[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.
CHAPTER XIX.
Intervention of the Kings of France in Italy—Policy of Henri II., Henri IV., and Louis XIII.—Judicious Conduct of Richelieu—Treaty of Cherasco—Menacing Ambition of Louis XIV.—Situation of the Court of Savoy on the Death of Charles-Emmanuel—Portrait of Charles IV., Duke of Mantua—The Marquisate of Montferrat and Casale—The Count Matthioly—His political Career—His Character—The Abbé d’Estrades and Giuliani—Proposal to cede Casale to Louis XIV.—Interview at Venice between Charles IV, and the Abbé d’Estrades—Journey of Matthioly to Versailles—He communicates the Project formed to the Enemies of France—How is his Conduct to be estimated?
It is almost always unwisely that the Kings of France have intermeddled in the affairs of Italy. Their occupations have never been lasting, because they have been in opposition to the true interests of France, and have violated natural boundary laws imposed upon the two countries by their geographical configurations. Charles VIII. conquered the Kingdom of Naples, but Louis XII. lost it. The latter took possession of the Milanese, but Francois I. was obliged to evacuate it; and by giving up Piedmont, which his father had made himself master of, Henri II. completed this retrograde movement. After having quitted the false path into which his three predecessors had dragged France, Henri II. indicated where the frontiers were to be enlarged, where national conquests were to be made, and what was the true direction to be given to her armies. He took Calais, thus pointing out the road to the Netherlands, and by becoming the master of the Trois-Evêchés he opened to his successors the glorious road to Alsace and the Rhine. While he was so happily inaugurating a new struggle, he was also establishing the basis of a new policy obscurely foreseen by Francois I., but the merits of which certainly belong to Henri II. The latter understood that the most effectual way of contending with the Emperor of Germany, the head of the Catholic party, was to ally himself with the German Princes and the Reformed party; and if he was too early interrupted in his scheme by a violent death—if the minority or the weakness of his children for a long time suspended its execution—it was again undertaken, and we know with what success, by Henri IV., Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louis XIV. To assure the neutrality of Spain, to watch Italy without attempting to establish himself there, to lead all his forces towards the North and the East, and to extend in this direction the frontiers, which were too near to the capital: such was the glorious policy of Henri IV., suspended for a time after his death, but worthily continued by his successors.