For the king’s life generally see the memoirs of Saint-Simon, d’Argenson, Villars and Barbier, and for the details of his private life E. Boutaric,Correspondance secrète de Louis XV.; Madame de Pompadour’sCorrespondancepublished by P. Malassi; Dietric,Les Maîtresses de Louis XV.; and Fleury,Louis XV. intimes et les petites maîtresses(1909).For the system of secret diplomacy and organized espionage, known as theSecret du roi, carried on under the auspices of Louis XV., see Albert duc de Broglie,Le Secret du roi. Correspondance secrète de Louis XV. avec ses agents diplomatiques 1752-1774(Paris, 1878); and for a general account of the reign, H. Carré,La France sous Louis XV.(Paris, 1891). For other works, general and special, see G. Monod,Bibliographie de la France, and the bibliography in theHistoire généraleof Lavisse and Rambaud, vol. vii., and theCambridge Modern History, vol. vi.
For the king’s life generally see the memoirs of Saint-Simon, d’Argenson, Villars and Barbier, and for the details of his private life E. Boutaric,Correspondance secrète de Louis XV.; Madame de Pompadour’sCorrespondancepublished by P. Malassi; Dietric,Les Maîtresses de Louis XV.; and Fleury,Louis XV. intimes et les petites maîtresses(1909).
For the system of secret diplomacy and organized espionage, known as theSecret du roi, carried on under the auspices of Louis XV., see Albert duc de Broglie,Le Secret du roi. Correspondance secrète de Louis XV. avec ses agents diplomatiques 1752-1774(Paris, 1878); and for a general account of the reign, H. Carré,La France sous Louis XV.(Paris, 1891). For other works, general and special, see G. Monod,Bibliographie de la France, and the bibliography in theHistoire généraleof Lavisse and Rambaud, vol. vii., and theCambridge Modern History, vol. vi.
(A. J. G.*)
LOUIS XVI.(1754-1793), king of France, was the son of Louis, dauphin of France, the son of Louis XV., and of Marie Joseph of Saxony, and was born at Versailles on the 23rd of August 1754, being baptized as Louis Augustus. His father’s death in 1765 made him heir to the throne, and in 1770 he was married to Marie Antoinette, daughter of the empress Maria Theresa. He was just twenty years old when the death of Louis XV. on the 10th of May 1774 placed him on the throne. He began his reign under good auspices, with Turgot, the greatest living French statesman, in charge of the disorganized finances; but in less than two years he had yielded to the demand of the vested interests attacked by Turgot’s reforms, and dismissed him. Turgot’s successor, Necker, however, continued the régime of reform until 1781, and it was only with Necker’s dismissal that the period of reaction began. Marie Antoinette then obtained that ascendancy over her husband which was partly responsible for the extravagance of the ministry of Calonne, and brought on the Revolution by the resulting financial embarrassment.1The third part of his reign began with the meeting of the states-general on the 4th of May 1789, which marked the opening of the Revolution. The revolt of Paris and the taking of the Bastille on the 14th of July were its results. The suspicion, not without justification, of a second attempt at acoup d’étatled on the 6th of October to the “capture” of the king and royal family at Versailles by a mob from Paris, and their transference to the Tuileries. In spite of the growing radicalism of the clubs, however, loyalty to the king remained surprisingly strong. When he swore to maintain the constitution, then in progress of construction, at the festival of the federation on the 14th of July 1790, he was at the height of his popularity. Even his attempted flight on the 20th of June 1791 did not entirely turn the nation against him, although he left documents which proved his opposition to the whole Revolution. Arrested at Varennes, and brought back to Paris, he was maintained as a constitutional king, and took his oath on the 13th of September 1791. But already a party was forming in Paris which demanded his deposition. This first became noticeable in connexion with the affair of the Champ de Mars on the 17th of July 1791. Crushed for a time the party gained strength through the winter of 1791-1792. The declaration of war against the emperor Francis II., nephew of Marie Antoinette, was forced upon the king by those who wished to discredit him by failure, or to compel him to declare himself openly an enemy to the Revolution. Their policy proved effective. The failure of the war, which intensified popular hatred of the Austrian queen, involved the king; and the invasion of the Tuileries on the 20th of June 1792 was but the prelude to the conspiracy which resulted, on the 10th of August, in the capture of the palace and the “suspension” of royalty by the Legislative Assembly until the convocation of a national convention in September. On the 21st of September 1792 the Convention declared royalty abolished, and in January it tried the king for his treason against the nation, and condemned him to death. He was executed on the 21st of January 1793.
Louis XVI. was weak in character and mentally dull. His courage and dignity during his trial and on the scaffold has left him a better reputation than he deserves. His diary shows how little he understood, or cared for, the business of a king. Days on which he had not shot anything at the hunt were blank days for him. The entry on the 14th of July 1789 was “nothing”! The greater part of his time was spent hunting. He also amused himself making locks, and a little at masonry. Awkward and uncourtly, at heart shy, he was but a poor figurehead for the stately court of France. At first he did not care for Marie Antoinette, but after he came under her influence, her thoughtless conduct compromised him, and it was largely she who encouraged him in underhand opposition to the Revolution while he pretended to accept it. The only point on which he had of his own initiative shown a strong objection to revolutionary measures was in the matter of the civil constitution of the clergy. A devoted and sincere Roman Catholic, he refused at first to sanction a constitution for the church in France without the pope’s approval, and after he had been compelled to allow the constitution to become law he resolved to oppose the Revolution definitely by intrigues. His policy was both feeble and false. He was singularly unfortunate even when he gave in, delaying his acquiescence until it had the air of a surrender. It is often said that Louis XVI. was the victim of the faults of his predecessors. He was also the victim of his own.
Having lost his elder son in 1789 Louis left two children, Louis Charles, usually known as Louis XVII., and Marie Thérèse Charlotte (1778-1851), who married her cousin, Louis, duke of Angoulême, son of Charles X., in 1799. The “orphan of the Temple,” as the princess was called, was in prison for three years,during which time she remained ignorant of the fate which had befallen her parents. She died on the 19th of October 1851. Her life by G. Lenôtre has been translated into English by J. L. May (1908).
See the articlesFrench RevolutionandMarie Antoinette. F. X. J. Droz,Histoire du règne de Louis XVI.(3 vols., Paris, 1860), a sane and good history of the period; and Arsène Houssaye,Louis XVI.(Paris, 1891). See also the numerous memoirs of the time, and the marquis de Ségur’sAu couchant de la monarchie, Louis XVI. et Turgot(1910).For bibliographies see G. Monod,Bibl. de la France; Lavisse et Rambaud,Hist. Univ., vols. vii. and viii.; and theCambridge Modem History, vol. viii.
