CHAPTER VI.

The Count de Vermandois—His Portrait—Mademoiselle de la Vallière, his Mother—Anecdote from theMémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse—Father Griffet adopts its Conclusions—Arguments that he advances—Motives which render certain of Mademoiselle de Montpensier’s Appreciations suspicious—Improbability of the Story in theMémoires de Perse—Illness of the Count de Vermandois—Reality of his Death attested by the most authentic Despatches—Magnificence of his Obsequies—Pious Endowments at Arras.

Those whose minds are naturally inclined to the romantic, but whom even a superficial examination of the question of the Man with the Iron Mask has determined to put the hypothesis which makes him a son of Anne of Austria, on one side,[117]willingly see in him the Count de Vermandois,natural son of Louis XIV. and Mademoiselle de la Vallière. This opinion is a kind of compromise between the impossibility of accepting an imaginary being for hero, and the desire of seeing in the mysterious prisoner a very high personage. After having sacrificed to truth this unfortunate brother of Louis XIV., called to the throne by his origin, and kept away from it by a perpetual detention, they take refuge in an intermediary system, undoubtedly less tempting, but of which the attraction is still very exciting, and which, in a certain degree, reconciles the exigencies of truth with the taste for the romantic.

It is no longer the question of a prince of whose very birth we are ignorant. The present one actually existed, and such interest as he inspires from the moment he comes into the world he owes to her who gave him birth. He is the son of that La Vallière, equally touching in her heroic resistance to the inclination which impels her towards Louis XIV., and in her yielding, whom one esteems even when she succumbs, and whom one admires when she rises again to flee from the peril; who, long virtuous, always upright and disinterested, lives entirely absorbed in her passion, then takes refuge in penitence, and powerful without having desired it; ignorant or careless of her influence, strong in her very weakness, subjugates without art and without study the most imperious of kings; who, after having charmed all her contemporaries by her sweet and simple grace, and passed from the torments of a love unceasingly combated to the voluntary rigours of an expiation courageously submitted to for thirty years, has remained the most pleasing and most interesting character of this great reign, and will seduce even the most remote posterity.

Louis de Bourbon, Count de Vermandois, inherited his mother’s grace. He was tall and well made, and, like her, instinctively possessed that gift of pleasing which is never so engaging as when all about it is natural and nothing appears to depend upon art. Good and liberal, he had ways of obliging that were peculiar to himself,[118]and themost sensitive of men could not feel offended at his kindnesses. With such as these, when he wished to aid them, he made bets which he was certain to lose, or he sent them money by a hand which remained unknown. He was suspected of acts of generosity, which he never acknowledged himself the author of, and those whom he obliged had their necessities relieved without being required to testify their gratitude. His proud bearing and the air of supreme distinction which he inherited from his royal father, drew attention towards him still more than his high origin. To these outward charms, to these sentiments of exquisite delicacy and natural kindliness, which attached to him the soldier as much as the officer, Vermandois united a ready wit, a well-proved courage, a lively wish to distinguish himself, and to merit by splendid achievements the high dignity[119]to which, at the age of two years, he had been raised by the affection and pride of Louis XIV. Whilst still very young, and already in the midst of the army of Flanders, he had concealed a severe illness in order not to miss the noble rendezvous of an attack.[120]Like many of those destined to die prematurely, and who appear to foresee it, Vermandoishastened as it were through life, and seemed to strive, in endeavouring to render himself early illustrious, to anticipate the blow that was about to strike him. But sufficient time to attain glory was to fail him, and it was his destiny to leave behind him only the touching souvenir that attaches itself to beautiful hopes suddenly dissipated by death.

An unforeseenamendewas, nevertheless, reserved for his memory. Sixty years after his sad end an idea suddenly sprang up of adding twenty years of captivity to his short existence, and with the view of rendering his destiny still more lamentable, of representing him as the mysterious victim of the rigours of Louis XIV.

