The man with the iron mask

by Marius Topin

FOOTNOTES:

[564] Thus named on account of a cross to which pilgrimages were formerly made:—Promenades de Nice, by Émile Negrin, p. 273.

[565] Visite aux Îles de Lérins, by the Abbé Alliez, 1840.

[566] Notice sur Cannes et les Îles des Lérins, by M. Sardou. Cannes, Robaudy, 1867.

[567] Besides Saint-Honorat, there were Saints Aigulph, Hilary, Patrick, Capraise, Vincent, Venantius, and many others. See the very remarkable thesis presented to the Faculty of Letters in Paris by the Abbé Goux, professor at the Petit Séminaire of Toulouse, and entitled, Lérins au Cinquième Siècle. Paris, Eugène Belin, 1856. Also the charming volume of MM. Girard and Bareste, Cannes et ses Environs. Paris, Garnier, 1859.

[568] M. Merimée, Note d’un Voyage dans le Midi de la France, p. 256, et seq.

[569] A flag of truce came from the Duke of Savoy to notify to M. la Mothe-Guérin, governor of the islands, the order to cease firing. “The first person,” replied La Mothe-Guérin, “who has the audacity to come again to me as the bearer of such a message, I shall immediately have hung:”—M. Sardou, work already cited, p. 111. “It was when under fire from the Isles Sainte-Marguerite,” the Duke of Savoy said afterwards, “that I knew better than anywhere else that I was in an enemy’s country.”

[570] It is to be remarked that according to the first work which makes mention of the Man with the Iron Mask, the prisoner was conducted to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, and there confided to Saint-Mars. This is the Mémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse, from which we have reproduced the entire passage in Chapter VI. of the present work (see p. 69, ante).

[571] The passages of this Journal relating to the prisoner are given in Chapter XIII. of the present work (see pp. 164, 165, ante).

[572] M. Baudry, Revue de l’Instruction Publique, June 25, 1868.

[573] Archives of the Ministry of War.

[574] Given by Delort, p. 269.

[575] This is now placed beyond doubt, and moreover we shall find Matthioly’s name occurring later in the despatches from Louvois to the commandant of the donjon of Pignerol. With respect to the testimony of the Sieur Souchon, which, following M. Loiseleur, we have given in the preceding chapter, it is rather confused in the Mémoires d’un Voyageur qui se repose (vol. ii. pp. 204-210 of Bossange’s edition), and very clear in the work of Father Papon, but with the signification of the death of the servant and not of Matthioly himself. The following is the passage from the Voyage Littéraire de Provence (pp. 148, 149, edition 1780), integrally reproduced: “The person who waited on the prisoner died at the Isle Sainte-Marguerite. The father of the officer of whom I have just spoken (Souchon, seventy-nine years old), who was in certain matters the man of confidence of M. de Saint-Mars, had always told his son that he had taken the dead man from his prison at the hour of midnight, and had carried him on his shoulders to the burial-ground.”

[576] We shall refer hereafter to the treatment of Matthioly.

[577] Archives of the Ministry of War.

[578] Letter given by Delort, p. 284.

[579] In 1633, Richelieu had the Fort Royal built on the northern shore of the Isle Sainte-Marguerite, but it was on the arrival of Saint-Mars that the buildings were erected which were to serve for prisoners of very various classes. The following unpublished letter, written by M. de Grignan, Lieutenant-General of Provence, September 29, 1691, proves that previous to this date the Isle Sainte-Marguerite was a State Prison:—

“The guard which I had placed at Cannes have arrested a sailor, supposed to belong to Oneglia, who was coming from the direction of Genoa, and who, from his replies, in which he has varied a great deal, has given grounds for belief that he has been put ashore by the Spanish galleys and is a spy, who, under pretence of carrying to Toulon a letter from a captain of Genoa, was going there to obtain information. He has been taken to the Isles of Sainte-Marguerite.

“L. de Grignan, L. G. of Provence.
“September 29, 1691, to M. de Pontchartrain.”—Archives of the Ministry of Marine, Correspondence.

Another letter, dated July 21, 1681, from Count de Grignan to M. de Pontchartrain, shows that the island was beginning to be armed for the defence of the coast:—

“M. de Saint-Mars, governor of the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat de Lérins, speaks to me of provisions which he is obliged to fetch from the mainland, and of the twenty-five pieces of cannon which require carriages.”—Ibid.