See the articlesFrench RevolutionandMarie Antoinette. F. X. J. Droz,Histoire du règne de Louis XVI.(3 vols., Paris, 1860), a sane and good history of the period; and Arsène Houssaye,Louis XVI.(Paris, 1891). See also the numerous memoirs of the time, and the marquis de Ségur’sAu couchant de la monarchie, Louis XVI. et Turgot(1910).
For bibliographies see G. Monod,Bibl. de la France; Lavisse et Rambaud,Hist. Univ., vols. vii. and viii.; and theCambridge Modem History, vol. viii.
(R. A.*)
1The responsibility of Marie Antoinette for the policy of the king before and during the Revolution has been the subject of much controversy. In general it may be said that her influence on politics has been much exaggerated. (SeeMarie Antoinette.) [Ed.]
1The responsibility of Marie Antoinette for the policy of the king before and during the Revolution has been the subject of much controversy. In general it may be said that her influence on politics has been much exaggerated. (SeeMarie Antoinette.) [Ed.]
LOUIS XVII.(1785-1795?), titular king of France, second son of Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette, was born at Versailles on the 27th of March 1785, was christened the same day Louis Charles, and given the title of duke of Normandy. Louis Charles became dauphin on the death of his elder brother on the 4th of June 1789. It is only with his incarceration in the Temple on the 13th of August 1792, that his history, apart from that of his parents, becomes of interest. The royal party included, beside the king and queen, their daughter Marie Thérèse Charlotte (Madame Royale), the king’s sister Madame Élisabeth, the valet Cléry and others. The prisoners were lodged at first in the smaller Tower, but were removed to the larger Tower on the 27th of October. Louis Charles was then separated from his mother and aunt to be put in his father’s charge, except for a few hours daily, but was restored to the women when Louis was isolated from his family at the beginning of his trial in December.
On the 21st of January 1793 Louis became, for the royalists, king of France, and a week later the comte de Provence arrogated to himself the title of regent. From that moment began new plots for the escape of the prisoners from the Temple, the chief of which were engineered by the Chevalier de Jarjayes,1the baron de Batz,2and the faithful Lady Atkyns.3On the 3rd of July the little dauphin was again separated from his mother, this time to be given into the keeping of the cobbler Antoine Simon4who had been named his guardian by the Committee of General Security. The tales told by the royalist writers of the barbarous cruelty inflicted by Simon and his wife on the child are not proven. Marie Jeanne, in fact, took great care of the child’s person, and there is documentary evidence to prove that he had air and food. But the Simons were obviously grotesquely unfit guardians for a prince, and they doubtless caused much suffering to the impressionable child, who was made on occasion to eat and drink to excess, and learnt the language of the gutter. But the scenes related by A. de Beauchesne of the physical martyrdom of the child are not supported by any other testimony, though he was at this time seen by a great number of people. On the 6th of October Pache, Chaumette, Hébert and others visited him and secured from him admissions of infamous accusations against his mother, with his signature to a list of her alleged crimes since her entry in the Temple, and next day he was confronted with his sister Marie Thérèse for the last time.
Simon’s wife now fell ill, and on the 19th of January 1794 the Simons left the Temple, after securing a receipt for the safe transfer of their prisoner, who was declared to be in good health. A large part of the Temple records from that time onwards were destroyed under the Restoration, so that exact knowledge of the facts is practically impossible. Two days after the departure of the Simons the prisoner is said by the Restoration historians to have been put in a dark room which was barricaded like the cage of a wild animal. The story runs that food was passed through the bars to the child, who survived in spite of the accumulated filth of his surroundings. Robespierre5visited Marie Thérèse on the 11th of May, but no one, according to the legend, entered the dauphin’s room for six months until Barras visited the prison after the 9th Thermidor (July 27, 1794). Barras’s account of the visit describes the child as suffering from extreme neglect, but conveys no idea of the alleged walling in. It is nevertheless certain that during the first half of 1794 he was very strictly secluded; he had no special guardian, but was under the charge of guards changed from day to day. The child made no complaint to Barras of his treatment, probably because he feared to do so. He was then cleansed and re-clothed, his room cleaned, and during the day he was visited by his new attendant, a creole and a compatriot of Joséphine de Beauharnais, named Jean Jacques Christophe Laurent (1770-1807), who had from the 8th of November onwards assistance for his charge from a man named Gomin. The child was now taken out to walk on the roof of the Tower. From about the time of Gomin’s entrance the prisoner was inspected, not by delegates of the Commune, but by representatives of the civil committee of the 48 sections of Paris. The rare recurrence of the same inspectors would obviously facilitate fraud, if any such were intended. From the end of October onwards the child maintained an obstinate silence, explained by Laurent as a determination taken on the day he made his deposition against his mother. On the 19th of December 1794 he was visited by three commissioners from the Committee of General Security—J. B. Harmand de la Meuse, J. B. C. Mathieu and J. Reverchon—who extracted no word from him. On Laurent’s retirement Étienne Lasne was appointed on the 31st of March 1795 to be the child’s guardian. In May 1795 the prisoner was seriously ill, and a doctor, P. J. Desault, well acquainted with the dauphin, having visited him seven months earlier, was summoned. Desault died suddenly, not without suspicion of poison, on the 1st of June, and it was some days before doctors Pelletan and Dumangin were called. Then it was announced that on the 8th Louis Charles died. Next day an autopsy was held at which it was stated that a child apparently about ten years of age, “which the commissioners told us was the late Louis Capet’s son,” had died of a scrofulous affection of long standing. He was buried on the 10th in the cemetery of Ste Marguerite, but no stone was erected to mark the spot.
The weak parts of this story are the sudden and unexplained departure of the Simons; the subsequent useless cruelty of treating the child like a wild beast and keeping him in a dark room practically out of sight (unless any doubt of his identity was possible), while his sister was in comparative comfort; the cause of death, declared to be of long standing, but in fact developed with such rapidity; the insufficient excuse provided for the child’s muteness under Gomin’s régime (he had answered Barras) and the irregularities in the formalities in attending the death and the funeral, when a simple identification of the body by Marie Thérèse would have prevented any question of resuscitated dauphins. Both Barras and Harmand de la Meuseare said to have given leave for the brother and sister to see each other, but the meeting was never permitted. The argument from the sudden disappearance of persons in a position to know something of the truth is of a less convincing character. It may be noted that the more famous of the persons alleged by partisans of subsequent pretenders to have been hustled out of the world for their connexion with the secret are the empress Joséphine, the due d’Enghien and the duc de Berri.