In 1745 there appeared at Amsterdam theMémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse,[121]which, under supposititious names, contain the anecdotic history of the Court of France. This book, which had a prodigious success, and the editions of which were rapidly multiplied, owed in a great measure its celebrity to the following narration: “Cha-abas (Louis XIV.) had a legitimate son, Sephi-Mirza (Louis, Dauphin of France), and a natural son, Giafer (Louis de Bourbon, Count de Vermandois). Almost of the same age, they were of opposite characters. The latter did not allow any occasion to escape of saying that he pitied the French being destined some day to obey a prince without talent, and so little worthy to rule them. Cha-abas, to whom this conduct was reported, was fully sensible of its danger. But authority yielded to paternal love, and this absolute monarch had not sufficient strength to impose his will upon a son who abused his kindness. Finally,Giafer so far forgot himself one day as to strike Sephi-Mirza. Cha-abas is at once informed of this. He trembles for the culprit, but, however desirous he may be of feigning to ignore this crime, what he owes to himself and to his crown, combined with the noise this action has made at court, will not allow him to pay regard to his affection. He assembles, not without doing violence to his feelings, his most intimate confidants, allows them to see all his grief, and asks their advice. In view of the magnitude of the crime and conformably to the laws of the State, every one is in favour of inflicting the punishment of death. What a blow for so tender a father! However, one of the Ministers, more sensitive to the affliction of Cha-abas than the rest, tells him that there is a method of punishing Giafer without depriving him of life; that he should be sent to the army, which was then upon the frontiers of Feldran (Flanders); that shortly after his arrival, rumours could be spread that he was attacked by the plague, in order to alarm and keep away from him all those who might wish to see him; that at the end of several days of feigned illness, he should be made to pass for dead, and that, whilst in the presence of the whole army obsequies worthy of his birth were performed for him, he should be transferred by night with great secrecy to the citadel of the island of Ormus (Isle Sainte-Marguerite). This advice was generally approved of, and above all by an afflicted father. Faithful and discreet people were chosen for the management of the affair. Giafer starts for the army with a magnificent train. Everything is carried out as had been projected, and whilst the death of this unfortunate prince is being lamented in the camp, he is conveyed by by-roads to the island ofOrmus, and placed in charge of the governor, who had received in advance the order of Cha-abas not to let his prisoner be seen by any one whatever. A single servant, who was in the secret, was sent with the Prince. But, having died upon the journey, the leaders of the escort disfigured his face with dagger-strokes in order to prevent his being recognized, left him lying upon the road, and after having stripped him as a further precaution, continued their route. Giafer was transferred to the citadel of Ispahan (the Bastille) when Cha-abas bestowed the governorship of it upon the governor of the island of Ormus as a recompence for his fidelity. The precaution was taken at the island of Ormus, as at the citadel of Ispahan, to put a mask over the face of Giafer, when on account of illness, or other causes, it was necessary to let him be seen by any one.”[122]

This narration, which for the first time presented to public curiosity the anecdote of the Man with the Iron Mask, at once furnished food for conversation and became the subject of the most lively controversies. Several distinguished critics hastened to adopt the opinion it expressed, while others combated it, and for a long time theAnnée Littéraireof Fréron was the theatre of a debate which had thesavantsand the curious of the whole world for attentive audience. Voltaire himself, in introducing for the first time the hypothesis which makes the Man with the Iron Mask a brother of Louis XIV., did not succeed in stifling an opinion which had secured a clever defender. Father Griffet, a patient disciple of Father Daniel, and the author of an excellentHistoire de Louis XIII., published in 1765,in his fineTraité des Différentes Sortes des Preuves qui servent à établir la Vérité dans l’Histoire, a long dissertation upon the Man with the Iron Mask, and in it pronounced resolutely for the Count de Vermandois. What proofs, or at least what probabilities, did he invoke?

He bases his argument upon theMémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, in which we read that “when Vermandois left for the siege of Courtray, he had not long returned to the court; that the King had been displeased with his conduct and would not see him, on account of his having been mixed up with parties of debauchery; that since that time he had lived in a very retired manner, and only went out to go to the Academy[123]and to mass in the morning; that those whose company he had been keeping were not agreeable to the King, which caused much grief to Mademoiselle de la Vallière, by whom he was well scolded.”[124]Father Griffet added that, long before the publication of theMémoires Secrets de Perse, a rumour had spread that the Count de Vermandois had been guilty, before his departure for the army, of some great crime, such as a blow given to the Dauphin. “It had been generally spoken of,” says he, “on the strength of one of those traditions which have need, indeed, of being proved, but which are not necessarily false; the remembrance of this one had always been preserved, although there was not much noise made about it in the time of the late King, for fear of displeasing him; of this many people who lived under his reign can bearwitness.” The learned historian found another argument in the very name under which the prisoner of Saint-Mars was inscribed in the registers of the Church of Saint-Paul, the letters which form this name of Marchiali being those of the two wordshic amiral, and designating thus by an anagram the high dignity of the son of Mademoiselle de la Vallière. Finally, he published in theAnnée Littérairea second tradition, according to which “on the very day the body of the Count de Vermandois was to be transported to Arras, there left the camp, by a by-way, a litter in which it was believed there was a prisoner of importance, although the rumour was spread that the military chest was enclosed in it.”

Of all these allegations, the only one that deserves to be discussed is that which, reposing upon special evidence, namely, theMémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, shows us the Count de Vermandois, fallen into disgrace with Louis XIV. for having mixed himself up in certain debaucheries, and starting almost at once for Courtray, where he was to meet his death. One certainly finds no allusion to “a great crime” committed by Vermandois upon the person of his legitimate brother, and this very silence would suffice to invalidate the pretended tradition invoked by Father Griffet. But as, from another point of view, theseMémoiresfurnish a kind of basis for his argument, reveal a stain on the memory of Vermandois, and indicate a period at which the offence might have been possible, it is essential the value of this evidence should be weighed.

