CHAPTER XVII.

Sudden and singular Arrival of Lauzun in Fouquet’s Room—The latter had known him formerly under the Name of the Marquis de Puyguilhem—Lauzun enumerates his Dignities and calls himself the King’s Cousin—Fouquet believes his Visitor mad—Portrait of Lauzun—His Adventures—His Arrival at Pignerol—He continues his Visits to Fouquet—The Stories he tells him—Noble Conduct of Louis XIV. towards Lauzun—Audacious Method employed by the latter to overhear a Conversation between Louis XIV. and Madame de Montespan—Difference between the Conduct of Lauzun and that of Fouquet—Lauzun’s Outbursts against Saint-Mars—Perplexity of the latter—Singular Mode of Surveillance to which he has recourse—Progressive amelioration of the Lot of the two Prisoners—They receive Permission to see each other—Arrival of Fouquet’s Daughter at Pignerol—Misunderstanding between Fouquet and Lauzun—Cause of this Misunderstanding.

One day in the early part of the year 1672, Fouquet hears one of the articles of furniture in his room suddenly thrown down, and perceives a man of short stature and slender figure creep through a narrow opening and advance smiling towards him. He is dressed in the full uniform of Captain of the King’s Guard—blue, with red facings. Nothing except the sword is wanting in this costume, the rich embroideries and brilliant insignia of which offer a singular contrast to the place where it is worn. The attitude of the new comer is haughty, and his air almost patronizing. Fouquet hesitates to recognize in him a poorGascon cadet, the Marquis of Puyguilhem, without fortune or position, who had sometimes come to him in the days of his power to borrow a little money,[408]and who, extremely fortunate in having been received into the house of the Marshal de Grammont, his relative, had cut a very sad figure at court at the time of Fouquet’s arrest. What, therefore, was the astonishment of the latter when his strange visitor, questioned as to the causes of his detention at Pignerol, replies that they have been set forth by the King in a letter addressed to all the French ambassadors abroad.[409]Fouquet’s stupefaction is redoubled when he learns that this costume is not a masquerade, and that the man whom he had left in the lowest rank at Versailles is really Captain of the Guard, and in addition Governor of Berri and Colonel General of Dragoons, and that a brevet rank of General has been conferred upon him. But when his visitor, continuing his confidences,[410]enumerates his titles, and proclaims himself Count de Lauzun, Duke de Montpensier, Dauphin of Auvergne, Sovereign of Dombes, Count d’Eu and de Mortaing, and, finally, husband of the Grande Mademoiselle and cousin-german of Louis XIV., Fouquet ceases to feel surprised. Everything is explained; the speaker is mad; the tortures of a prolonged confinement have unsettled his mind,and led him to take all these fancies for real. Every one would have thought as Fouquet did, and this supposition was certainly the most probable one.

Indeed, Lauzun, of whom La Bruyère has said, “that it is not permitted to dream as he lived,”[411]encountered, in his existence of ninety-one years, such diversities of fortune, such striking contrasts, such unheard-of revolutions, that there are few heroes of the imagination to whom one would have dared to ascribe similar adventures. Nothing is more singular than the destiny of this Gascon cadet, reduced at first to beg from the Surintendant, and then raised by Louis XIV. to the highest dignities; suddenly shut up in the Bastille and succeeding in issuing from it and marrying the legitimate granddaughter of Henri IV.; afterwards commanding an army, and next a prisoner for ten years at Pignerol; receiving his pardon, but refusing it; imprisoned for the third time, then exiled, banished apparently for ever from the presence of the King, whom he had coarsely insulted, and nevertheless succeeding “in finding his way back to Versailles, by passing through London,”[412]and there making a friend of James II.; fortune’s favourite and victim by turns, without ever being enlightened by its rebuffs, or satisfied by its favours! To obtain these he did not hesitate at any baseness,[413]and the extreme audacity which he sometimes gave proof of was all calculated. He had a certain boldness of mind, but not of heart, for he was naturallymean. Nothing, unless it be the servile humility of his beginning, equalled the insolence with which he avenged himself for his early abasement. Addicted to cruel raillery, prompt in witticisms,[414]he excelled in laying bare and flagellating the absurdities to which he piqued himself on being superior. “He is the most insolent little man,” says La Fare, “that has been seen for a century.”[415]Devoid of dignity and endowed with prodigious pliability, he did not hesitate to stoop to the lowest parts, and succeeded in affecting the qualities in which he was most deficient. But when, having gained his end, he threw aside the mask, and became simply himself again, he inspired contempt. Of all the women seduced by his jargon of gallantry and very deceitful appearances, he did not attach himself to one, and the cousin of Louis XIV., over whom he at first exercised so great a sway, died filled with hatred towards him, and ashamed of such an unworthy husband.[416]