Immediately on the announcement of the dauphin’s death there arose a rumour that he had escaped. Simien-Despréaux, one of Louis XVIII.’s own authors, stated at a later period (1814) that Louis XVII. was living and that among the signatories of the treaty of April 13th were some who possessed proofs of his existence; and Eckard, one of the mainstays of the official account, left among his unpublished papers a statement that many members of “an assembly of our wise men” obstinately named Louis XVII. as the prince whom their wishes demanded. Unfortunately the removal of the child suited the plans of the comte de Provence (now Louis XVIII. for theémigrés) as well as it suited the revolutionary government, and no serious attempt was made by the royal family to ascertain the truth, though they paid none of the tributes to the memory of the dead king which might reasonably have been expected, had they been convinced of his death. Even his sister wore no mourning for him until she arrived at Vienna and saw that this was expected of her. In spite of the massive literature which has accumulated on the subject, neither his death in the Temple nor his escape therefrom has been definitely established, though a very strong presumption is established in favour of the latter.
Some forty candidates for his honours were forthcoming under the Restoration. The most important of these pretenders were Karl Wilhelm Naundorff and the comte de Richemont. Naundorff’s story rested on a series of complicated intrigues. According to him Barras determined to save the dauphin in order to please Joséphine Beauharnais, the future empress, having conceived the idea of using the dauphin’s existence as a means of dominating the comte de Provence in the event of a restoration. The dauphin was concealed in the fourth storey of the Tower, a wooden figure being substituted for him. Laurent, to protect himself from the consequences of the substitution, replaced the wooden figure by a deaf mute, who was presently exchanged for the scrofulous child of the death certificate. The deaf mute was also concealed in the Temple. It was not the dead child, but the dauphin who left the prison in the coffin, whence he was extracted by his friends on the way to the cemetery. Richemont’s tale that the woman Simon, who was genuinely attached to him, smuggled him out in a basket, is simple and more credible, and does not necessarily invalidate the story of the subsequent operations with the deaf mute and the scrofulous patient, Laurent in that case being deceived from the beginning, but it renders them extremely unlikely. A third pretender, Eleazar Williams, did not affect to know anything of his escape. He possessed, he said, no consciousness of his early years, only emerging from idiocy at the age of thirteen, when he was living with an Indian family in New York State. He was a missionary to the Indians when the prince de Joinville, son of Louis Philippe, met him, and after some conversation asked him to sign a document abdicating his rights in favour of Louis Philippe, in return for which he, the dauphin (alias Eleazar Williams), was to receive the private inheritance which was his. This Eleazar refused to do. The wildness of this tale refutes itself.
Richemont (Henri Ethelbert Louis Victor Hébert) was in prison in Milan for seven years and began to put forward his claims in Paris in 1828. In 1833 he was again arrested, was brought to trial in the following year and was condemned to twelve years’ imprisonment. He escaped after a few months and left the country, to return in 1840. He died at Gleize on the 10th of August 1853, the name of Louis Charles de France being inscribed on his tomb until the government ordered its removal.
Naundorff, or Naündorff, who had arrived from nowhere in Berlin in 1810, with papers giving the name Karl Wilhelm Naundorff, in order to escape the persecutions of which he declared himself the object, settled at Spandau in 1812 as a clockmaker, and married in 1818 Johanna Einert. In 1822 he removed to Brandenburg, and in 1828 to Crossen, near Frankfort. He was imprisoned from 1825 to 1828 for coining, though apparently on insufficient evidence, and in 1833 came to push his claims in Paris, where he was recognized as the dauphin by many persons formerly connected with the court of Louis XVI. Expelled from France in 1836, the day after bringing a suit against the duchess of Angoulême for the restitution of the dauphin’s private property, he lived in exile till his death at Delft on the 10th of August 1845, and his tomb was inscribed “Louis XVII., roi de France et de Navarre (Charles Louis, duc de Normandie).” The Dutch authorities who had inscribed on his death certificate the name of Charles Louis de Bourbon, duc de Normandie (Louis XVII.) permitted his son to bear the name de Bourbon, and when the family appealed in 1850-1851, and again in 1874, for the restitution of their civil rights as heirs of Louis XVI. no less an advocate than Jules Favre pleaded their cause. Of all the pretenders Naundorff has the best case. He was certainly not the Jew of Prussian Poland which his enemies declared him to be, and he has to this day a circle of devoted adherents. Since he was sincerely convinced of his own rights, it is surprising that he put forward no claim in 1814.
If the dauphin did escape, it seems probable that he perished shortly afterwards or lived in a safe obscurity. The account of the substitution in the Temple is well substantiated, even to the names of the substitutes. The curious imbroglio deceived royalists and republicans alike. Lady Atkyns was trying by every possible means to get the dauphin out of his prison when he was apparently already in safe hands, if not outside the Temple walls. A child was in fact delivered to her agents, but he was a deaf mute. That there was fraud, and complicated fraud, in the guardians of the dauphin may be taken as proved by a succession of writers from 1850 onwards, and more recently by Frédéric Barbey, who wisely attempts no ultimate solution. When the partisans of Richemont or Naundorff come to the post-Temple careers of their heroes, they become in most cases so uncritical as to be unconvincing.
