possibly the expedition to Rousillon was so rewarding/exhausting/traumatic that it prompted Athos to finally resign from the regiment :-p
I had always assumed the 'pretext' was the claim of an inheritance and that he was actually returning to take up his true identity in his ancestral estates, but from what is said in "Twenty Years After" (je lui ai substitué la terre de Bragelonne, que je tiens d’héritage, laquelle lui donne le titre de vicomte et dix mille livres de rente), Athos genuinely did inherit this land -- presumably at this date -- and the title belonging to it. Even though he still uses his former title of La Fère, he apparently never returned there.
But while looking (in vain) for clarification on this point I happened to stumble across somebody else's fanfiction page. This turned out to be about a convoluted and ambitious -- although it failed to enthuse me -- epic that I had already seen on AO3, but I was tickled to discover that the authors shared my views on Oliver Reed (although not on Van Heflin, whom I remember finding a conscious disappointment). And not only that, but had actually *heard* of (and loved) the Russian version :-)
I would concur with their statement that the version of Athos in the BBC series "aligns with the 'steampunk-meets-V&A' aesthetic of the series. There is something 'Victorian' and 'Edward Rochester' in the character of this Athos" and that he is "moody, consistently inconsistent, and conflicted"; I just question the conclusion that the result is "not unlike the Dumas character" ;-p
I'd actually assumed that the BBC portrayal was based on Oliver Reed's performance in the role, often cited as iconic, especially in England.
But the writer describes Oliver Reed's Athos as "memorable for many viewers but miscast for others. His Athos is brutal rather than aloof and restrained.... In the 1989 film, Oliver Reed returns as Athos and makes him even more crude and brutal with little relevance to Athos in Dumas’ Twenty Years After or any other version of Athos" and concludes "Clearly, I am not a fan of this portrayal."
I wasn't, either ;-)
On the Russian version:
To millions of viewers, Veniamin Smekhov is Athos. Smekhov is a successful stage and film actor, director, writer, and poet, with a long and distinguished career. His first encounter with The Three Musketeers was in 1971, when he was cast as Aramis in a film adaptation of Dumas’ book. [Actually in a film adaptation of "Twenty Years After" -- so he portrayed an Aramis who was in his forties at a point when he was rather younger then when he played Athos supposedly twenty years earlier ;-p] Then came the first, 1978 series, which became a cultural phenomenon and identified him with Athos.
In this series of Dumas adaptations beginning in 1978, Athos is as much a central character as d'Artagnan (at times more so), reflecting the fact that–as per Dumas–the novel is supposed to be based on Athos' Memoirs. With the exception of the 2009 film which is different, the rest are faithful adaptations of Dumas' novels (do not let the 'musical' part deter or fool you), perhaps the most faithful adaptations of Dumas on film, including parts of the novels that are usually left out (e.g., 'The Vicomte of Bragelonne/Ten Years After'). The 'Secret of Queen Anne' (1993) is probably the most faithful adaptation of the Man in the Iron Mask on film.
Smekhov brings depth to the role of Athos unlike most actors, with few exceptions, Tom Burke prominent among them. Like Tom Burke, Smekhov was already a stage actor before taking on this iconic role. Smekhov’s Athos is the closest to Dumas' character compared to any other iteration, with the exception of Jeremy Young, who in a way, however, was reading the books. Smekhov exudes 'French panache' whereas Tom Burke comes across as 'too British'. He is very protective of his comrades, especially of d’ Artagnan. Because this is a series, just like the BBC series, there is time for the relationship among the four to develop just as it does in the book.
None of which is anything other than a random fan-opinion (and I definitely don't agree with everything the authors write on this page). I just enjoyed the sense of endorsement for once :-) Because Smekhov's Athos *did* strike me as being the first time I'd seen Dumas' version on screen; I don't know about 'French panache', but Tom Burke just comes across as too grumpy ;-p
(And I do think that stage experience -- which English actors traditionally have, and Hollywood actors traditionally don't -- seems to count for something in terms of subtlety of performance, though I don't see why that should be. You'd think it would be the opposite, since in the theatre you have to be able to project both voice and body language to the back of the gallery: what the Americans used to call 'barnstorming'.)