But, whilst Lauzun was at Pignerol, the illusions of this princess had not yet been dissipated, and her love, increasedby separation, manifested itself in loud complaints, in violent scenes, and in attempts to deliver him. Several times she sent agents to Pignerol, who were to try to enter into communication with Lauzun. But they failed in their enterprise, and were driven from the town and forbidden to re-enter it again.[417]On his side, Lauzun, always and everywhere destined to adventures, did not remain inactive. He thought he might be able to escape amidst the disorder and trouble of a fire, and with this intention set light to the flooring of his room. The fire, soon perceived, was, however, at once extinguished. Incapable of resigning himself to his lot, and of seeking some consolation in study, Lauzun, breaking his furniture, gave way to all kinds of outbursts and violence, but without succeeding in moving Saint-Mars. Coldly impassible, the latter was equally insensible to the threats of vengeance and to the insults of his prisoner. It was then that, impelled by curiosity, the latter began, this time with patience and without attracting the attention of his gaoler, to make in the wall[418]a hole which should put him into communication with the room situated above his own. We have seen that he succeeded in this, and how he was received by Fouquet.

By the same route, and thanks to some precautions, the visits of Lauzun were repeated. But, in continuing his confidences, he only confirmed the idea of his madness.

It is thus that Fouquet, without putting faith in him, heard him relate how to all the high offices he had obtainedhe had almost added one still more elevated, that of Grand Master of the Artillery, and in what manner he had avenged his insuccess. The King had promised him the appointment, and, vain as thoughtless, Lauzun had hastened to announce it, despite the secrecy agreed upon between them. Louvois, soon informed of the projects of Louis XIV., succeeded in diverting him from them by representing to him the disadvantages of such a choice. After several days of vain expectation, the favourite, accustomed to please, and hoping to be able to intimidate, watched for and seized upon atête-à-têtewith the King. He dared to call upon him to keep his promise, and Louis XIV. having replied that he was released from it by the indiscretion Lauzun had committed, the latter drew his sword, snapt it in pieces, and exclaimed that he would no longer serve a prince thus capable of breaking his promises. Pale with anger the King raised his cane, but, suddenly mastering himself, he threw it out of the window, saying, “that he should be very sorry to have struck a gentleman.”[419]The next day Lauzun was taken to the Bastille.

Fouquet learned from him, without believing it any the more, a still more audacious adventure. Lauzun had soon left the Bastille, and had recovered the King’s favour. Beloved by Mademoiselle, he obtained permission to marry her; but vanity again ruined him. Instead of hastening such an unhoped-for union, he wishes to wait, in order that sumptuous liveries may be made and that the marriage may be solemnly celebrated in the royal chapel, in presence of the whole court, “and as between crowned heads.”[420]Hethus leaves the princes and Madame de Montespan time to act, and Louis XIV., yielding to their representations, withdraws the consent at first accorded. Lauzun, who with reason distrusted Madame de Montespan, despite the assurances of friendship she did not cease to give him, dared, in order to ascertain the truth, to conceive a most dangerous project.[421]Taking for his accomplice the waiting-woman of the powerful favourite, he slipped under the bed a little before the King’s arrival, and, a witness of their interview, he was able to convince himself that Madame de Montespan was the inveterate enemy to whose advice Louis XIV. had yielded. “A cough,” says Saint Simon, “the least sound, the slightest accident, might have discovered this rash being, and then what would have become of him? These are things the relation of which stifles and terrifies one at the same time.”[422]Fortunately, Lauzun was able to remain motionless. Meeting Madame de Montespan at the ballet, an hour after the interview, he asked her in an agreeable manner whether she had deigned to serve his cause with the King. She replied that, far from having failed to do so, she had taken pleasure, as ever, in extolling his services. Lauzun let her speak at length; then, suddenly, placing his mouth to her ear, he repeated to her, word for word, the conversation which she had just had with the King, and wound up by calling her “liar, hussy, and jade.” Madame de Montespan succeeded in mastering her confusion, but she never forgot this scene, and a year after, uniting withLouvois,[423]she had brought about the fall of the favourite and his despatch to Pignerol.