The official version of the dauphin’s history as accepted under the Restoration was drawn up by Simien Despréaux in his uncriticalLouis XVII.(1817), and is found, fortified by documents, in M. Eckard’sMémoires historiques sur Louis XVII. (1817) and in A. de Beauchesne’sLouis XVII., sa vie, son agonie, sa mort. Captivité de la famille royale au Temple(2 vols., 1852, and many subsequent editions), containing copies of original documents, and essential to the study of the question, although its sentimental pictures of the boy martyr can no longer be accepted. L. de la Sicotière, “Les faux Louis XVII.,” inRevue des questions historiques(vol. xxxii., 1882), deals with the pretenders Jean Marie Hervagault, Mathurin Bruneau and the rest; see also Dr Cabanes,Les Morts mystérieuses de l’histoire(1901), and revised catalogue of the J. Sanford Saltus collection of Louis XVII. books (New York, 1908). Catherine Welch, inThe Little Dauphin(1908) gives a résumé of the various sides of the question.Madame Royale’s own account of the captivity of the Temple was first printed with additions and suppressions in 1817, and often subsequently, the best edition being that from her autograph text by G. Lenôtre,La Fille de Louis XVI., Marie Thérèse Charlotte de France, duchesse d’Angoulême, le Temple, l’échange, l’exil(1907). There are two collections of writings on the subject:Marie Thérèse de France, compiled (1852) by the marquis de Pastoret, and comprising beside the memoir written by Marie Thérèse herself, articles by M. de Montbel, Sainte-Beuve, J. Lemoine, La Guéronnière and extracts from Joseph Weber’s memoirs; andMémoires de Marie Thérèse duchesse d’Angoulême, comprising extracts from the narratives of Charles Goret (Mon Témoignage, 1852), of C. F. Beaulieu (Mémoire adressée à la nation, 1795), of L. G. Michaud (Opinion d’un Français, 1795) and of Mme de Tourzel (Mémoires1883). Cf. A. Lanne,La Sœur de Louis XVII., and the articles on “Madame Royale,” on the “Captivité de la famille royale au Temple” and on the “Mise en liberté de Madame” in M. Tourneux’sBibliographie de l’histoire de Paris pendant la révolution française(vol. iv., 1906, and vol. i., 1890).Naündorff.—For the case of Naündorff see his own narrative,Abrégé de l’histoire des infortunes du Dauphin(London, 1836; Eng. trans., 1838); also Modeste Gruau de la Barre,Intriguesdévoilées ou Louis XVII.... (3 vols., Rotterdam, 1846-1848); O. Friedrichs,Correspondance intime et inédite de Louis XVII.(Naündorff) 1834-1838 (2 vols., 1904);Plaidoirie de Jules Favre devant la cour d’appel de Paris pour les héritiers de feu Charles-Guillaume Naündorff(1874); H. Provins,Le Dernier roi légitime de France(2 vols., the first of which consists of destructive criticism of Beauchesne and his followers, 1889); A. Lanne, “Louis XVII. et le secret de la Révolution,”Bulletin mensuel(1893 et seq.) of the Société des études sur la question Louis XVII., alsoLa Légitimité(Bordeaux, Toulouse, 1883-1898). See further the article “Naündorff” in M. Tourneux,Bibl. de la ville de Paris pendant la Révolution, vol. iv. (1906).Williams.—J. H. Hanson,The Lost Prince: Facts tending to prove the Identity of Louis XVII. of France and the Rev. Eleazer Williams(London and New York, 1854).De Richemont.—Mémoires du duc de Normandie, fils de Louis XVI., écrits et publiés par lui-même(Paris, 1831), compiled, according to Quérard, by E. T. Bourg, called Saint Edme; Morin de Guérivière,Quelques souvenirs... (Paris, 1832); and J. Suvigny,La Restauration convaincue ... ou preuves de l’existence du fils de Louis XVI.(Paris, 1851).The widespread interest taken in Louis XVII. is shown by the fact that since 1905 a monthly periodical has appeared in Paris on this subject, entitledRevue historique de la question Louis XVII., also by the promised examination of the subject by the Société d’Histoire contemporaine.
The official version of the dauphin’s history as accepted under the Restoration was drawn up by Simien Despréaux in his uncriticalLouis XVII.(1817), and is found, fortified by documents, in M. Eckard’sMémoires historiques sur Louis XVII. (1817) and in A. de Beauchesne’sLouis XVII., sa vie, son agonie, sa mort. Captivité de la famille royale au Temple(2 vols., 1852, and many subsequent editions), containing copies of original documents, and essential to the study of the question, although its sentimental pictures of the boy martyr can no longer be accepted. L. de la Sicotière, “Les faux Louis XVII.,” inRevue des questions historiques(vol. xxxii., 1882), deals with the pretenders Jean Marie Hervagault, Mathurin Bruneau and the rest; see also Dr Cabanes,Les Morts mystérieuses de l’histoire(1901), and revised catalogue of the J. Sanford Saltus collection of Louis XVII. books (New York, 1908). Catherine Welch, inThe Little Dauphin(1908) gives a résumé of the various sides of the question.
Madame Royale’s own account of the captivity of the Temple was first printed with additions and suppressions in 1817, and often subsequently, the best edition being that from her autograph text by G. Lenôtre,La Fille de Louis XVI., Marie Thérèse Charlotte de France, duchesse d’Angoulême, le Temple, l’échange, l’exil(1907). There are two collections of writings on the subject:Marie Thérèse de France, compiled (1852) by the marquis de Pastoret, and comprising beside the memoir written by Marie Thérèse herself, articles by M. de Montbel, Sainte-Beuve, J. Lemoine, La Guéronnière and extracts from Joseph Weber’s memoirs; andMémoires de Marie Thérèse duchesse d’Angoulême, comprising extracts from the narratives of Charles Goret (Mon Témoignage, 1852), of C. F. Beaulieu (Mémoire adressée à la nation, 1795), of L. G. Michaud (Opinion d’un Français, 1795) and of Mme de Tourzel (Mémoires1883). Cf. A. Lanne,La Sœur de Louis XVII., and the articles on “Madame Royale,” on the “Captivité de la famille royale au Temple” and on the “Mise en liberté de Madame” in M. Tourneux’sBibliographie de l’histoire de Paris pendant la révolution française(vol. iv., 1906, and vol. i., 1890).
Naündorff.—For the case of Naündorff see his own narrative,Abrégé de l’histoire des infortunes du Dauphin(London, 1836; Eng. trans., 1838); also Modeste Gruau de la Barre,Intriguesdévoilées ou Louis XVII.... (3 vols., Rotterdam, 1846-1848); O. Friedrichs,Correspondance intime et inédite de Louis XVII.(Naündorff) 1834-1838 (2 vols., 1904);Plaidoirie de Jules Favre devant la cour d’appel de Paris pour les héritiers de feu Charles-Guillaume Naündorff(1874); H. Provins,Le Dernier roi légitime de France(2 vols., the first of which consists of destructive criticism of Beauchesne and his followers, 1889); A. Lanne, “Louis XVII. et le secret de la Révolution,”Bulletin mensuel(1893 et seq.) of the Société des études sur la question Louis XVII., alsoLa Légitimité(Bordeaux, Toulouse, 1883-1898). See further the article “Naündorff” in M. Tourneux,Bibl. de la ville de Paris pendant la Révolution, vol. iv. (1906).
Williams.—J. H. Hanson,The Lost Prince: Facts tending to prove the Identity of Louis XVII. of France and the Rev. Eleazer Williams(London and New York, 1854).
De Richemont.—Mémoires du duc de Normandie, fils de Louis XVI., écrits et publiés par lui-même(Paris, 1831), compiled, according to Quérard, by E. T. Bourg, called Saint Edme; Morin de Guérivière,Quelques souvenirs... (Paris, 1832); and J. Suvigny,La Restauration convaincue ... ou preuves de l’existence du fils de Louis XVI.(Paris, 1851).
The widespread interest taken in Louis XVII. is shown by the fact that since 1905 a monthly periodical has appeared in Paris on this subject, entitledRevue historique de la question Louis XVII., also by the promised examination of the subject by the Société d’Histoire contemporaine.