In hisTraité des Différentes Sortes de Preuves qui servent à établir la Vérité dans l’Histoire, Father Griffet himself very judiciously remarks that before adopting the opinion ofa writer upon an individual whose contemporary he had been, it is desirable to examine whether he had not a powerful interest either to praise or to blame him. Father Griffet displayed more prudent sagacity when he enunciated this excellent precept than when he neglected to apply it to theMémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier. He ought to have shown this romantic princess in her true light, endowed with a too lively imagination, whose self-esteem rendered her extremely accessible to the influence of others and incapable of protecting herself against interested suggestions; whom Madame de Montespan and Madame de Maintenon, by incessant attentions and delicate and careful acts of civility, easily gained over to their long-time common cause; and, in a word, whose credulous mind was entrapped by Madame de Maintenon in favour of the children of whom she was governess, and whom Madame de Montespan had had by Louis XIV. To love these, and above all the awkward Duke du Maine, must have led her almost infallibly to repulse the highly-gifted son of Mademoiselle de la Vallière, who had the least intriguing and the most disinterested of the royal favourites for mother, whilst his brother, better seconded, received from those surrounding him advice suitable to gain the heart, and perhaps one day assure him the immense fortune,[125]of the opulent cousin of Louis XIV. To attain this object, to influence her, as was done, in favour of a child deprived of all attractive qualities, they did not hesitate dictating for her the most affectionate letters to the Duke du Maine, pointing out to him the stepsmost likely to please her, and suggesting to him filial sentiments for a Princess whom they ended by inspiring with a veritable maternal love, of which Mademoiselle de Montpensier had all the jealousy, at first provoked but afterwards spontaneous, and which led her to detest the brilliant rival of the very insignificant but attentive Duke du Maine. This sentiment breaks out in several parts of herMémoires. “It seemed to me,” she remarks, “that it was in order to disparage M. du Maine people said that no one would ever equal M. de Vermandois.” And elsewhere, “I was not vexed at the death of M. de Vermandois, I was well pleased that M. du Maine had nothing to do with his affairs.”[126]How, after this, can we put faith in such suspicious testimony? There is nothing to prove and nothing to disprove that Vermandois may have been led away by youth into being present at some dissolute pleasure-party unknown to the King, and that he may have incurred the latter’s reproaches by this conduct. But his disgrace and the causes to which it is ascribed, his hasty departure, his father refusing to see him and banishing him from his presence, Mademoiselle de la Vallière in distress: all these circumstances, which are only to be found in theMémoiresof the adoptive mother of the Duke du Maine—must we accept them when impartial witnesses bestow unqualified praises upon the Count de Vermandois[127]and relate nothing that can tarnish his memory? Must we accept them when, some days after this pretended disgrace,and at the first news of what was thought to be only a slight indisposition, Louis XIV. writes to the Marquis de Montchevreuil to cause Vermandois to return at once to the court, in order that greater care may be taken of him and that he may more thoroughly recover.[128]

Is there any need to set forth the impossibility of admitting that of two sons of Louis XIV., one, the Grand-Dauphin, the heir to the crown, could have received from the other the gravest of insults, in the midst of the court and at the end of a violent discussion, without any contemporary writer having spoken of an event which would have had an inevitable celebrity? In order to make this circumstance appear less improbable, theMémoires de Perserepresent Vermandois as fiery, haughty, and unsubmissive to a brother who would one day be his king, whereas the most unexceptionable testimony[129]establishes the fact that he was mild, affable, full of deference, and only anxious to acquire glory. The author of theseMémoires, in order to render a dispute between the two brothers more plausible, asserts, in addition, that they were of the same age, instead of which there were six years between them; and, at the period whenthis passionate act is ascribed to him, Vermandois was barely sixteen, while the Dauphin was already the father of the Duke de Bourgogne.

There remains his premature death. Tacitus has said that when princes or extraordinary men die young, one finds it difficult to believe that they have been carried off by a natural course. This remark applies with justice to all epochs, and in our annals how many crimes are there, imagined by popular passion and credited through the ignorance of the time, of which a healthy criticism, aided by the progress of medical science,[130]has in our days acquitted the pretended authors? Is there, in the last moments of Vermandois and in the transport of his remains to Arras, where he was buried, the smallest circumstance that can allow the most credulous mind to retain a single doubt, and to suppose that he left the camp of Courtray alive to be confided to the guardianship of Saint-Mars?

On November 6, 1683, the Count de Vermandois takes to his bed at Courtray. Ill for several days before, he has concealed his condition in order not to quit the army, and to be able to assist at the attack on the faubourg of Menin, where he displayed the highest courage.

Consumed by fever, he is at length compelled to separate from the firstcorps-d’armée, which is about to form the camp of Harlebeck. Marshal d’Humières had had the intention of causing him to be transported to Lille, andwith this object had already made arrangements with the Marquis de Montchevreuil.[131]But a speedy aggravation of the invalid’s condition hinders the execution of this project. On the 8th bleeding relieves him;[132]but, on the 12th, Marshal d’Humières writes to Louvois that there are grounds for considerable uneasiness.[133]On the 13th Boufflers writes to the court that, the head of Vermandois commencing to be affected by the disease, bleeding from the feet has become necessary.[134]On the 14th Marshal d’Humières, who had come to Courtray from the camp of Rousselaer, of which he is commander, finds Vermandois at the worst, the doctors very undecided, “and not daring to resort to extreme remedies.” They determine to try them, however, but, doubtless, too late; for, after a tolerably favourable day, during which the fever seemed to diminish and the brain to become clearer, a violent agitation ensues, abundant perspiration exhausts the patient,[135]and, on the 16th, Boufflers announces that Vermandois has just received the last communion,[136]and that there is no longer any hope except in his youth. At the moment that he was writing this letter, Madame de Maintenon wrote to Madame de Brinon:[137]“M. de Vermandois is very ill; have our great saint prayedto for him.” Vain hope, useless prayers! On November 18 the son of La Vallière died of a malignant fever, surrounded by Marshal d’Humières, whom he had begged to remain near him, the Marquis de Montchevreuil, and Lieutenant-General Boufflers.[138]In the camp the grief was general, and the troops wept for him, for the good which he had done and the great things he had promised. At the court the impressions were various. The Hôtel de Condé deeply regretted this death, because the Prince was betrothed to Mademoiselle de Bourbon. The Princess de Conti, sister to Vermandois, was inconsolable.[139]

Louis XIV., much more sensitive than tender, and whose grief relieved itself all at once in a flood of tears which was of very short duration, had, moreover, already shown in favour of the children he had had by Madame de Montespan a sentiment of predilection which was to survive their mother’s disgrace, and which Madame de Maintenon, their former governess, carefully cherished. As to Mademoiselle de la Vallière, Voltaire has said,[140]and it has been often repeated after him, that she exclaimed on learning the fatal news: “It is not his death that I should lament, but his birth.” This exclamation is not true; it is not that of a mother. That the pious Carmelite offered as a sacrifice this new blow that smote her, that she accepted it as an additional expiation for her faults, one may admit. But that her tears only flowed because she had brought Vermandois into the world, that, at the announcement of the most painful ofafflictions, she was so little crushed by it as to be able to utter such words, is what no mother will believe. How much more acceptable is that testimony which Madame de Sevigné bears in saying “that she perfectly tempered her maternal love with that of the spouse of Jesus Christ.” “Mademoiselle de la Vallière is all day at the foot of the crucifix,” says the Présidente d’Osembray[141]on December 22. This is the true language of two mothers speaking of another mother who had just lost her son.

Pompous obsequies were performed over the remains of the son of Louis XIV. On November 21, the King sent word to the Chapter of Arras that the body of the Count de Vermandois would be transported to that town and buried in the choir of its cathedral church.[142]On the 24th, the mayors and échevins, bearing wax tapers, proceed to theMéaulens Gate, where are already assembled the governors of the town and citadel, all the officers of the staff, the clergy of the different parishes, and the friars of the mendicant orders. The infantry line the road from the entrance of the town to the cathedral.[143]At noon the roar of cannon and the tolling of bells announces the arrival of the remains, which are contained in a coach hung with black cloth, and escorted by the cavalry of the garrison. The Bishop of Arras, clothed in his pontifical robes, and his chapter, advance in procession and receive the body, which, removed from the coach, is borne by canons, and followed by the officers of the Council of Artois, those of the bailiwick, and all the other dignitaries of the county. Until Saturday the 27th, the day fixed for the solemn service, masses were said without intermission from six o’clock till noon in the Chapel of Saint-Vaast, where the body had been placed, and the canons and chaplains succeeded each other in praying there, the first during the day, the others during the night.[144]They selected, in the middle of the choir of the cathedral, in the place of “the angel,” the spot thatappeared most distinguished for the inhumation, for, five hundred years before, it had served for the interment of Isabelle de Vermandois, wife of Philip d’Alsace, Count of Flanders, and descendant in the direct line of Henri I., King of France. The last ceremony was worthy, in its pomp and splendour, of the King who had commanded it, and of the Prince in whose honour it was performed. The choir and the nave of the cathedral, entirely hung with black velvet, upon which shone silver escutcheons emblazoned with the arms of Vermandois, the lugubrious harmony of the service, the funereal light of the tapers, the sad and silent troops, the spectators all clothed in mourning, and, still more than these external signs, a sincere grief manifesting itself, especially amongst the gentlemen of the Prince’s suite, in tears and sobs; such is the spectacle that the interior of the cathedral church of Arras presents on November 27, 1683.

The evidences of the King’s piety, and of the eagerness of the Chapter to satisfy it, did not end here. On January 24, 1684, M. Chauvelin, Intendant of the province, drew up with the Chapter, in the name of Louis XIV., a deed in which it was stipulated “that the prelate, dean, and canons should say every day, each in his turn and during the year following the inhumation, a low requiem mass in thechapelle ardente,[145]prepared and hung with mourning for this purpose; that on the 18th November of every year, or in case of hindrance on another day near that date, thereshould be celebrated in perpetuity in their church a solemn service, preceded by vigils of nine psalms and nine lessons; that the Chapter should distribute annually to fifty poor people, who were to be present at these offices, five sols each, and an eight-pounds loaf; that there should also be given every year by the Chapter on the day of the service, to the poorClairisses[146]of the city of Arras, a sum of six livres, in order that their community might pray for the soul of the Count de Vermandois, and that all the bells should be tolled on the day, and on the evening before, as is customary at the obits of the bishops.” In order to indemnify the Chapter for the expenditure imposed by him, Louis XIV. bestowed upon it, in addition to magnificent presents, a sum of 10,000 livres, which served to purchase at the village of La Coutaie, near Béthune, a farm, since then, and for that cause, known as the Ferme de Vermandois. Until the year 1789, the stipulations contained in this deed were faithfully executed, and, during more than a century, November 25 witnessed a renewal of the alms of the Chapter, the prayers of the clergy, the assemblage of all the magistrates and municipal officers, and, in this manner, the remembrance of the son of La Vallière.

In supposing that Vermandois could have given way to such a violent and hasty act towards the Dauphin, without the proof of it being handed down to us; that Louis XIV. was cruel enough to condemn a beloved son to perpetual imprisonment; and, finally, that it was possible to keephis abduction secret in the midst of the troops, how can we possibly admit that ceremonies, which the pious monarch always regarded as sacred, could have been ordered by him to deceive his subjects and take advantage of their credulity? How can we admit that this illness, of which we have traced all the phases, was feigned; that the despatches that have been analysed were false; that Louis XIV. had for the accomplices of his stratagem men such as the Lieutenant-General Boufflers, Marshal d’Humières, and the Marquis de Montchevreuil; that, not content with making them take part in such a singular project, he made a mockery of religion the better to mask it? How can we admit that this bier, round which prayers ascended and tears flowed, was empty,[147]and that the Prince, of whom pompous epitaphs vaunt the qualities, was then in rigorous confinement at Pignerol? Finally, how explain, if not as the testimony of his sincere piety and affection, this solemn service, founded in perpetuity by Louis XIV., and which, in prolonging it, would have aggravated an impious derision, and perpetuated the memory of a profane fraud?

FOOTNOTES:[117]In the preceding chapters we have made no mention of aMémoire de M. de Saint-Mars sur la Naissance de l’Homme au Masque de Fer, published in vol. iii. of theMémoires de Tous(Levasseur, 1835, 8vo). According to this document, “copied by M. Billiard from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” M. de Saint-Mars had been the governor of the mysterious son of Anne of Austria, whose high origin was carefully hidden from him. But this brother of Louis XIV. having discovered it, was sent to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, the command of which was then (in 1687) confided to his governor. If we have not spoken of this document, it is because its authenticity has already been completely disproved. It is nothing else than a copy of the apocryphal narrative of Soulavie, which we have transcribed and refuted in the first part of our work (see page 15). The author of this copy has contented himself with substituting Saint-Mars for the “anonymous governor of the unfortunate prince.” He did not think that he thereby added a fresh impossibility to those contained in the narrative of Soulavie. For how could Saint-Mars, before 1687, have been the governor of a brother of Louis XIV., when a hundred despatches establish the fact that, from 1664, he was successively governor of the donjon of Pignerol and of Exiles? As to the presence of this document in the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is no reason for astonishment. It is explained, like the presence of so many other documents in our archives, by the seizure of the papers of great personages after their deaths, or, more commonly, by having been transmitted by some ambassador inhabiting the country in which these apocryphal writings circulated freely. But the place where they are found gives them no authenticity. At all periods, and to-day even, ambassadors send to the Government copies of anonymous memoirs, pamphlets, and different papers, which remain joined to their despatches, but to which no historical value can be ascribed. It has been the same with this pretendedMémoire de Saint-Mars, of which, in addition, a mere perusal demonstrates the untruth to any one acquainted with the usual style of the illiterate governor of the Isles Sainte-Marguerite. One sometimes hears it related—and this fact has been repeated to ourselves—that a great personage of a former Government introduced one of his friends, with much precaution, into the galleries of the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and there showed him a document which contained the secret of the Man with the Iron Mask. It is doubtless the document attributed to Saint-Mars that is referred to in this anecdote.[118]Letter of Madame la Présidente d’Osembray to Bussy-Rabutin, dated December 22, 1683:—Lettres de Roger de Rabutin, Comte de Bussy, vol. vi. p. 135, edition of 1716. Testimony of Lauzun in theMémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. vii. pp. 90, 92.[119]That of High Admiral. See amongst the papers of Colbert, MSS. of the Imperial Library, a curious memorandum drawn up by him, “to know what name and title it is necessary to give to M. le Comte de Vermandois.” Vermandois was endowed on November 12, 1669, at the age of twenty-two months, with this office of High Admiral of France, which, suppressed in 1626 by Richelieu, and changed by him into the office of “Grand Master, Chief, and General Superintendent of the Navigation and Commerce of France,” had been held successively by the Cardinal himself; his nephew Armand de Maillé-Brézé, Duke de Fronsac; Anne of Austria; César, Duke de Vendôme; and his son François de Vendôme, Duke de Beaufort.[120]Letter of the Présidente d’Osembray, already cited.[121]Published by the Compagnie des Libraires Associés (Company of Associated Booksellers) in 12mo.[122]Mémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse.[123]The academy here mentioned is not the present French Academy, but a kind of gymnasium, where the nobles met to learn riding, fencing, dancing, &c. It is frequently referred to in the memoirs of the time.—Trans.[124]Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. vii. p. 91.[125]We shall see, in the course of this work, that they succeeded in securing at least a portion of this enormous fortune, thanks to the imprisonment of Lauzun, the husband of Mademoiselle de Montpensier.[126]Mémoiresalready cited, vol. vii. p. 92.[127]Such as Lauzun, who was present at the siege of Courtray, and the Présidente d’Osembray.—SeeLettres de Bussy-Rabutin, already cited, vol. vi. p. 13.[128]Dated November 4, 1683. The King to the Marquis de Montchevreuil. “Monsieur le Marquis de Montchevreuil—I have received the letter which you wrote to me from the camp of Courtray. I am very well pleased with what you tell me of my son, the Count de Vermandois. But I am not the less uneasy, as the Sieur d’Aquin has told me that the fever has become continuous. You have done well to take him to Lille” (we shall see that they did not have the time to remove him to Lille); “he may remain there as long as may be needful for his health; but as soon as it allows him to travel I shall be pleased at his returning here. Having nothing else to add, except that I am always very well pleased at your conduct, I pray God to take you, Monsieur le Marquis de Montchevreuil, into his holy keeping.—Louis.”[129]Seeante, p. 67.[130]See, amongst others, the excellent work of M. Jules Loiseleur,Problèmes Historiques; the review,La Philosophie Positive, of M. Littré; the fourth volume of theHistoire de Louvois, of M. Camille Rousset, already cited; the very curious appendices given by M. Chéruel at the end of each volume of his fine edition of theMémoires de Saint-Simon, &c.[131]Archives of the Ministry of War; Letter from Marshal d’Humières to Louvois, “Camp of Courtray, November 7, 1683.”[132]Ibid.Marshal d’Humières to Louvois, “Camp of Harlebeck, November 8, 1683.”[133]Ibid.D’Humières to Louvois, “Camp of Rousselaer, November 12, 1683.”[134]Ibid.Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 13, 1683.”[135]Ibid.D’Humières to Louvois, “Courtray, November 14, 15, 1683,” and Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 15, 1683.”[136]Ibid.Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 16, 1683.”[137]Letter from Madame de Maintenon to Madame de Brinon, of November 15, 1683.[138]Archives of the Ministry of War; Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 19, 1683.”[139]Letter of Madame d’Osembray, December 22, 1683.[140]Siècle de Louis XIV.[141]Lettres de Bussy-Rabutin, vol. vi. p. 135.[142]The letter which we extract is from a learned article of Baron de Hautecloque, ex-mayor of Arras, published in theChroniques Artésiennesof M. P. Roger, member of the Society of Antiquarians of Picardy; of the Count d’Allonville, Councillor of State, and of M. Dusevel, Inspector of Historical Monuments for the Department of the Somme:—“Very dear and well-beloved—Having learnt with very sensible sorrow, that our very dear and well-beloved son, theDukede Vermandois,[A]Admiral of France, has lately died in the town of Courtray in Flanders, and desiring him to be placed in the cathedral church of our town of Arras, we send word to the Sieur Bishop of Arras to receive the body of our said son, when it is brought to the said church, and to have it buried in the choir of the said church with the ceremonies observed at the burial of persons of his birth.[A]This title may appear singular, but an old and curious book “Les Estats de France,” which contains the genealogies of all the nobles of this period, describes him as “the Count de Vermandois,dukeand peer of France.”—Trans.“All of which we have desired to make known to you by this letter, and to state that our intention is that you should conform to our will in this and assist in a body at this ceremony as is customary, on such occasions; and assuring ourselves that you will satisfy us in this, we do not make this present letter longer or more express; do not fail; for such is our pleasure.“Given at Versailles, the xix[B]November, 1683. Signed, “Louis,” and lower down, “Le Tellier.”[B]We think, with M. de Hautecloque, that this date should be the 21st. In the registers of the chapter it is in Roman figures, and there is reason to suppose that a clumsy copyist has inverted the order of them and put xix for xxi. The comparison of dates and the very expressions of the King’s letter indicate it sufficiently.[143]Register of the Hôtel de Ville of Arras and of the Chapter.[144]Ibid.[145][Chapel in which a dead person lies in state.—Trans.] The cathedral in which Vermandois was interred no longer exists. Devastated and greatly mutilated during the revolutionary period, it was almost in ruins, and was later completely demolished. The Church of Saint-Nicolas was built upon the site which it occupied in that part of Arras styled the Cité, formerly completely distinct from the town properly so called. The Chapel of Saint-Vaast, in which the body of Vermandois was first deposited, formed part of the Abbey of Saint-Vaast. This chapel is the present cathedral of Arras.[146]Nuns of the order of Sainte-Claire.—Trans.[147]In 1786, Louis XVI., moved with the rumour referring to this supposition, ordered the coffin to be opened. Aprocès-verbaldrawn up December 16, 1786, in the presence of the Bishop of Arras, the provost of the cathedral, the head of the vestry, and the procureur-général, verified the existence “of an entire and well-shaped body.” See the very interestingVie de Madame Elizabeth, of M. de Beauchesne, vol. i. p. 543. To this decisive proof we have felt bound to add others for those who might be tempted to believe that another body than that of Vermandois had been enclosed in the coffin.

[117]In the preceding chapters we have made no mention of aMémoire de M. de Saint-Mars sur la Naissance de l’Homme au Masque de Fer, published in vol. iii. of theMémoires de Tous(Levasseur, 1835, 8vo). According to this document, “copied by M. Billiard from the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,” M. de Saint-Mars had been the governor of the mysterious son of Anne of Austria, whose high origin was carefully hidden from him. But this brother of Louis XIV. having discovered it, was sent to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, the command of which was then (in 1687) confided to his governor. If we have not spoken of this document, it is because its authenticity has already been completely disproved. It is nothing else than a copy of the apocryphal narrative of Soulavie, which we have transcribed and refuted in the first part of our work (see page 15). The author of this copy has contented himself with substituting Saint-Mars for the “anonymous governor of the unfortunate prince.” He did not think that he thereby added a fresh impossibility to those contained in the narrative of Soulavie. For how could Saint-Mars, before 1687, have been the governor of a brother of Louis XIV., when a hundred despatches establish the fact that, from 1664, he was successively governor of the donjon of Pignerol and of Exiles? As to the presence of this document in the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there is no reason for astonishment. It is explained, like the presence of so many other documents in our archives, by the seizure of the papers of great personages after their deaths, or, more commonly, by having been transmitted by some ambassador inhabiting the country in which these apocryphal writings circulated freely. But the place where they are found gives them no authenticity. At all periods, and to-day even, ambassadors send to the Government copies of anonymous memoirs, pamphlets, and different papers, which remain joined to their despatches, but to which no historical value can be ascribed. It has been the same with this pretendedMémoire de Saint-Mars, of which, in addition, a mere perusal demonstrates the untruth to any one acquainted with the usual style of the illiterate governor of the Isles Sainte-Marguerite. One sometimes hears it related—and this fact has been repeated to ourselves—that a great personage of a former Government introduced one of his friends, with much precaution, into the galleries of the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and there showed him a document which contained the secret of the Man with the Iron Mask. It is doubtless the document attributed to Saint-Mars that is referred to in this anecdote.

[118]Letter of Madame la Présidente d’Osembray to Bussy-Rabutin, dated December 22, 1683:—Lettres de Roger de Rabutin, Comte de Bussy, vol. vi. p. 135, edition of 1716. Testimony of Lauzun in theMémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. vii. pp. 90, 92.

[119]That of High Admiral. See amongst the papers of Colbert, MSS. of the Imperial Library, a curious memorandum drawn up by him, “to know what name and title it is necessary to give to M. le Comte de Vermandois.” Vermandois was endowed on November 12, 1669, at the age of twenty-two months, with this office of High Admiral of France, which, suppressed in 1626 by Richelieu, and changed by him into the office of “Grand Master, Chief, and General Superintendent of the Navigation and Commerce of France,” had been held successively by the Cardinal himself; his nephew Armand de Maillé-Brézé, Duke de Fronsac; Anne of Austria; César, Duke de Vendôme; and his son François de Vendôme, Duke de Beaufort.

[120]Letter of the Présidente d’Osembray, already cited.

[121]Published by the Compagnie des Libraires Associés (Company of Associated Booksellers) in 12mo.

[122]Mémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse.

[123]The academy here mentioned is not the present French Academy, but a kind of gymnasium, where the nobles met to learn riding, fencing, dancing, &c. It is frequently referred to in the memoirs of the time.—Trans.

[124]Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. vii. p. 91.

[125]We shall see, in the course of this work, that they succeeded in securing at least a portion of this enormous fortune, thanks to the imprisonment of Lauzun, the husband of Mademoiselle de Montpensier.

[126]Mémoiresalready cited, vol. vii. p. 92.

[127]Such as Lauzun, who was present at the siege of Courtray, and the Présidente d’Osembray.—SeeLettres de Bussy-Rabutin, already cited, vol. vi. p. 13.

[128]Dated November 4, 1683. The King to the Marquis de Montchevreuil. “Monsieur le Marquis de Montchevreuil—I have received the letter which you wrote to me from the camp of Courtray. I am very well pleased with what you tell me of my son, the Count de Vermandois. But I am not the less uneasy, as the Sieur d’Aquin has told me that the fever has become continuous. You have done well to take him to Lille” (we shall see that they did not have the time to remove him to Lille); “he may remain there as long as may be needful for his health; but as soon as it allows him to travel I shall be pleased at his returning here. Having nothing else to add, except that I am always very well pleased at your conduct, I pray God to take you, Monsieur le Marquis de Montchevreuil, into his holy keeping.—Louis.”

[129]Seeante, p. 67.

[130]See, amongst others, the excellent work of M. Jules Loiseleur,Problèmes Historiques; the review,La Philosophie Positive, of M. Littré; the fourth volume of theHistoire de Louvois, of M. Camille Rousset, already cited; the very curious appendices given by M. Chéruel at the end of each volume of his fine edition of theMémoires de Saint-Simon, &c.

[131]Archives of the Ministry of War; Letter from Marshal d’Humières to Louvois, “Camp of Courtray, November 7, 1683.”

[132]Ibid.Marshal d’Humières to Louvois, “Camp of Harlebeck, November 8, 1683.”

[133]Ibid.D’Humières to Louvois, “Camp of Rousselaer, November 12, 1683.”

[134]Ibid.Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 13, 1683.”

[135]Ibid.D’Humières to Louvois, “Courtray, November 14, 15, 1683,” and Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 15, 1683.”

[136]Ibid.Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 16, 1683.”

[137]Letter from Madame de Maintenon to Madame de Brinon, of November 15, 1683.

[138]Archives of the Ministry of War; Boufflers to Louvois, “Courtray, November 19, 1683.”

[139]Letter of Madame d’Osembray, December 22, 1683.

[140]Siècle de Louis XIV.

[141]Lettres de Bussy-Rabutin, vol. vi. p. 135.

[142]The letter which we extract is from a learned article of Baron de Hautecloque, ex-mayor of Arras, published in theChroniques Artésiennesof M. P. Roger, member of the Society of Antiquarians of Picardy; of the Count d’Allonville, Councillor of State, and of M. Dusevel, Inspector of Historical Monuments for the Department of the Somme:—“Very dear and well-beloved—Having learnt with very sensible sorrow, that our very dear and well-beloved son, theDukede Vermandois,[A]Admiral of France, has lately died in the town of Courtray in Flanders, and desiring him to be placed in the cathedral church of our town of Arras, we send word to the Sieur Bishop of Arras to receive the body of our said son, when it is brought to the said church, and to have it buried in the choir of the said church with the ceremonies observed at the burial of persons of his birth.[A]This title may appear singular, but an old and curious book “Les Estats de France,” which contains the genealogies of all the nobles of this period, describes him as “the Count de Vermandois,dukeand peer of France.”—Trans.“All of which we have desired to make known to you by this letter, and to state that our intention is that you should conform to our will in this and assist in a body at this ceremony as is customary, on such occasions; and assuring ourselves that you will satisfy us in this, we do not make this present letter longer or more express; do not fail; for such is our pleasure.“Given at Versailles, the xix[B]November, 1683. Signed, “Louis,” and lower down, “Le Tellier.”[B]We think, with M. de Hautecloque, that this date should be the 21st. In the registers of the chapter it is in Roman figures, and there is reason to suppose that a clumsy copyist has inverted the order of them and put xix for xxi. The comparison of dates and the very expressions of the King’s letter indicate it sufficiently.

“Very dear and well-beloved—Having learnt with very sensible sorrow, that our very dear and well-beloved son, theDukede Vermandois,[A]Admiral of France, has lately died in the town of Courtray in Flanders, and desiring him to be placed in the cathedral church of our town of Arras, we send word to the Sieur Bishop of Arras to receive the body of our said son, when it is brought to the said church, and to have it buried in the choir of the said church with the ceremonies observed at the burial of persons of his birth.

[A]This title may appear singular, but an old and curious book “Les Estats de France,” which contains the genealogies of all the nobles of this period, describes him as “the Count de Vermandois,dukeand peer of France.”—Trans.

“All of which we have desired to make known to you by this letter, and to state that our intention is that you should conform to our will in this and assist in a body at this ceremony as is customary, on such occasions; and assuring ourselves that you will satisfy us in this, we do not make this present letter longer or more express; do not fail; for such is our pleasure.

“Given at Versailles, the xix[B]November, 1683. Signed, “Louis,” and lower down, “Le Tellier.”

[B]We think, with M. de Hautecloque, that this date should be the 21st. In the registers of the chapter it is in Roman figures, and there is reason to suppose that a clumsy copyist has inverted the order of them and put xix for xxi. The comparison of dates and the very expressions of the King’s letter indicate it sufficiently.

[143]Register of the Hôtel de Ville of Arras and of the Chapter.

[144]Ibid.

[145][Chapel in which a dead person lies in state.—Trans.] The cathedral in which Vermandois was interred no longer exists. Devastated and greatly mutilated during the revolutionary period, it was almost in ruins, and was later completely demolished. The Church of Saint-Nicolas was built upon the site which it occupied in that part of Arras styled the Cité, formerly completely distinct from the town properly so called. The Chapel of Saint-Vaast, in which the body of Vermandois was first deposited, formed part of the Abbey of Saint-Vaast. This chapel is the present cathedral of Arras.

[146]Nuns of the order of Sainte-Claire.—Trans.

[147]In 1786, Louis XVI., moved with the rumour referring to this supposition, ordered the coffin to be opened. Aprocès-verbaldrawn up December 16, 1786, in the presence of the Bishop of Arras, the provost of the cathedral, the head of the vestry, and the procureur-général, verified the existence “of an entire and well-shaped body.” See the very interestingVie de Madame Elizabeth, of M. de Beauchesne, vol. i. p. 543. To this decisive proof we have felt bound to add others for those who might be tempted to believe that another body than that of Vermandois had been enclosed in the coffin.

Back to Index Next