[580] In a despatch dated January 8, 1688, Saint-Mars hastens to apprise Louvois that his new prisons are quite ready and waiting to be occupied:—

“Monseigneur,—I will do myself the honour to tell you that I have placed my prisoner, who is generally in bad health, in one of the new prisons which I have had built according to your instructions. They are large, lofty, and light, and considering their excellence, I do not think that there are any stronger or more secure in Europe, and in like manner for everything that can concern the giving of intelligence by word of mouth from near and far, which was not the case in the places where I have had the care of the late Monsieur Fouquet from the moment that he was arrested. With a little precaution one might even allow the prisoners to walk about the whole of the island, without any fear of their escaping or of their giving or receiving news. I take the liberty, monseigneur, to point out to you in detail the excellence of this place in case you may at any time have prisoners whom you wish to put in perfect security with a fair amount of liberty.

“Throughout this province people say that mine is Monsieur de Beaufort and others the son of the late Cromwell.”

[581] The greater portion of the despatches relating to the Protestants confined in the islands have been given by Depping in his Correspondance Administrative sous Louis XIV..

[582] Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, June 29, 1692:—Archives of the Ministry of War.

[583] The following words are here erased:—“beat them severely, and.”

[584] Unpublished despatch from Louvois to Saint-Mars:—Archives of the Ministry of War.

[585] Ibid.:—Ibid.

[586] Manuscripts of the Imperial Library, Papiers d’Estrades. This letter and several others in the same collection are a proof of the friendship which subsisted between Saint-Mars and the Abbé d’Estrades.

“On the first of next month, Monsieur de Catinat,” we read in a letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, “will be the governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s possession.” He refers to Casale, and these words would suffice to prove, what is already attested by the active part played by Saint-Mars with Catinat in 1679, viz., that Saint-Mars had been kept informed of all the details of the two negotiations. Consequently, as we have already shown in the preceding chapter, the famous sentence of Louvois’ despatch to Saint-Mars, August 13, 1681—“The King having ordered Monsieur de Catinat to proceed as soon as possible to Pignerol on the same business which took him there at the commencement of the year 1679”—has and can have only one meaning, that is to say, the taking possession of Casale, and not the arrest of a new prisoner.

But M. Loiseleur brings forward another argument in order to attempt to prove that an obscure spy was arrested by Catinat in 1681. This is the following letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, September 20, 1681:—“The King does not disapprove of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison, and has left that in which you are keeping him. His Majesty desires that you shall execute the order which he has sent you,” &c. And the same critic concludes, from a despatch from Saint-Mars to Louvois, March 11, 1682, which again mentions two prisoners, that, between September 20, 1681, and March 11, 1682, a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars.

Let us remark, firstly, that the space of time in question is much more limited still. M. Loiseleur only made use of documents already published. But, November 18, 1681, Louvois, in a despatch as yet unprinted, says to Saint-Mars, with reference to his prisoners: “The King approves of your choosing a doctor to visit your prisoners, and of your employing the Sieur Vignon to confess them once a year.” From this it would appear that a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars, between September 20 and November 18, 1681; but, as we have already said in the last chapter, there is nowhere any trace of this prisoner, this so-called spy. On the other hand, for the despatch of September 20, 1681, to have the meaning which M. Loiseleur attributes to it, one of the two prisoners of the lower Tower must have died some days previous to September 20, since at this date only one prisoner is spoken of. Of this death or disappearance we have no proof or even trace. Thus the whole argument rests upon this single despatch, of which M. Loiseleur not only makes use in order to prove that a new prisoner had been confided to Saint-Mars, but from which he also deduces that one of the prisoners previously confined had disappeared.

This single despatch thus standing alone, and completely unsupported, would be far from being sufficient to establish this theory. Nevertheless, it is essential to discover its true meaning, so as to leave no doubt in the reader’s mind, and to make every part of our demonstration clear and plain. I acknowledge having spent a considerable time in thinking over this despatch, which was contradicted by all the others, which suited no theory, and which was nevertheless authentic and very exactly reproduced, since I went several times to read the draft of it, at the Archives of the Ministry of War. Even if it had possessed the meaning that M. Loiseleur attributed to it, it would not have destroyed my conclusions at all, since the proofs which I had furnished of the obscurity of the Exiles prisoners were also applicable to this new prisoner brought between November and September, 1681, and because the superior importance of the prisoners afterwards taken from Pignerol to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, would not have been demonstrated any the less clearly by the despatches which I am about to quote. But it was repugnant to me to leave a single point obscure; and after much reflection, and after having been for a long while of M. Loiseleur’s opinion, although nothing outside of this despatch justifies his interpretation, I believe that I have discovered its true meaning.

“The King does not disapprove,” says the despatch which we are discussing, “of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison and has left that in which you are keeping him.” At first I thought it very strange that one of Saint-Mars’ prisoners should “settle” in his prison without his gaoler, and connecting this fact with the numerous despatches which show that at this period, or at least at one not very remote from it, Saint-Mars still had two prisoners, I have ended by concluding that the word “prisoner” is not used here by Louvois in its ordinary sense, but figuratively. I then recollected that in 1681, as in 1679, Catinat was at Pignerol, and treated in appearance at least as a prisoner. The following despatch from Catinat to Louvois, September 6, 1681, leaves no doubt on the subject: “I have called myself Guibert, (we have seen that in 1679, he had taken the name of Richemont), and I am supposed to be an engineer who has been arrested by the King’s orders for having deserted with a number of plans of places on the frontiers of Flanders. M. de Saint-Mars keeps me here with every appearance of my being a prisoner,” &c. On the other hand, during Catinat’s two stays at Pignerol, with two years’ interval between them, a profound friendship had sprung up between him and Saint-Mars. The despatch which we are discussing was dated September 20, 1681. Now, on the 28th, Catinat was to leave, and indeed did leave Pignerol, and on October 1, he was installed at Casale as governor. In an unpublished letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, is an expression which explains everything: “I have given your letter to M. de Catinat, and he will have the honour to communicate with you when he is settled. He leaves to-morrow, Sunday, with the infantry, and no one is more your servant than he is. The first of next month he will be received as governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s possession (Casale).”—Imperial Library, Manuscripts, Papiers d’Estrades. Now this very expression, “when he is settled,” occurs in Louvois’ despatch, September 20, which Saint-Mars had just received when he was writing to d’Estrades.

But, it will be said, why does Louvois make use of the words “in his new prison” to describe Casale? Because, no doubt, Catinat had not left Louvois ignorant that a monotonous residence at Casale was disagreeable to him, and that he would very much prefer to return to the army of Flanders. Lastly, December 14, 1681, Louvois writes to Saint-Mars, who, from his excessive scruples, had probably renewed his request for an authorisation: “Nothing need prevent your going to Casale from time to time, in order to visit M. Catinat.”

It is therefore to Catinat that reference is made in the despatch of September 20, 1681, to Catinat, the last of the prisoners whom Saint-Mars still had in his care, for, since the month of June, Matthioly had been confided to Villebois, and the two prisoners left to Saint-Mars were two “crows,” whom no doubt he had already taken to Exiles.

It is to Catinat that he refers, and this despatch can no longer be made to serve as a pretext for the theory according to which a new prisoner was arrested by Catinat in 1681.

[587] Saint-Mars was now at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite.

[588] This and the three preceding despatches are from Louvois to Saint-Mars, and are to be found in the Archives of the Ministry of War.

[589] The “crow” taken by Saint-Mars to the Islands was undoubtedly the Jacobin monk, as is proved by the following despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars: “Versailles, August 13, 1691—Your letter of the 26th of last month has been handed to me. When you have anything to inform me concerning the prisoner who has been in your charge for the last twenty years, I beg you to adopt the same precautions as you made use of when communicating with M. de Louvois.” Twenty years is undoubtedly a round number, and the Jacobin monk, imprisoned since 1674, had then suffered seventeen years of captivity. A great deal of importance has been ascribed to this despatch, because it was one of the very few belonging to this period which were known to exist. We have just seen, however, that its value is very much diminished by comparison with the other letters which we have transcribed. The recommendation that Barbézieux gives in it is purely a matter of form, and similar injunctions were transmitted to Villebois and afterwards to Laprade, when charged with the care of Matthioly.

[590] Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, February 26, 1694:—Archives of the Ministry of War.

[591] Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, March 20, 1694:—Ibid.

[592] “The King charges you that no one but yourself shall give them to eat, as you have done since they were confided to your care;”—Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Laprade, who, on the death of Villebois, succeeded to the governorship of the donjon of Pignerol.