(M. Br.)
1F. A. Regnier de Jarjayes (1745-1822). See P. Gaulot,Un Complot sous la Terreur.2Jean, baron de Batz (1761-1822), attempted to carry off the dauphin in 1794. See G. Lenôtre,Un Conspirateur royaliste pendant la Terreur, le baron de Batz(1896).3Charlotte Walpole (c.1785-1836), an English actress who married in 1779 Sir Edward Atkyns, and spent most of her life in France. She expended large sums in trying to secure the escape of the prisoners of the Temple. See F. Barbey,A Friend of Marie Antoinette(Eng. ed. 1906).4Antoine Simon (1736-1794) married Marie Jeanne Aladame, and belonged to the section of the Cordeliers. They owed their position to Anaxagoras Chaumette, procureur of the Commune, and to the fact that Simon had prevented one of the attempts of the baron de Batz. Simon was sent to the guillotine with Robespierre in 1794, and two years later Marie Jeanne entered a hospital for incurables in the rue de Sèvres, where she constantly affirmed the dauphin’s escape. She was secretly visited after the Restoration by the duchess of Angoulême. On the 16th of November 1816, she was interrogated by the police, who frightened her into silence about the supposed substitution of another child for the dauphin. She died in 1819. See G. Lenôtre,Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers(2nd series, 1903).5In a bulletin dated May 17-24, Paris, and enclosed by Francis Drake (June 17, 1794) at Milan to Lord Grenville, it is stated (Hist. MSS. Comm. Fortescue Papers at Dropmore, vol. ii. 576-577) that Robespierre in the night of 23-24 May fetched the king (the dauphin) from the Temple and took him to Meudon. “The fact is certain, although only known to the Committee of Public Safety. It is said to be ascertained that he was brought back to the Temple the night of 24-25th, and that this was a test to assure the ease of seizing him.” This police report at least serves to show the kind of rumour then current.
1F. A. Regnier de Jarjayes (1745-1822). See P. Gaulot,Un Complot sous la Terreur.
2Jean, baron de Batz (1761-1822), attempted to carry off the dauphin in 1794. See G. Lenôtre,Un Conspirateur royaliste pendant la Terreur, le baron de Batz(1896).
3Charlotte Walpole (c.1785-1836), an English actress who married in 1779 Sir Edward Atkyns, and spent most of her life in France. She expended large sums in trying to secure the escape of the prisoners of the Temple. See F. Barbey,A Friend of Marie Antoinette(Eng. ed. 1906).
4Antoine Simon (1736-1794) married Marie Jeanne Aladame, and belonged to the section of the Cordeliers. They owed their position to Anaxagoras Chaumette, procureur of the Commune, and to the fact that Simon had prevented one of the attempts of the baron de Batz. Simon was sent to the guillotine with Robespierre in 1794, and two years later Marie Jeanne entered a hospital for incurables in the rue de Sèvres, where she constantly affirmed the dauphin’s escape. She was secretly visited after the Restoration by the duchess of Angoulême. On the 16th of November 1816, she was interrogated by the police, who frightened her into silence about the supposed substitution of another child for the dauphin. She died in 1819. See G. Lenôtre,Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers(2nd series, 1903).
5In a bulletin dated May 17-24, Paris, and enclosed by Francis Drake (June 17, 1794) at Milan to Lord Grenville, it is stated (Hist. MSS. Comm. Fortescue Papers at Dropmore, vol. ii. 576-577) that Robespierre in the night of 23-24 May fetched the king (the dauphin) from the Temple and took him to Meudon. “The fact is certain, although only known to the Committee of Public Safety. It is said to be ascertained that he was brought back to the Temple the night of 24-25th, and that this was a test to assure the ease of seizing him.” This police report at least serves to show the kind of rumour then current.
LOUIS XVIII.(Louis le Désiré) (1755-1824). Louis-Stanislas-Xavier, comte de Provence, third son of the dauphin Louis, son of Louis XV., and of Maria Josepha of Saxony, was born at Versailles on the 17th of November 1755. His education was supervised by the devout duc de la Vauguyon, but his own taste was for the writings of Voltaire and the encyclopaedists. On the 14th of May 1771 took place his marriage with Louise-Marie-Joséphine of Savoy, by whom he had no children. His position at court was uncomfortable, for though ambitious and conscious of possessing greater abilities than his brother (Louis XVI.), his scope for action was restricted; he consequently devoted his energies largely to intrigue, especially against Marie Antoinette, whom he hated.1During the long absence of heirs to Louis XVI., “Monsieur,” as heir to the throne, courted popularity and took an active part in politics, but the birth of a dauphin (1781) was a blow to his ambitions.2He opposed the revival of theparlements, wrote a number of political pamphlets,3and at the Assembly of Notables presided, like the other princes of the blood, over a bureau, to which was given the name of theComité des sages; he also advocated the double representation of thetiers. At the same time he cultivated literature, entertaining poets and writers both at the Luxembourg and at his château of Brunoy (see Dubois-Corneau,Le Comte de Provence à Brunoy, 1909), and gaining a reputation for wit by his verses andmotsin the salon of the charming and witty comtesse de Balbi, one of Madame’s ladies, who had become his mistress,4and till 1793 exerted considerable influence over him. He did not emigrate after the taking of the Bastille, but, possibly from motives of ambition, remained in Paris. Mirabeau thought at one time of making him chief minister in his projected constitutional government (seeCorr. de Mirabeau et La Marck, ed. Bacourt, i. 434, 436, 442), but was disappointed by his caution and timidity. Theaffaire Favras(Dec. 1789) aroused great feeling against Monsieur, who was believed by many to have conspired with Favras, only to abandon him (see Lafayette’sMems.andCorr. of Mirabeau). In June 1791, at the time of the flight to Varennes, Monsieur also fled by a different route, and, in company with the comte d’Avaray5—who subsequently replaced Mme de Balbi as his confidant, and largely influenced his policy during the emigration—succeeded in reaching Brussels, where he joined the comte d’Artois and proceeded to Coblenz, which now became the headquarters of the emigration.
