FOOTNOTES:
[443] Histoire de l’Homme au Masque de Fer, by M. Paul Lacroix (Bibliophile Jacob). Paris, 1840.
[444] Loisirs d’un Patriote Français, number of August 13, 1789. This card found amongst the papers of the Bastille, and which the journalist attests having seen, also bore the number 64,389,000.
[445] Histoire de l’Homme au Masque de Fer, p. 175.
[446] “The King having ordered me to have one Eustache d’Auger taken to Pignerol, it is of the utmost importance that on his arrival he should be guarded with great security, and not allowed to give information of his whereabouts in any manner whatever. I give you notice of this in advance in order that you may prepare a cell in which you will confine him securely, taking care to arrange that the openings for light of the place, in which he will be, may not look upon places where any one may come, and that there be enough closed doors so that our sentinels may not be able to hear anything:”—Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, July 19, 1669.
These infinite precautions were indeed a form of style. They are to be found in the orders given to Marshal d’Estrades, in those which are contained in the Registers of the Secretary’s Office of the King’s Household, and in those which are found in the Correspondance Administrative sous Louis XIV. See this correspondence published by Depping in the collection of the Documents inédits pour l’Histoire de France. See also, Imperial Library, manuscripts, Papiers d’Estrades, vol. xii., and Registers of the Secretary’s Office, 6653.
[447] M. Camille Rousset gives a number of proofs of the extreme pleasure that Louvois found in a combination and excess of precautions. (See notably vol. iii. p. 38, et seq. of his Histoire de Louvois.)
[448] Chapter V. of the present work. See [pp. 62, 63,] ante.
[449] Histoire de l’Homme au Masque de Fer, p. 233.
[450] Ibid., p. 229.
[451] Order of Louis XIV., dated October 11, 1665.
[452] Letter of Louvois to Saint-Mars, September 23, 1666.
[453] Ibid., September 17, 1669.
[454] Letter of Madame de Sévigné, July 7, 1680.
[455] Correspondance Générale, Lavallée’s edition, vol. i. p. 1.
[456] Let us cite amongst others, the fine Histoire de Madame de Maintenon, of the Duke de Noailles, unhappily still unfinished; the labours of M. Théophile Lavallée and Chapter I. Period iii. of the curious volumes of M. Chéruel, Saint-Simon considéré comme Historien, which is the necessary complement of his edition of the Mémoires.
[457] Lettres Historiques et Édifiantes de Madame de Maintenon, vol. ii. p. 213.
[458] Histoire de l’Homme au Masque de Fer, p. 244.
[459] Conrart, Manuscripts, vol. xi. p. 151:—Archives of the Arsenal. The same observations apply to this other letter, likewise ascribed by M. Lacroix to Madame de Maintenon, and with as little ground: “Until now I was so thoroughly persuaded of my strength, that I would have defied all the earth. But I confess that the last interview I had with you charmed me. I found in your conversation a thousand pleasures which I had not expected; in short, if I ever see you alone, I do not know what will happen.”
[460] Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. i. pp. 448, 449.
[461] Souvenirs de Madame de Caylus, pp. 10 and 11; M. Feuillet de Conches, Causeries d’un Curieux, vol. ii. p. 515; M. Chéruel, Saint-Simon considéré comme Historien, p. 504, et seq.
[462] This is what I have several times been assured of by M. Ravaisson, who, in publishing the documents relating to the Bastille, has come across the affaire des poisons.
[463] M. Pierre Clément, La Police sous Louis XIV., p. 221.
[464] Ibid. p. 222.
[465] A councillor to the Parliament named Pinon-Dumartray, a relation of Fouquet’s, was suspected of having been connected with the Sieur Damy, who was accused of a plot against Colbert’s life.
[466] M. Pierre Clément, La Police sous Louis XIV., p. 221.
[467] In support of this opinion, M. Lacroix (in the work already referred to, pp. 251, 252) speaks of a letter written by Louis XIV. to Pope Clement X., in which he requested him “to grant him a secret dispensation in order that he might rid himself, without form of trial, of a man, dangerous and hurtful to his government.” M. Lacroix adds that “Clement X. was probably opposed to the death of the prisoner at Pignerol.” But M. Lacroix does not give this very strange letter of Louis XIV.’s, which he terms the keystone of his theory, contenting himself with observing: “This letter, so strange that people would wish to deny its existence, is among the manuscripts in the Bibliothèque du Roi. M. Champollion-Figeac, who discovered it three years ago among the papiers de Bouillaud, told me the tenour of it at that time, at the very moment I was setting off on a long journey. But unfortunately he forgot to take a note of the volume containing this singular paper, and since my return he has in vain sought to find it again. The learned M. Libri also remembers having seen this precious document.”
The following is the truth about this letter and the origin of the remarks of MM. Champollion-Figeac and Libri. It is in the recueil Bouillaud, Manuscripts of the Imperial Library, SF 997, vol. xxxiii., catalogue, that this seventeenth-century collector speaks of a letter “in which the Cardinal de Richelieu begged the King to demand from the Pope a brief allowing him to put to death, without any form of trial, those whom he considered deserving of it, a request which Pope Urban VIII. refused.” M. P. Clément has already quoted this extract in note 2, p. 222 of his Police sous Louis XIV.
M. Lacroix will thus see that his letter does not concern Louis XIV., Clement X., and Fouquet, but rather Louis XIII., Urban VIII., and some unknown victims.
[468] Most of the complaints that Fouquet mentions in his letters are due to a too great abundance of blood.
[469] Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, April 3 and May 4, 1680.
[470] Ibid., April 9, 1680.
[471] M. Chéruel, who arrives at the conclusion that Fouquet died in March, 1680, observes, with reason, that a passage from the Mémoires de Gourville is alone in contradiction with other contemporary testimony, but that the contradiction is only apparent. According to Bussy-Rabutin, Fouquet was authorised in 1680 to go to the waters of Bourbon. We have not referred to this authorisation, because no document makes mention of it. But the report was spread about at Paris, and it is not surprising that Gourville, writing his recollections long after the events, should have confounded the authorisation with the realization of this journey, and have said: “M. Fouquet having been set at liberty——.” It is nevertheless in reference to this passage that Voltaire writes in his Siècle de Louis XIV., “Hence it is not known where this unfortunate man died, whose most insignificant actions were of importance while he was powerful.” Voltaire has sacrificed truth to effect of style. Madame de Sévigné knew of it: “Poor Monsieur Fouquet is dead, I regret it; I have never lost so many friends.” Bussy knew of it: “You know, I think of the death of Fouquet by apoplexy at the time he was permitted to take the Bourbon waters.” The family knew of it, since several of its members were at Pignerol in March, 1680. Gourville was the only one who was not correctly informed; but we have just seen in what manner and why he differs from other contemporaries.
[472] Paroletti, Sur la Mort du Surintendant Fouquet, notes receuillies à Pignerol, quarto, 24 pages. Turin, 1812.
[473] Ibid., p. 20. Paroletti also concluded that the death of Fouquet took place in March, 1680. There are equally the conclusions of a work in preparation by M. Gaultier de Claubry on this special question, and which will form part of that beautiful historical series to which for some years past we have been indebted to the city of Paris.
[474] The ancient convent of Ste.-Claire is now a home for beggars. M. Jacopo Bernardi, honorary grand vicar of the Bishop of Pignerol, writes to me that in the country the death of Fouquet in 1680 is still a tradition. I take this opportunity of thanking my obliging and learned correspondent for the information with which he has been good enough to furnish me about Pignerol.
[475] See especially Letters of Madame Sévigné, April 3 and 5, 1680.