Fouquet listened to the narrative of these adventures, which were only too real, as one reads an improbable romance. It was only much later that he was convinced by his relations and friends of the veracity of his companion in captivity. But during several years, not doubting his madness, he resigned himself to listen to him out of courtesy, not seeking occasions to see him, but carefully avoiding to contradict him; behaving, in short, toward him as one does towards an unfortunate being afflicted with a mild and harmless but obstinate mania.[424]

These two victims of fortune, reunited at Pignerol through such opposite causes, and of whom one was not to leave the place alive, whilst the other was to quit his prison to be again the hero of singular adventures, supported their captivity in a very different manner. “M. Fouquet only thinks of praying to God,” writes Saint-Mars, on June 20, 1672; “he is as patient and moderate as my other prisoner is furious.”[425]The outbursts of Lauzun had for their cause not only the failure of his attempts at escape,[426]but also the very arbitrary conduct of Louis XIV., inspired by Louvois. The ex-favourite cruelly expiated the favours of which he had been the object. Not satisfied with depriving him of his liberty, they tried in addition to wrestfrom him the offices and the immense possessions that an excessive generosity had heaped upon his head, but of which he ought not to have been despoiled by means of the pressure easily put upon a captive. Captain of the Body-guard, he received from Seignelay the invitation to resign this post.[427]Endowed by Mademoiselle with the county of Eu, the duchy of Aumale, the principality of Dombes, and the estate of Thiers, he only recovered his liberty on condition of renouncing all his possessions in favour of the Duke de Maine, natural son of Louis XIV. and Madame de Montespan. At first he angrily repulsed the proposition of Seignelay, and loaded with insults Louvois, whose influence he recognized, and Saint-Mars, the interpreter of Seignelay’s orders.[428]Little by little, however, calmness returned to this spirit, till then so agitated and unquiet. Lauzun understood with reason that everything ought to be sacrificed for liberty, and he hoped one day to be able to return to that culminating point of fortune from which his inconsiderate conduct had precipitated him, and which he was in fact again to attain by a supreme effort of audacity. “At court one must always take one thing with another; everything comes in turn,” said Madame de Montespan to the Grande Mademoiselle.[429]Lauzun ended by following this maxim, and, by resigning himself to his lot, at length permitted Saint-Mars to taste some repose. ) The unhappy gaoler had seen himself reduced, by his excessive scruples and by the conduct of Lauzun, to themost singular extremities. Scarcely had Fouquet renounced the hope of escape and given himself up to study and prayer, than Lauzun had come to renew and increase the inquietude of Saint-Mars. The ill-temper and despair of the new captive were such that he behaved with the utmost violence[430]towards his gaoler. For a long time insensible to his insults, Saint-Mars had at first submitted to them with indifference; but this was soon no longer possible, and he had to discontinue his visits. How then was he to execute the orders received and exercise his surveillance? The unfortunate gaoler, too much ill-treated to be able to revisit Lauzun, and too scrupulous to leave off watching him, was in a state of extreme perplexity. His alarm was increased by the impossibility of making his usual perquisitions, and he was constantly representing to himself his captive imagining and realizing a project of escape. He at length released himself from this intolerable situation, but at what a price! For a long time the subordinate officials of Pignerol perceived their chief gliding stealthily amongst some trees that surrounded the donjon. Then choosing the highest and thickest in leaf,[431]overcoming the infirmities of age, and recovering for an instant the vigour of youth, he clasped the gnarled trunk, climbed by degrees to the highest branches, and there, hidden by the foliage, kept his eyes eagerly fixed upon Lauzun’s room, from which coarse insults had banished him. From this elevated point he observed the prisoner’s conduct without being seen byhim,[432]and thus reconciled the duties of his office with the exigencies of his dignity. Surely never did a servant better merit the confidence of his master; and Saint-Mars will remain without a rival amongst the gaolers of all times.

This post of observation ceased to be impenetrable, as Louvois had foreseen: “As the leaves have now fallen,” he wrote to Saint-Mars, November 10, 1675, “you will no longer be able to see what M. de Lauzun does in his room.”[433]But this fatiguing surveillance was then rendered less necessary by the resignation and calmness of the so long indocile captive. His submission to the orders of Louis XIV., the proofs of a piety, more or less sincere;[434]the entreaties of Madame de Nogent, his sister, and of several friends, obtained for Lauzun the same favours that, for several years past, Fouquet had owed to the accession to power of his friend Arnauld de Pomponne, and doubtless also to the increasing influence of Madame de Maintenon.[435]

Since 1672 Fouquet had had permission to receive a letter from his wife.[436]Less than two years afterwards he had been allowed to write twice a year to his family.[437]Finally, from January 20, 1679, the favours were multiplied, and the two illustrious captives obtained all that could soften their situation. Louis XIV. authorised them to have full liberty to meet, to take their meals, and to walk together, to converse with the officers of the donjon, and to read all kinds of books and gazettes.[438]Whilst Madame de Nogent and the Chevalier de Lauzun received permission to come and visit their brother; Fouquet had at length the happiness of seeing his wife, his daughter, the Count de Vaux, his son, and the Bishop of Agde and M. de Mézières, his brothers.[439]Alone and isolated for fifteen years, the Surintendant had at last this supreme consolation, which, alas! he was not long to enjoy. These different members of his family made a rather lengthened stay at the citadel. But the prisoner’s daughter installed herself there in a definite manner, and took up her quarters in rooms directly over those of her father.[440]Almost immediately after her arrival, Lauzun and Fouquet ceased to visit one another.[441]The cause of this sudden misunderstanding is to be found in the gallant disposition and enterprising audacity of Lauzun. The insolent favourite could not recognize the devotion of Fouquet’s daughter, a voluntary prisoner, and the touching victim of her filial affection. What passed between these three personages can only be surmised, for no documents exist respecting it. It is only known that, long afterwards, Lauzun paid suchfrequent visits to Mademoiselle Fouquet in Paris, during which he showed himself so familiar, that the jealousy of Louis XIV.’s cousin was very strongly aroused.[442]It was the destiny of the Surintendant to undergo every misfortune, and, at the moment when he seemed about to receive some alleviation, to find suddenly in his daughter’s presence a new source of grief and bitterness.

Was this grief at least the final one? did he die on March 22, 1680, as has been said, or, to this expiation of his faults courageously undergone during sixteen years at Pignerol must a still longer one be added? Did Fouquet continue to drag on his miserable existence for another twenty-three years, and was it to the Bastille that he went to finish it obscurely, dead to all, his face hidden from the world, and, as it were, surviving even himself?

FOOTNOTES:[408]Mémoires de Brienne, vol. ii. pp. 195-197.Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. ii. p. 237.[409]In this letter Louis XIV. thought it right to explain why, after having authorised the marriage of Lauzun with Mademoiselle, he had withdrawn his word. The letter is dated December 19, 1670. It is amongst the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section France, vol. cxcii. p. 150.—SeeMadame de Montespan et Louis XIV., by M. P. Clément, p. 32.[410]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 73.[411]La Bruyère’sCaractères, chapterDe la Cour. Lauzun is designated in it by the name of Straton.[412]Madame de Sévigné.[413]M. P. Clément has given with respect to this a very characteristic letter from Lauzun to Colbert. SeeMadame de Montespan et Louis XIV., p. 30, note 1.[414]He had given some very witty answers—that, amongst others, made to the Regent, whom he had asked for an abbey for his nephew, the famous De Belsunce, bishop of Marseilles. It was some time after the plague, during which the prelate had behaved like a hero. Despite the promise made to Lauzun, the Regent forgot to include his relation in the distribution of benefices, and when Lauzun questioned him on the subject, remained silent and confused. Lauzun, with a great appearance of respect, said, “Monsieur, he will do better another time.”[415]Saint-Simon, whose brother-in-law Lauzun had the good fortune to become towards the end of his life, by marrying at sixty-two years of age the daughter, aged sixteen, of the Marshal de Lorges, is more indulgent for his relation, whose meanness, however, he does not try to hide.[416]Letter of Bussy-Rabutin, vol. viii. p. 265. of Monmerqué’s edition of theLettres de Madame de Sévigné;Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 83.[417]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 74.—Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, October 14, November 15 and 22, 1672, March 16, and November 23, 1676.[418]Saint-Mars only discovered the hole in the wall after the death of Fouquet:—Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, April 8, 1680.[419]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 70.[420]Souvenirs de Madame de Caylus.[421]Racine,Fragments Historiques.Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 69.[422]Mémoires de Saint-Simon,Ibid.[423]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 72. Segrais, a contemporary, adds Madame de Maintenon to these two undoubted authors of the second disgrace of Lauzun. (Segrais,Mémoires et Anecdotes.[424]Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. ii. p. 450.[425]Unpublished letter from Saint-Mars to Louvois, June 20, 1672:—Archives of Ministry of War, vol. ccxcix. fol. 48.[426]Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, June 16, 1676.[427]Letter from Seignelay to Lauzun, November 9, 1672.[428]Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, November 27, and December 5, 1672.[429]Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. iv. p. 456.[430]Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, November 27, 1672, and January 16, 1674. Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 43.[431]Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, November 10, 1675. Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 43.[432]It was then that he discovered Lauzun often had a telescope in his hand, and it was taken from him.[433]Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 241.[434]Saint-Simon relates that for fear he should be imposed upon with a false priest, to act as a spy upon him, Lauzun had asked for a capucin, and that as soon as he saw him he seized him by the beard and pulled it very hard, in order to assure himself that it was not false. Saint-Simon says he had this from Lauzun himself.Mémoires, vol. xiii. p. 73.[435]Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. ii. p. 450.[436]Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, October 18, 1672.[437]Ibid., April 10, 1674.[438]Letter of Madame de Sévigné, February 27, 1697. “Memorandum of the manner in which the King desires Monsieur de Saint-Mars to guard for the future the prisoners in his custody,” Jan. 20, 1679:—Archives of the Ministry of War.[439]Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, May 10 and 28, 1679.[440]Letter from the same to the same, December 18, 1679.[441]Letter from the same to the same, January 24, 1680.[442]Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. iv. pp. 401 and 473; Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 52.

[408]Mémoires de Brienne, vol. ii. pp. 195-197.Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. ii. p. 237.

[409]In this letter Louis XIV. thought it right to explain why, after having authorised the marriage of Lauzun with Mademoiselle, he had withdrawn his word. The letter is dated December 19, 1670. It is amongst the Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section France, vol. cxcii. p. 150.—SeeMadame de Montespan et Louis XIV., by M. P. Clément, p. 32.

[410]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 73.

[411]La Bruyère’sCaractères, chapterDe la Cour. Lauzun is designated in it by the name of Straton.

[412]Madame de Sévigné.

[413]M. P. Clément has given with respect to this a very characteristic letter from Lauzun to Colbert. SeeMadame de Montespan et Louis XIV., p. 30, note 1.

[414]He had given some very witty answers—that, amongst others, made to the Regent, whom he had asked for an abbey for his nephew, the famous De Belsunce, bishop of Marseilles. It was some time after the plague, during which the prelate had behaved like a hero. Despite the promise made to Lauzun, the Regent forgot to include his relation in the distribution of benefices, and when Lauzun questioned him on the subject, remained silent and confused. Lauzun, with a great appearance of respect, said, “Monsieur, he will do better another time.”

[415]Saint-Simon, whose brother-in-law Lauzun had the good fortune to become towards the end of his life, by marrying at sixty-two years of age the daughter, aged sixteen, of the Marshal de Lorges, is more indulgent for his relation, whose meanness, however, he does not try to hide.

[416]Letter of Bussy-Rabutin, vol. viii. p. 265. of Monmerqué’s edition of theLettres de Madame de Sévigné;Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 83.

[417]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 74.—Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, October 14, November 15 and 22, 1672, March 16, and November 23, 1676.

[418]Saint-Mars only discovered the hole in the wall after the death of Fouquet:—Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, April 8, 1680.

[419]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 70.

[420]Souvenirs de Madame de Caylus.

[421]Racine,Fragments Historiques.Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 69.

[422]Mémoires de Saint-Simon,Ibid.

[423]Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xiii. p. 72. Segrais, a contemporary, adds Madame de Maintenon to these two undoubted authors of the second disgrace of Lauzun. (Segrais,Mémoires et Anecdotes.

[424]Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. ii. p. 450.

[425]Unpublished letter from Saint-Mars to Louvois, June 20, 1672:—Archives of Ministry of War, vol. ccxcix. fol. 48.

[426]Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, June 16, 1676.

[427]Letter from Seignelay to Lauzun, November 9, 1672.

[428]Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, November 27, and December 5, 1672.

[429]Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. iv. p. 456.

[430]Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, November 27, 1672, and January 16, 1674. Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 43.

[431]Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, November 10, 1675. Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 43.

[432]It was then that he discovered Lauzun often had a telescope in his hand, and it was taken from him.

[433]Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 241.

[434]Saint-Simon relates that for fear he should be imposed upon with a false priest, to act as a spy upon him, Lauzun had asked for a capucin, and that as soon as he saw him he seized him by the beard and pulled it very hard, in order to assure himself that it was not false. Saint-Simon says he had this from Lauzun himself.Mémoires, vol. xiii. p. 73.

[435]Mémoires sur Nicolas Fouquet, vol. ii. p. 450.

[436]Letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, October 18, 1672.

[437]Ibid., April 10, 1674.

[438]Letter of Madame de Sévigné, February 27, 1697. “Memorandum of the manner in which the King desires Monsieur de Saint-Mars to guard for the future the prisoners in his custody,” Jan. 20, 1679:—Archives of the Ministry of War.

[439]Letters from Louvois to Saint-Mars, May 10 and 28, 1679.

[440]Letter from the same to the same, December 18, 1679.

[441]Letter from the same to the same, January 24, 1680.

[442]Mémoires de Mademoiselle de Montpensier, vol. iv. pp. 401 and 473; Delort,Histoire de la Détention des Philosophes, p. 52.

Back to Index Next