Here, living in royal state, he put himself at the head of the counter-revolutionary movement, appointing ambassadors, soliciting the aid of the European sovereigns, and especially of Catherine II. of Russia. Out of touch with affairs in France and surrounded by violent anti-revolutionists, headed by Calonne and the comte d’Artois, he followed an entirely selfish policy, flouting the National Assembly (see his reply to the summons of the National Assembly, in Daudet,op. cit.i. 96), issuing uncompromising manifestoes (Sept. 1791, Aug. 1792, &c.), and obstructing in every way the representatives of the king and queen.6After Valmy he had to retire to Hamm in Westphalia, where, on the death of Louis XVI., he proclaimed himself regent; from here he went south, with the idea of encouraging the royalist feeling in the south of France, and settled at Verona, where on the death of Louis XVII. (8th of June 1795) he took the title of Louis XVIII. At this time ended hisliaisonwith Mme de Balbi, and the influence of d’Avaray reached its height. From this time onward his life is a record of constant wanderings, negotiations and conspiracies. In April 1796 he joined Condé’s army on the German frontier, but was shortly requested to leave the country, and accepted the hospitality of the duke of Brunswick at Blanckenberg till 1797, when, this refuge being no longer open to him, the emperor Paul I. permitted him to settle at Mittau in Courland, where he stayed till 1801. All this time he was in close communication with the royalists in France, but was much embarrassed by the conflicting policy pursued by the comte d’Artois from England, and was largely at the mercy of corrupt and dishonest agents.7At Mittau was realized his cherished plan of marrying Madame Royale, daughter of Louis XVI., to the duc d’Angoulême, elder son of the comte d’Artois. From Mittau, too, was sent his well-known letter to Bonaparte (1799) calling upon him to play the part of Monk, a proposal contemptuously refused (E. Daudet,Hist. de l’émigration, ii. 371, 436), though Louis in turn declined to accept a pension from Bonaparte, and later, in 1803, though his fortunes were at their lowest ebb, refused to abdicate at his suggestion and accept an indemnity.
Suddenly expelled from Mittau in 1801 by the capricious Paul I., Louis made his way, in the depth of winter, to Warsaw, where he stayed for three years. All this time he was trying to convert France to the royalist cause, and had a “conseil royal” in Paris, founded at the end of 1799 by Royer-Collard, Montesquiou and Clermont-Gallerande, the actions of which were much impeded by the activity of the rival committee of the comte d’Artois (see E. Daudet,op. cit.ii., and Remâcle,Bonaparte et les Bourbons, Paris, 1899), but after 1800, and still more after the failure of the royalist conspiracy of Cadoudal, Pichegru and Moreau, followed by the execution of the duc d’Enghien (March 1804), and the assumption by Napoleon of the title of emperor (May 1804), the royalist cause appeared quite hopeless. In September 1804 Louis met the comte d’Artois at Calmar in Sweden, and they issued a protest against Napoleon’s action, but being warned that he must not return to Poland, he gained permission from Alexander I. again to retire to Mittau. After Tilsit, however (1807), he was again forced to depart, and took refuge in England, where he stayed first at Gosfield in Essex, and afterwards (1809 onwards) at Hartwell in Buckinghamshire.In 1810 his wife died, and in 1811 d’Avaray died, his place as favourite being taken by the comte de Blacas.8After Napoleon’s defeats in 1813 the hopes of the royalists revived, and Louis issued a fresh manifesto, in which he promised to recognize the results of the Revolution. Negotiations were also opened with Bernadotte, who seemed willing to support his cause, but was really playing for his own hand.
In March 1814 the Allies entered Paris, and thanks to Talleyrand’s negotiations the restoration of the Bourbons was effected, Louis XVIII. entering Paris on the 2nd of May 1814, after issuing the declaration of St Ouen, in which he promised to grant the nation a constitution (octroyer une charte). He was now nearly sixty, wearied by adversity, and a sufferer from gout and obesity. But though clear-sighted, widely read and a good diplomatist, his impressionable and sentimental nature made him too subject to personal and family influences. His concessions to the reactionary and clerical party of theémigrés, headed by the comte d’Artois and the duchesse d’Angoulême, aroused suspicions of his loyalty to the constitution, the creation of hisMaison militairealienated the army, and the constant presence of Blacas made the formation of a united ministry impossible. After the Hundred Days, during which the king was forced to flee to Ghent, the dismissal of Blacas was made one of the conditions of his second restoration. On the 8th of July he again entered Paris, “in the baggage train of the allied armies,” as his enemies said, but in spite of this was received with the greatest enthusiasm9by a people weary of wars and looking for constitutional government. He was forced to retain Talleyrand and Fouché in his first ministry, but took the first opportunity of ridding himself of them when the elections of 1815 assured him of a strong royalist majority in the chamber (thechambre introuvable, a name given it by Louis himself). At this time he came into contact with the young comte (afterwards duc) Decazes, prefect of the police under Fouché, and minister of police in Richelieu’s ministry, who now became his favourite and gained his entire confidence (see E. Daudet,Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes). Having obtained a ministry in which he could trust, having as members the duc de Richelieu and Decazes, the king now gave it his loyal support and did his best to shield his ministers from the attacks of the royal family. In September 1816, alarmed at the violence of thechambre introuvable, he was persuaded to dissolve it. An attempt on the part of the Ultras to regain their ascendancy over the king, by conniving at the sudden return of Blacas from Rome to Paris,10ended in failure.
The events and ministerial changes of Louis XVIII.’s reign are described under the articleFrance:History, but it may be said here that the king’s policy throughout was one of prudence and common sense. His position was more passive than active, and consisted in giving his support as far as possible to the ministry of the day. While Decazes was still in power, the king’s policy to a large extent followed his, and was rather liberal and moderate, but after the assassination of the duc de Berry (1820), when he saw that Decazes could no longer carry on the government, he sorrowfully acquiesced in his departure, showered honours upon him, and transferred his support to Richelieu, the head of the new ministry. In the absence of Decazes a new favourite was found to amuse the king’s old age, Madame du Cayla (Zoé Talon, comtesse du Cayla), a protégée of the vicomte Sosthène de la Rochefoucauld and consequently a creature of the Ultras. As the king became more and more infirm, his power of resistance to the intrigues of the Ultras became weaker. The birth of a posthumous son to the duc de Berry (Sept. 1820), the death of Napoleon (5th of May 1821) and the resignation of Richelieu left him entirely in their hands, and after Villèle had formed a ministry of a royalist character the comte d’Artois was associated with the government, which passed more and more out of the king’s hands. He died on the 16th of September 1824, worn out in body, but still retaining flashes of his former clear insight and scepticism. The character of Louis XVIII. may be summed up in the words of Bonaparte, quoted by Sorel (L’Europe et la Rév. fr.viii. 416 footnote), “C’est Louis XVI. avec moins de franchise et plus d’esprit.” He had all the Bourbon characteristics, especially their love of power, combined with a certain nobility of demeanour, and a consciousness of his dignity as king. But his nature was cold, unsympathetic and calculating, combined with a talent for intrigue, to which was added an excellent memory and a ready wit. An interesting judgment of him is contained inQueen Victoria’s Letters, vol. i., in a letter of Leopold I., king of the Belgians, to the queen before her accession, dated the 18th of November 1836, “Poor Charles X. is dead.... History will state that Louis XVIII. was a most liberal monarch, reigning with great mildness and justice to his end, but that his brother, from his despotic and harsh disposition, upset all the other had done and lost the throne. Louis XVIII. was a clever, hard-hearted man, shackled by no principle, very proud and false. Charles X. an honest man, a kind friend,” &c. &c. This seems fairly just as a personal estimate, though it does not do justice to their respective political rôles.
