Talk:The Three Musketeers

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Three Musketeers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: 19th century Top‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by 19th century task force.

Untitled

17.10.13

For those who do not know, how about listing the actual time period, the dates, these adventures were supposed to occur in. The article does not say anything wrong like any rude words.

Question

I should like to know who tranlated "Three Musketeers" into English, and how many English versions exist. In particular what is the origin of the version published by Heritage Press N. York, 1953?

Well, the question is a year old, but the Heritage Press translation is by William Robson. There are a number of English translations (I seem to own four different ones). PKM 04:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why the musketeers have no muskets. Thank you, thank you very much.Longinus876 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They do. They just don't use them often. Muskets were slow to reload and considered "ungentlemanly." But at the siege of La Rochelle they carried and used muskets. When confronting Gentlemen, such as members of the Cardinal's guards or the Compte Rochefort, swords would be used as a point of honor. When riding, the "Musketeers" carried loaded pistols, as a musket was too large to be used from horseback. talk 18:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Does anybody have any information on which English translation is the best one to read? Both in terms of style/readability and accuracy.

Yes! By far the 2006 Richard Pevear trans. -- Stbalbach 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of Musketeer

The Musketeer did use muskets - in war or on duty - they were royal guards (they could be classified as Dragoons - mounted infantry). The characters in the book refer to their muskets, "The four Musketeers went to work; and as they were loading the last musket Grimaud announced that the breakfast was ready." Later they kill three and wound another for interrupting their tea and toast."Reload the muskets, Grimaud," said Athos, "and we, gentlemen, will go on with our breakfast, and resume our conversation. Where were we?"

Redirect of "Musketeers"

Currently, searching the term "Musketeers" leads to a redirect page that leads to this article.

I believe it should redirect to "Musketeer", but that's my opinion. What do you think? Kareeser 22:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I was also redirected here. I am going to change that unless anyone objects. Deflagro 00:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One for all...

This article makes no mention of One for all, and all for one - one of the most famous parts of the story. I have added in a reference but it could do with being expanded or put into the proper place in the story synopsis. Davidbod 23:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a Cleanup and Re-write

This is ridiculous, parts of the summary are out of order, major parts that are key to the novel are missing, this is a disgrace, did the person that wrote that even read the book or just a sparknote? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UltimateCroutonb (talk • contribs) .

Are you the one using temporary accounts to delete the plot summary section 8 times in the past month? BTW of course anything can be improved, but the plot summary is not that bad. I didn't write it, but I did read the book, it's not clear where your coming from. -- Stbalbach 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So write a summary of your own and delight us with your sparkling insights. You're free to contribute, just like everybody else. What's holding you back? Cryptonymius 07:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, UltimateCrountonb, learn to spell (it's "ridiculous") before you disgrace yourself. 66.74.56.209 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's gone through and written the plot summary like Star Wars. This needs to be changed. I haven't read the book myself, but I'm certain there weren't any holographic messages in the original. --69.153.19.190 (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of plot summary

Someone has been using temporary accounts to delete the plot summary section, 8 times in less than a month. I've put in a semi-protection request to slow it down, the last time it remained deleted for 2 days. -- Stbalbach 17:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Musketeers Book Review

Can someone please help me with writing a review and I am to lazy, can i have some help? For Monday,Thanks

PS, not to long!

"Three buddies fight in medieval France. The book is quite booring." You're welcome.

French and English

The way the French spell and pronounce words are far different from English. So to avoid any ambiguity, it is best to add the correct pronouciation of certain words in any way. 210.4.116.112 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the French title have an initial upper-case in every word? At least in my experience, most French titles have initial upper-case only in the first word, so it would be Les trois mousquetaires. Cartier Philippe (talk) 11:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historical irony?

I am wondering whether this article should deal with the difference between the popular interpretation of the work and Dumas' intentions in writing it, if they are known. Especially Dumas' views on the historical period, because that affects the interpretation of the book.

The popular interpretation of The Three Musketeers is now very black and white, good against evil. And of course with the three musketeers and d'Artagnan representing good, and the cardinal and his henchmen representing evil. Especially American movie adaptations have interpreted and popularized it in that way.

However, this doesn't seem to be present in Dumas' writing. It is true that d'Artagnan and his friends are on the whole honourable persons (allowing for the personal flaws of the musketeers and their servants) trying to act according to romantic, chivalric standards. But it is not suggested that they are actually fighting for a good cause -- and for readers with some knowledge of the history of the period, the cause appears dubious indeed. One could argue that Richelieu is fighting for a worthy cause with immoral means, and d'Artagnan is serving a poor cause with the best of intentions. It is significant that at the end, when d'Artagnan admits that he and his friends have crossed the line and committed a murder, the cardinal reacts by offering him promotion. The d'Artagnan of the end of the book is sadder, wiser, and and has lost most of his illusions.

The Three Musketeers is usually read as a celebration of friendship, courage, and chivalry. Which it is. But there seems to be a darker subtext, saying that chivalrous people are admirable but also useful fools, and that the people who really want to serve the nation have to get their hands dirty, with blood if necessary.

84.194.240.50 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Mutatis Mutandis[reply]

Plot summary has been vandalised again

"In a series of incidents at the môtel, d'Artagnan became the father of three musketeers: Athos, Porthos, and Aramis." etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.122.17 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms

1.Lille and Armentières in 1625-1628 were part of the Spanish Netherlands. The executioner from Lille and perhaps Milady de Winter might have been subjects to Philip III and Philip IV of the House of Habsburg, Kings of Spain and Dukes od Burgundy.

2.Early in the novel Dumas refers to the Spanish red and yellow flag. He could be referring to a red cross of Burgundy on yellow background -or vice versa-, but the Spanish current red-yellow-red flag dates from 1785 and it wasn't upgraded to national and army flag status until 1843. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3.Milady worries about being sent to Botany Bay, 160 years before it was conceived as a penal colony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjl72 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Benedictines of Templemar

..where Milady was once a nun or novitiate. Dumas might have been referring to Templemars, in the nearby of Lille. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Maquet

I'm reading a biography on Dumas and it gives a lot of detail on his collaborations with Auguste Maquet, including on this work. It has several quotations from Dumas' letters to Maquet about the writing. I notice that the Auguste Maquet article mentions this, but I don't see Maquet mentioned anywhere in this article. I accept that Dumas was the one who made these characters come to life, but shouldn't Maquet's contribution - even if rather prosaic - be described in this article? If people are OK with it, I'd like to add a small section on that. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here for the same thing. Maquet isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, which is a little disconcerting, since Maquet is apparently a major influence behind some of the plot points in these books. If you still have access to that biography, please do add some information! I will look at your reference and possibly read it myself. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 04:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Maquet should be added as co-author (or at least ghostwriter). This particularly should be the case given Maquet's own page lists him as the author! (so either that page is wrong or this is) It seems very well accepted that he wrote the plot if not the dialogue and colour. --Q --Quarrel (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment earlier, and around that time, I went ahead and retrieved The Titans, a three-generation biography of the Dumas from the library and it does, indeed, contain information in regards to Maquet and this book. If I ever find the time, I may add the info myself some day, but obviously I wasn't driven to do it a year ago, and to be honest, a more loyal fan would be better suited at fitting it into this article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant snarking?

I can't tell what the point is of the two paragraphs in the Origin section starting:

Attention to the extent of Dumas' preface is called for when compared with the recent analysis (2008) of the book's origin by Roger MacDonald...

Really? Who exactly is calling for my attention? Why? Okay, I have my attention focused on the extent of Dumas' preface -- what am I supposed to be noticing now?

It sounds like somebody is trying to blast Roger MacDonald for some perceived crime against historical accuracy, but they don't have the guts to come right out and do it, so they're settling for passive-aggressive snarking with the superficial trappings NPOV.

If that's not the point of those two paragraphs, then they seriously need to be re-written. If it is the point, then regardless of whether this MacDonald guy is actually guilty of the insinuated crimes, this needs to go elsewhere, possibly in a completely different article. Why is the very start of an article on Dumas' book snarking at some apparently unrelated second book when the rest of the article doesn't even mention a man in an iron mask? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.134.201 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I've just read this article for the first time, and the reference to MacDonald is confusing and irrelevant, so I have deleted it. CharlesSpencer (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty

What happened to Kitty?Bmpeden (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Summary and Detailed Summary

The "Brief Summary" seems long enough to be bordering on pointless duplication. Not many other articles on novels seem to bother with two plot summaries.

I'd be in favour of its removal. Catsmeat (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I read the brief summary only to find yet another summary following it. Since no one seems to be against it, I'll remove the brief one. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 18:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Form

I changed tous pour un, un pour tous for un pour tous, tous pour un, which is the correct form in French (French is my native language) :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.51.218.38 (talk) 04:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editions and standard translation

In the "Editions" section, translator Richard Pevear is cited as declaring his own translation the new standard English version. I think that assertion should be removed unless if supported by an independent source. --Loves Macs (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As should the assertion in the level 2 header. What constitutes a standard translation anyway? And in the first paragraph, the William Barrow translation, presumably, is said to be "fairly faithful to the original", only for the next sentence to explain that it is anything but that. Personally, I've only read the William Robson translation, which gets no mention, because I enjoy the florid use of the English language, but I may have to try Pevear's translation, which is so exalted in this article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

, textile(tapestry?) maybe 1920's or 1930's. Resize as required.JohnsonL623 (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary paragraph?

The fourth paragraph which reads: "Although adaptations tend to portray d'Artagnan and the three musketeers as heroes, the novel portrays the four as less appealing characters, who are willing to commit violence over slight insults and as a result of their unquestioning loyalty to the crown, and whose treatment of servants and those seen as social inferiors is characterized by contempt and violence." Seems highly irrelevant, especially to the beginning of the article. It was originally made by a user who seems to make overly politically correct edits, and I feel it should be removed as it adds nothing to the article. 216.199.111.70 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Four Musketeers?

The second paragraph begins "In genre, The Four Musketeers is primarily a historical and adventure novel ." The "Four" Musketeers? We're still referring to the original Dumas novel here, right? Am I missing something? Tangleroc (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)Tangleroc[reply]

We should be so I corrected it. d.Artagnan only becomes a full Mustketeer at the close of the story. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was a recent bit of vandalism that slipped through. However, I have reverted Kevinalewis's addition, which is incorrect. D'Artagnan becomes a musketeer about half-way through the story (twice in fact: the perils of serialising novels..) He is promoted to lieutenant at the close of the story. Mezigue (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No cover?

Usualy wikipedia pages about novels have the orriginal print cover. This page does not have one. 2001:7D0:830B:5580:A142:6BEC:1282:87D1 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]