Bibliography.—There is no trustworthy or complete edition of the writings and correspondence of Louis XVIII. TheMémoires de Louis XVIII. recueillis et mis en ordre par M. le duc de D. ...(12 vols., Paris, 1832-1833) are compiled by Lamothe-Langon, a well-known compiler of more or less apocryphal memoirs. From the hand of Louis XVIII. are:Relation d’un voyage à Bruxelles et à Coblentz, 1791 (Paris, 1823, with dedication to d’Avaray); andJournal de Marie-Thérèse de France, duchesse d’Angoulême, corrigé et annoté par Louis XVIII., ed. Imbert de St Amand (Paris, 1896). Some of his letters are contained in collections, such asLettres d’Artwell; correspondance politique et privée de Louis XVIII., roi de France(Paris, 1830; letters addressed to d’Avaray);Lettres et instructions de Louis XVIII. au comte de Saint-Priest, ed. Barante (Paris, 1845);Talleyrand et Louis XVIII., corr. pendant le congrès de Vienne, 1814-1815, ed. Pallain (1881; trans., 2 vols., 1881); see also the corr. of Castlereagh, Metternich, J. de Maistre, the Wellington Dispatches, &c., and such collections asCorr. diplomatique de Pozzo di Borgo avec le comte de Nesselrode(2 vols., 1890-1897), the correspondence of C. de Rémusat, Villèle, &c. The works of E. Daudet are of the greatest importance, and based on original documents; the chief are:La Terreur Blanche(Paris, 1878);Hist. de la restauration 1814-1830(1882);Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes(1899);Hist. de l’émigration, in three studies: (i.)Les Bourbons et la Russie(1886), (ii.)Les Émigrés et la seconde coalition(1886), (iii.)Coblenz, 1789-1793 (1890). Developed from these with the addition of much further material is hisHist. de l’émigration(3 vols., 1904-1907). Also based on original documents is E. Romberg and A. Malet,Louis XVIII. et les cent-jours à Gand(1898). See also G. Stenger,Le Retour des Bourbons(1908); Cte. L. de Remâcle,Bonaparte et les Bourbons. Relations secrèts des agents du cte. de Provence sous le consulat(Paris, 1899). For various episodes, see Vicomte de Reiset,La Comtesse de Balbi(Paris, 1908; contains a long bibliography, chiefly of memoirs concerning the emigration, and is based on documents); J. B. H. R. Capefigue,La Comtesse du Cayla(Paris, 1866); J. Turquan,Les Favorites de Louis XVIII.(Paris, 1900); see also the chief memoirs of the period, such as those of Talleyrand, Chateaubriand, Guizot, duc de Broglie, Villèle, Vitrolles, Pasquier, the comtesse de Boigne (ed. Nicoullaud, Paris, 1907), the Vicomte L. F. Sosthène de la Rochefoucauld (15 vols., Paris, 1861-1864); and the writings of Benjamin Constant, Chateaubriand, &c.General Works.—See the histories of France, the Emigration, the Restoration and especially the very full bibliographies to chapters i., ii. and iii. ofCambridge Modern History, and Lavisse and Rambaud,Hist. générale, vol. x.
Bibliography.—There is no trustworthy or complete edition of the writings and correspondence of Louis XVIII. TheMémoires de Louis XVIII. recueillis et mis en ordre par M. le duc de D. ...(12 vols., Paris, 1832-1833) are compiled by Lamothe-Langon, a well-known compiler of more or less apocryphal memoirs. From the hand of Louis XVIII. are:Relation d’un voyage à Bruxelles et à Coblentz, 1791 (Paris, 1823, with dedication to d’Avaray); andJournal de Marie-Thérèse de France, duchesse d’Angoulême, corrigé et annoté par Louis XVIII., ed. Imbert de St Amand (Paris, 1896). Some of his letters are contained in collections, such asLettres d’Artwell; correspondance politique et privée de Louis XVIII., roi de France(Paris, 1830; letters addressed to d’Avaray);Lettres et instructions de Louis XVIII. au comte de Saint-Priest, ed. Barante (Paris, 1845);Talleyrand et Louis XVIII., corr. pendant le congrès de Vienne, 1814-1815, ed. Pallain (1881; trans., 2 vols., 1881); see also the corr. of Castlereagh, Metternich, J. de Maistre, the Wellington Dispatches, &c., and such collections asCorr. diplomatique de Pozzo di Borgo avec le comte de Nesselrode(2 vols., 1890-1897), the correspondence of C. de Rémusat, Villèle, &c. The works of E. Daudet are of the greatest importance, and based on original documents; the chief are:La Terreur Blanche(Paris, 1878);Hist. de la restauration 1814-1830(1882);Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes(1899);Hist. de l’émigration, in three studies: (i.)Les Bourbons et la Russie(1886), (ii.)Les Émigrés et la seconde coalition(1886), (iii.)Coblenz, 1789-1793 (1890). Developed from these with the addition of much further material is hisHist. de l’émigration(3 vols., 1904-1907). Also based on original documents is E. Romberg and A. Malet,Louis XVIII. et les cent-jours à Gand(1898). See also G. Stenger,Le Retour des Bourbons(1908); Cte. L. de Remâcle,Bonaparte et les Bourbons. Relations secrèts des agents du cte. de Provence sous le consulat(Paris, 1899). For various episodes, see Vicomte de Reiset,La Comtesse de Balbi(Paris, 1908; contains a long bibliography, chiefly of memoirs concerning the emigration, and is based on documents); J. B. H. R. Capefigue,La Comtesse du Cayla(Paris, 1866); J. Turquan,Les Favorites de Louis XVIII.(Paris, 1900); see also the chief memoirs of the period, such as those of Talleyrand, Chateaubriand, Guizot, duc de Broglie, Villèle, Vitrolles, Pasquier, the comtesse de Boigne (ed. Nicoullaud, Paris, 1907), the Vicomte L. F. Sosthène de la Rochefoucauld (15 vols., Paris, 1861-1864); and the writings of Benjamin Constant, Chateaubriand, &c.
General Works.—See the histories of France, the Emigration, the Restoration and especially the very full bibliographies to chapters i., ii. and iii. ofCambridge Modern History, and Lavisse and Rambaud,Hist. générale, vol. x.
(C. B. P.)
1See Arneth and Geffroy,Corr. de Marie-Thérèse avec le comte de Mercy-Argenteau, vol. i., “Mercy to Maria Theresa, June 22nd, 1771,” also i. 261, ii. 186, 352, 393. Marie Antoinette says (ii. 393): “... à un caractère très faible, il joint une marche souterraine, et quelquefois très basse.”2See his letters to Gustavus III. of Sweden in A. Geffroy,Gustave III et la cour de France, vol. ii. appendix.3Two pamphlets at least are ascribed to him: “Les Mannequins, conte ou histoire, comme l’on voudra” (against Turgot; anon., Paris, 1776) and “Description historique d’un monstre symbolique pris vivant sur les bords du lac Fagua, près de Santa-Fé, par les soins de Francisco Xaveiro de Neunris” (against Calonne; Paris, 1784) (A. Debidour inLa Grande Encyclopédie).4It has frequently been alleged that his relations with Mme de Balbi, and indeed with women generally, were of a platonic nature. De Reiset (La Comtesse de Balbi, pp. 152-161) produces evidence to disprove this assertion.5Antoine-Louis-François de Bésiade, comte, afterwards duc, d’Avaray. In spite of his loyalty and devotion, the effect of his influence on Louis XVIII. may be gathered from a letter of J. de Maistre to Blacas, quoted by E. Daudet,Hist. de l’émigration, ii. 11: “celui qui n’a pu dans aucun pays aborder aucun homme politique sans l’aliéner n’est pas fait pour les affaires.”6See Klinckowström,Le Comte de Fersen et la cour de France. Fersen says (i. 7), “Monsieur ferait mieux seul, mais il est entièrement subjugué par l’autre” (i.e.the comte d’Artois, who was in turn under the influence of Calonne). See Daudet,op. cit.vol. i.7See E. Daudet,La Conjuration de Pichegru(Paris, 1901).8Pierre-Louis-Casimir, comte (afterwards duc) de Blacas d’Aulps, was as rigidly royalist as d’Avaray, but more able. E. Daudet,Hist. de l’émigration, i. 458, quotes a judgment of him by J. de Maistre: “Il est né homme d état et ambassadeur.”9See account by Decazes in E. Daudet,Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes, pp. 48-49, and an interesting “secret and confidential” letter of Castlereagh to Liverpool (July 8, 1815) in the unpublished Foreign Office records: “The king sent for the duke and me this evening to the Thuilleries.... We found him in a state of great emotion and exaltation at the reception he had met with from his subjects, which appears to have been even more animated than on his former entrance. Indeed, during the long audience to which we were admitted, it was almost impossible to converse, so loud were the shouts of the people in the Thuilleries Gardens, which were full, though it was then dark. Previous to the king’s dismissing us, he carried the duke and me to the open window. Candles were then brought, which enabled the people to see the king with the duke by his side. They ran from all parts of the Gardens, and formed a solid mass of an immense extent, rending the air with acclamations. The town is very generally illuminated, and I understand from men who have traversed the principal streets that every demonstration of joy was manifested by the inhabitants.”10It is as yet not proved that Blacas returned from his embassy in response to a summons from the Ultras. But whether it was on his own initiative or not, there can be no doubt as to the hopes which they built on his arrival (see Daudet,Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes).
1See Arneth and Geffroy,Corr. de Marie-Thérèse avec le comte de Mercy-Argenteau, vol. i., “Mercy to Maria Theresa, June 22nd, 1771,” also i. 261, ii. 186, 352, 393. Marie Antoinette says (ii. 393): “... à un caractère très faible, il joint une marche souterraine, et quelquefois très basse.”
2See his letters to Gustavus III. of Sweden in A. Geffroy,Gustave III et la cour de France, vol. ii. appendix.
3Two pamphlets at least are ascribed to him: “Les Mannequins, conte ou histoire, comme l’on voudra” (against Turgot; anon., Paris, 1776) and “Description historique d’un monstre symbolique pris vivant sur les bords du lac Fagua, près de Santa-Fé, par les soins de Francisco Xaveiro de Neunris” (against Calonne; Paris, 1784) (A. Debidour inLa Grande Encyclopédie).
4It has frequently been alleged that his relations with Mme de Balbi, and indeed with women generally, were of a platonic nature. De Reiset (La Comtesse de Balbi, pp. 152-161) produces evidence to disprove this assertion.
5Antoine-Louis-François de Bésiade, comte, afterwards duc, d’Avaray. In spite of his loyalty and devotion, the effect of his influence on Louis XVIII. may be gathered from a letter of J. de Maistre to Blacas, quoted by E. Daudet,Hist. de l’émigration, ii. 11: “celui qui n’a pu dans aucun pays aborder aucun homme politique sans l’aliéner n’est pas fait pour les affaires.”
6See Klinckowström,Le Comte de Fersen et la cour de France. Fersen says (i. 7), “Monsieur ferait mieux seul, mais il est entièrement subjugué par l’autre” (i.e.the comte d’Artois, who was in turn under the influence of Calonne). See Daudet,op. cit.vol. i.
7See E. Daudet,La Conjuration de Pichegru(Paris, 1901).
8Pierre-Louis-Casimir, comte (afterwards duc) de Blacas d’Aulps, was as rigidly royalist as d’Avaray, but more able. E. Daudet,Hist. de l’émigration, i. 458, quotes a judgment of him by J. de Maistre: “Il est né homme d état et ambassadeur.”
9See account by Decazes in E. Daudet,Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes, pp. 48-49, and an interesting “secret and confidential” letter of Castlereagh to Liverpool (July 8, 1815) in the unpublished Foreign Office records: “The king sent for the duke and me this evening to the Thuilleries.... We found him in a state of great emotion and exaltation at the reception he had met with from his subjects, which appears to have been even more animated than on his former entrance. Indeed, during the long audience to which we were admitted, it was almost impossible to converse, so loud were the shouts of the people in the Thuilleries Gardens, which were full, though it was then dark. Previous to the king’s dismissing us, he carried the duke and me to the open window. Candles were then brought, which enabled the people to see the king with the duke by his side. They ran from all parts of the Gardens, and formed a solid mass of an immense extent, rending the air with acclamations. The town is very generally illuminated, and I understand from men who have traversed the principal streets that every demonstration of joy was manifested by the inhabitants.”
10It is as yet not proved that Blacas returned from his embassy in response to a summons from the Ultras. But whether it was on his own initiative or not, there can be no doubt as to the hopes which they built on his arrival (see Daudet,Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes).