CHAPTER XXII.

The Isles Sainte-Marguerite—Their Appearance—Their Past—Various Causes of their Celebrity—How I was led to suppose that Matthioly was not taken to Exiles by Saint-Mars—Documents which prove him to have been left at Pignerol—Obscurity of the two Prisoners transferred to Exiles by Saint-Mars—Neither of them could have been the Man with the Iron Mask—Removal of the Prisoners of Pignerol to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite.

On each side of Cannes, the coast of Provence, describing a slight curve, forms the two gulfs of Napoule and Jouan, separated by the Point of the Croisette.[564]Off this point, distant about a mile from shore, are two islands, situated one in front of the other like advanced sentinels, and affording each other mutual protection. The approach to them is rendered far from easy by the rocks and reefs with which nature has surrounded them. Both are oblong in shape, lying from east to west, and the one nearest to the shore is also much the larger. Owing to the great number of pines with which they are covered, the view from them is limited; but if we ascend one of the highest towers, we behold the most dazzling and wonderful of pictures. On everyside is a marvellous profusion of light; just in front of us is Cannes, and its elegant villas, bathed by the waves of the sea; a little further inland lies the magnificent valley of Grasse, with its hills covered with olive-trees, its green mountain-slopes, and luxuriant vegetation;[565]on the left is the sharp and varied outline of the long chain of the Esterel; on the right, the Maritime Alps, almost touching the sky, with their snowy summits glittering in the sun; and in the background, a pile of savage mountains and gigantic rocks forms a striking contrast with this privileged spot, and provides for it at once both a sure shelter and a most picturesque framework.

These two islands, so appropriately situated for the embellishment of these peerless localities, have no share in the life or animation that surrounds them. As a rule, uncultivated, and inhabited solely by their garrison and a few fishermen’s families, intersected here and there by ancient salt-marshes, and of a sad and monotonous appearance, one would say that they belonged altogether to the past. On these tranquil coasts everything tends to meditation and to poetry. Day-dreams are natural and easy here, for there is nothing to disturb the grand recollections which the spot evokes, and in which history and legend have an equal share. The Romans have occupied these islets; pious hermits have established themselves on them; the Saracens have invaded and the Spaniards have pillaged them in turn.[566]In the early part of the fifth century, Saint-Honorat founded a monastery here, which was for a long time the most celebrated of Gaul, and in which thousands of apostles were trained in virtue andknowledge, of whom some became celebrated bishops, and very many martyrs.[567]Everywhere on this land of the past vestiges of ancient buildings[568]are to be perceived, and traces of savage devastation. Everywhere the uncertain and poetic recollections preserved by tradition are mingled with the unquestionable events of the history of France. Here, in the smaller of the two islands, is still to be seen the inexhaustible well that, according to the legend, Saint-Honorat caused to be dug, and from which fresh water miraculously issued forth on to a salt and arid shore till then deprived of it. Not a long while ago one used to be shown the place where the Saint, perched on a high tree, escaped the flood of waters he had called forth by his prayers, and which, on afterwards retiring, carried off with them the serpents with which the islands were infested. It was here also that Francis I. stopped when a prisoner of the Spaniards after the fatal battle of Pavia, and this was the last spot of French earth trodden by the unfortunate monarch before commencing his rigorous captivity. It was here also—a recollection at once sad and glorious—that Prince Eugène and the Duke of Savoy encountered the most obstinate resistance when they were invading the South of France, and were marching first upon Cannes and then upon Toulon by theroad bordering the sea.[569]It was from here that the cannon-shots were fired which, by delaying the enemy’s march, gave time for Toulon to be defended; and after the raising of the siege, it was the attack from here that compelled the Germans and Piedmontese, on their return, to leave the sea-shore, and take refuge among the hills and mountains, where they fell under the multiplied blows of the energetic peasants of Provence.

Such are these two islands, sometimes designated under the common name of the Lerins, but better known under that of the Isles Sainte-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat, where the most varied remains abound, but which the residence of the Man with the Iron Mask has especially rendered for ever famous. Such are the spots which it is impossible to visit, pronounce the name of, or call to mind the recollection, without both the name and the recollection of the mysterious prisoner who was confined in the larger of the two islands—that of Sainte-Marguerite—immediately recurring also. Whether we follow the tradition which represents the masked man as being brought to Saint-Mars in this island,[570]or whether we think that he was conductedthither by Saint-Mars himself, it is undeniable that in 1698 the gaoler and his captive departed thence, for the purpose of undertaking that journey which was mysteriously pursued across France, exciting everywhere an inquisitive astonishment, having Villeneuve-le-Roi for its principal halting-place and the Bastille for termination. It is not less certain (and the unimpeachable journal[571]of Dujonca is evidence of this) that the individual conducted to Paris by Saint-Mars “in his litter, was an old prisoner whom he had at Pignerol.”

Who was this prisoner?

It is very certain that there nowhere exists a collection of documents specially relating to the Man with the Iron Mask. Louis XIV. had too great an interest in surrounding this individual with uncertainty and obscurity for him to have been pleased to collect and leave behind him sure proofs of his identity. This interest in concealing the existence of the captive became, as we shall see further on, very much greater at the time of his removal to the Bastille. So his real name disappeared almost entirely, and he was simply termed “the prisoner from Provence.” It is consequently necessary to go back long before the date of this removal, in order to establish his identity, and this can only be done by comparing a great number of despatches, no one of which furnishes of itself an unexceptionable proof, though their comparison and the logical deductions to be derived from them enable us to come to a sure conclusion. We must therefore request from our readers, especially at this stage of the argument, a close and sustained attention.

We have terminated the preceding chapter by stating that M. Jules Loiseleur has pronounced a decisive judgment on the question of the Man with the Iron Mask, and we defy any attentive reader to study his work without becoming convinced that the problem will never be solved. But M. Loiseleur has made his inquiry merely with reference to the documents as yet published. “His demonstrations, so clear, luminous, and peremptory,” a critic has observed, “have exhausted the question, and, in default of fresh documents, no profound mind will again recur to it.”[572]It is these fresh documents which I am about to introduce into the discussion, and I will proceed to state how I was led to suppose their existence, and afterwards how I became the first to establish it.

An unpublished despatch, addressed by Louvois to Saint-Mars, January 5, 1682, is thus conceived:—

“I have received your letter of the 28th of last month. You do not know what is advantageous for you, when you ask to exchange the governorship of Exiles for the command of the Château of Casale, which brings in only two thousand livres of salary. Consequently I do not advise you to think of it.”[573]

At first this despatch appears insignificant enough. It seems to furnish but one proof more of Louvois’ kindly interest for Saint-Mars, an interest which was due to the Minister’s intense affection for his mistress, Madame Dufresnoy, sister-in-law to Saint-Mars, and also, which is perhaps a more legitimate reason, to the perfect devotionand tried fidelity of the gaoler of Fouquet and Lauzun. However, on reading it over again, I asked myself how Saint-Mars could dream, if Matthioly was one of his prisoners, of soliciting to be sent to Casale, to a town altogether Italian and even Mantuan, where Matthioly might certainly have succeeded, if not in escaping (we know that Saint-Mars’ prisoners could scarcely indulge in that hope), at least in giving information concerning himself, and revealing his situation. But the sole motive of Louvois’ refusal is, as we have just seen, the smallness of the salary given to the commandant of Casale. If Saint-Mars, to suppose what could never have happened, had misconceived the danger likely to be caused by Matthioly’s presence at Casale, even as a prisoner, it is beyond doubt that Louvois, naturally cautious (and here caution would have been a duty) would have written to him in something like the following words: “I am astonished that you should have formed the design of removing to Casale. It is necessary to give it up entirely.” But on the contrary, Louvois finds no other inconvenience in this plan than that of the inferiority of the salary attached to the duties of Casale, and he concludes with these words: “I do not advise you to think of it.” It is the friend full of solicitude who speaks, and not the Minister energetically rejecting a proposal so contrary to the interests confided to him.

It was this despatch which first suggested to me the idea that, contrary to the general opinion, Matthioly was not taken by Saint-Mars from Pignerol to Exiles. As yet this was, it is true, but a very weak presumption, which was destroyed by proofs that were apparently irrefutable and had been accepted as such up to the present. Wehave, in fact, seen that Matthioly, a short time after his arrest, was placed in the lower Tower at Pignerol, and it was the prisoners of this tower whom Saint-Mars was ordered to conduct to Exiles. Louvois’ despatch[574]of June 9, 1681, concludes with these words: “With regard to the effects belonging to the Sieur Matthioly, which are in your possession, you will have them taken to Exiles, in order to be able to give them back to him if his Majesty should ever order him to be set at liberty.” This is an explicit statement, and has naturally confirmed every one in the opinion that Matthioly was removed from Pignerol to Exiles. But the doubt which the despatch of January 5, 1682, had made me conceive, was changed into certainty when I read the following letter, written by Saint-Mars, to the Abbé d’Estrades, June 25, 1681, and to be found in minute among the Estrades’ manuscripts in the Imperial Library:—

“June 25, 1681.“Sir, I should not deserve your pardon if I was certain of having the government of Exiles without doing myself the honour to inform you of it, and besides the respect which I have for you, Sir, I am indebted to you to such a degree that I should be an ungrateful and dishonest man if, during the whole of my life, I did not honour you with the utmost affection and respect. Rely on me, Sir, as being the most devoted person in the world towards yourself and bound for the remainder of my days with heart and love to your service. I only received yesterday my supplies as governor of Exiles with two thousand livres of salary; my free company is preserved to me as well as two of mylieutenants, and I shall also have in custody two crows, whom I have here, who have no other names than Messieurs of the lower Tower; Matthioli will remain here with two other prisoners. One of my lieutenants named Villebois will look after them, and he has a warrant to command either in the citadel or in the donjon during my absence, and until M. de Rissan returns, or his Majesty shall have provided for this office of Lieutenant of the King by naming some other person. The Chevalier de Saint-Martin has been appointed Major of Montlouis with a salary of seven hundred crowns, and Blainvilliers, his comrade, Major of the citadel of Metz, with the same pay. I do not expect to leave here before the end of next month. I could if I chose go there from time to time in order to have the repairs made which are necessary for the good of the service, as I have received my orders to go into this place of exile whenever I please; but as nothing presses, and as it will be necessary to take up my residence in this place in order to pass the winter there with the whole of my family and the bears, it will take time for me to accommodate myself as well as possible. What consoles me is that I shall have the honour of being near to the States of their Royal Highnesses, to whom I am as much a debtor as a very respectful and humble servant.”

“June 25, 1681.

“Sir, I should not deserve your pardon if I was certain of having the government of Exiles without doing myself the honour to inform you of it, and besides the respect which I have for you, Sir, I am indebted to you to such a degree that I should be an ungrateful and dishonest man if, during the whole of my life, I did not honour you with the utmost affection and respect. Rely on me, Sir, as being the most devoted person in the world towards yourself and bound for the remainder of my days with heart and love to your service. I only received yesterday my supplies as governor of Exiles with two thousand livres of salary; my free company is preserved to me as well as two of mylieutenants, and I shall also have in custody two crows, whom I have here, who have no other names than Messieurs of the lower Tower; Matthioli will remain here with two other prisoners. One of my lieutenants named Villebois will look after them, and he has a warrant to command either in the citadel or in the donjon during my absence, and until M. de Rissan returns, or his Majesty shall have provided for this office of Lieutenant of the King by naming some other person. The Chevalier de Saint-Martin has been appointed Major of Montlouis with a salary of seven hundred crowns, and Blainvilliers, his comrade, Major of the citadel of Metz, with the same pay. I do not expect to leave here before the end of next month. I could if I chose go there from time to time in order to have the repairs made which are necessary for the good of the service, as I have received my orders to go into this place of exile whenever I please; but as nothing presses, and as it will be necessary to take up my residence in this place in order to pass the winter there with the whole of my family and the bears, it will take time for me to accommodate myself as well as possible. What consoles me is that I shall have the honour of being near to the States of their Royal Highnesses, to whom I am as much a debtor as a very respectful and humble servant.”

Consequently, Matthioly was not the prisoner who died at Exiles, the commencement of January, 1687.[575]He wastherefore left at Pignerol, where we shall soon meet with him again in charge of the Sieur de Villebois. Louis XIV. at first had the idea of having him removed to Exiles, as is proved by Louvois’ despatch of June 9, 1681, the last sentence of which we have quoted. But it is none the less certain that this first design was abandoned, and that Matthioly was left at Pignerol.

There is also another remarkable expression in Saint-Mars’ letter. He writes, “I shall also have in custody two crows” (merles). Now even in our own time the word “crow” (merle) is applied only to common and insignificant persons, of as little notoriety as importance. Up to the present, however, it is in one of these two “crows” that people have seen the Man with the Iron Mask. Is it objected that one proof alone is not sufficient to establish the entire obscurity of these two prisoners of Saint Mars? But this is confirmed also by all we have said concerning the treatment of which Saint-Mars’ prisoners at Pignerol were the objects, with the exception of Fouquet, Lauzun, and Matthioly.[576]Is additional testimony required? “You can have clothes made for your prisoners,” writes Louvois to Saint-Mars at Exiles, December 14, 1681; “but it is necessary that the clothes ofpeople like these should last three or four years.”[577]As usual, the Minister’s orders were punctually executed by his representative, and when Saint-Mars left Exiles to proceed to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, he wrote to Versailles “that the prisoner’s bed was so old and worn out” (we have previously seen that one of the prisoners was still alive in 1687, the other having died in the early part of January of the same year), “as well as everything he made use of, both table-linen and furniture, that it was not worth while to bring them here; they only sold for thirteen crowns.”[578]Assuredly if this is the Man with the Iron Mask, and if he had that delicate taste for fine linen, of which so much has been said, he must have found considerable difficulty in gratifying it.

Saint-Mars arrives at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, which as yet had not been used as a State Prison, as they are at present.[579]Obeying Louvois’ orders he causes some newbuildings to be erected,[580]in which he receives in turns various prisoners, especially Protestant ministers.[581]Does the gaoler’s behaviour change at this period? Is it then that we find a trace of those peculiarities which are so abundantly proved, and which form one of the characteristic features of the story of the Man with the Iron Mask? The following despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars will furnish us with an answer:—

“At the Camp before Namur, June 29, 1692.[582]“I have received your letter of the fourth of this month. When any of the prisoners confided to your care will not do what you order them, or cause a mutiny, you have only to[583]punish them as you may think proper.”

“At the Camp before Namur, June 29, 1692.[582]

“I have received your letter of the fourth of this month. When any of the prisoners confided to your care will not do what you order them, or cause a mutiny, you have only to[583]punish them as you may think proper.”

It has been unceasingly repeated that Saint-Mars never quitted his famous prisoner from the moment that he received him in charge. This is again one of the features characterizing the mysterious captive, and the two men are in some degree always represented as the prisoners of one another. Do we find, either at Exiles or during the first years of Saint-Mars’ residence at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, this significant peculiarity? We are about to see:—

“December 14, 1681.“Nothing prevents you from going to Casale from time to time, in order to see Monsieur Catinat.”[584]

“December 14, 1681.

“Nothing prevents you from going to Casale from time to time, in order to see Monsieur Catinat.”[584]

“December 22, 1681.“His Majesty does not disapprove of your sleeping away from Exiles for one night when you desire to pay a visit in the neighbourhood.”[585]

“December 22, 1681.

“His Majesty does not disapprove of your sleeping away from Exiles for one night when you desire to pay a visit in the neighbourhood.”[585]

“Turin, January 9, 1682.“Monsieur de Saint-Mars arrived at Turin yesterday.Some time ago when he passed through herehe did me thehonour to stop with me. But this time M. de Masin has the preference.”[586]

“Turin, January 9, 1682.

“Monsieur de Saint-Mars arrived at Turin yesterday.Some time ago when he passed through herehe did me thehonour to stop with me. But this time M. de Masin has the preference.”[586]

“April 18, 1682.“The King does not disapprove of your going to pay your respects to the Duke of Savoy.”

“April 18, 1682.

“The King does not disapprove of your going to pay your respects to the Duke of Savoy.”

“March 7, 1685.“The King is willing that you should go for change of air to the place you may think best for your health.”

“March 7, 1685.

“The King is willing that you should go for change of air to the place you may think best for your health.”

“March 20, 1685.“Madame de Saint-Mars having told me that you wished to go to the baths of Aix in Savoy, I have informed the King, and his Majesty has commanded me to acquaint you that he is pleased to grant you permission to absent yourself from Exiles on this ground for the space of a fortnight or three weeks.”

“March 20, 1685.

“Madame de Saint-Mars having told me that you wished to go to the baths of Aix in Savoy, I have informed the King, and his Majesty has commanded me to acquaint you that he is pleased to grant you permission to absent yourself from Exiles on this ground for the space of a fortnight or three weeks.”

“July 5, 1688.[587]“The King approves of your absenting yourself from the place where you command, two days a month, and also of your returning the Governor of Nice the visit he has paid you.”[588]

“July 5, 1688.[587]

“The King approves of your absenting yourself from the place where you command, two days a month, and also of your returning the Governor of Nice the visit he has paid you.”[588]

Thus, save the precautions taken to prevent an escape—and we have seen that these were prescribed to Saint-Mars, in the same form and with the same minute instructions, for all prisoners alike, whoever they might be, even for that Eustache d’Auger, who was turned into a servant for Fouquet—save, I say, these precautions, necessary but exaggerated by Saint-Mars’ scruples, we do not find in these two captives any of the essential characteristics of the Man with the Iron Mask. Not that we accept all those with which romance has adorned him. But, however insignificant exact history may represent him, is he to berecognized in one of those two men,[589]termed “crows” by Saint-Mars, “these sort of people” by Louvois, treated in the manner we have seen; the total value of whose effects, linen, and furniture, was only thirteen crowns, and whom their gaoler received permission to leave frequently and for considerable periods of time?

But there is another result of our researches, quite as unknown as that which we have just set forth.

Saint-Mars is at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, which he does not scruple to leave from time to time. All at once, on February 26, 1694, the Minister announces to him the approaching arrival at the islands of three State prisoners who are then in the donjon of Pignerol. He inquires of Saint-Mars “if there are secure places to confine them in,” and orders him to make preparations, repairs, and the necessary arrangements for their reception.[590]In another letter, onthe following 20th of March, Barbézieux adds these words, the great importance of which it is unnecessary to point out: “You well know that they are of more importance,at least, one of them, than those who are now at the islands, and you ought to place them by preference in the most secure prisons.”[591]Then he orders him “to prepare the furniture and plate necessary for their use, and impresses upon him that the works which he is compelled to have done should be ready on their arrival.” By the same courier he forwards fifteen hundred livres to meet the first expenses.

A few days afterwards, in fact, three prisoners arrived at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, surrounded by a very strong escort, in charge of the commandant of Pignerol, who alone gave them their food,[592]and guided by two sure men sent on in advance by the Governor; among these prisoners, as we shall see hereafter, was the one whom Saint-Mars some years later took to the Bastille.

FOOTNOTES:[564]Thus named on account of a cross to which pilgrimages were formerly made:—Promenades de Nice, by Émile Negrin, p. 273.[565]Visite aux Îles de Lérins, by the Abbé Alliez, 1840.[566]Notice sur Cannes et les Îles des Lérins, by M. Sardou. Cannes, Robaudy, 1867.[567]Besides Saint-Honorat, there were Saints Aigulph, Hilary, Patrick, Capraise, Vincent, Venantius, and many others. See the very remarkable thesis presented to the Faculty of Letters in Paris by the Abbé Goux, professor at the Petit Séminaire of Toulouse, and entitled,Lérins au Cinquième Siècle. Paris, Eugène Belin, 1856. Also the charming volume of MM. Girard and Bareste,Cannes et ses Environs. Paris, Garnier, 1859.[568]M. Merimée,Note d’un Voyage dans le Midi de la France, p. 256,et seq.[569]A flag of truce came from the Duke of Savoy to notify to M. la Mothe-Guérin, governor of the islands, the order to cease firing. “The first person,” replied La Mothe-Guérin, “who has the audacity to come again to me as the bearer of such a message, I shall immediately have hung:”—M. Sardou, work already cited, p. 111. “It was when under fire from the Isles Sainte-Marguerite,” the Duke of Savoy said afterwards, “that I knew better than anywhere else that I was in an enemy’s country.”[570]It is to be remarked that according to the first work which makes mention of the Man with the Iron Mask, the prisoner was conducted to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, and there confided to Saint-Mars. This is theMémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse, from which we have reproduced the entire passage in ChapterVI.of the present work (see p. 69,ante).[571]The passages of this Journal relating to the prisoner are given in ChapterXIII.of the present work (see pp. 164, 165,ante).[572]M. Baudry,Revue de l’Instruction Publique, June 25, 1868.[573]Archives of the Ministry of War.[574]Given by Delort, p. 269.[575]This is now placed beyond doubt, and moreover we shall find Matthioly’s name occurring later in the despatches from Louvois to the commandant of the donjon of Pignerol. With respect to the testimony of the Sieur Souchon, which, following M. Loiseleur, we have given in the preceding chapter, it is rather confused in theMémoires d’un Voyageur qui se repose(vol. ii. pp. 204-210 of Bossange’s edition), and very clear in the work of Father Papon, but with the signification ofthe death of the servantand not of Matthioly himself. The following is the passage from theVoyage Littéraire de Provence(pp. 148, 149, edition 1780), integrally reproduced: “The person who waited on the prisoner died at the Isle Sainte-Marguerite. The father of the officer of whom I have just spoken (Souchon, seventy-nine years old), who was in certain matters the man of confidence of M. de Saint-Mars, had always told his son that he had taken the dead man from his prison at the hour of midnight, and had carried him on his shoulders to the burial-ground.”[576]We shall refer hereafter to the treatment of Matthioly.[577]Archives of the Ministry of War.[578]Letter given by Delort, p. 284.[579]In 1633, Richelieu had the Fort Royal built on the northern shore of the Isle Sainte-Marguerite, but it was on the arrival of Saint-Mars that the buildings were erected which were to serve for prisoners of very various classes. The following unpublished letter, written by M. de Grignan, Lieutenant-General of Provence, September 29, 1691, proves that previous to this date the Isle Sainte-Marguerite was a State Prison:—“The guard which I had placed at Cannes have arrested a sailor, supposed to belong to Oneglia, who was coming from the direction of Genoa, and who, from his replies, in which he has varied a great deal, has given grounds for belief that he has been put ashore by the Spanish galleys and is a spy, who, under pretence of carrying to Toulon a letter from a captain of Genoa, was going there to obtain information. He has been taken to the Isles of Sainte-Marguerite.“L.de Grignan, L. G. of Provence.“September 29, 1691, to M. de Pontchartrain.”—Archives of the Ministry of Marine, Correspondence.Another letter, dated July 21, 1681, from Count de Grignan to M. de Pontchartrain, shows that the island was beginning to be armed for the defence of the coast:—“M. de Saint-Mars, governor of the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat de Lérins, speaks to me of provisions which he is obliged to fetch from the mainland, and of the twenty-five pieces of cannon which require carriages.”—Ibid.[580]In a despatch dated January 8, 1688, Saint-Mars hastens to apprise Louvois that his new prisons are quite ready and waiting to be occupied:—“Monseigneur,—I will do myself the honour to tell you that I have placed my prisoner, who is generally in bad health, in one of the new prisons which I have had built according to your instructions. They are large, lofty, and light, and considering their excellence, I do not think that there are any stronger or more secure in Europe, and in like manner for everything that can concern the giving of intelligence by word of mouth from near and far, which was not the case in the places where I have had the care of the late Monsieur Fouquet from the moment that he was arrested. With a little precaution one might even allow the prisoners to walk about the whole of the island, without any fear of their escaping or of their giving or receiving news. I take the liberty, monseigneur, to point out to you in detail the excellence of this place in case you may at any time have prisoners whom you wish to put in perfect security with a fair amount of liberty.“Throughout this province people say that mine is Monsieur de Beaufort and others the son of the late Cromwell.”[581]The greater portion of the despatches relating to the Protestants confined in the islands have been given by Depping in hisCorrespondance Administrative sous Louis XIV..[582]Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, June 29, 1692:—Archives of the Ministry of War.[583]The following words are here erased:—“beat them severely, and.”[584]Unpublished despatch from Louvois to Saint-Mars:—Archives of the Ministry of War.[585]Ibid.:—Ibid.[586]Manuscripts of the Imperial Library,Papiers d’Estrades. This letter and several others in the same collection are a proof of the friendship which subsisted between Saint-Mars and the Abbé d’Estrades.“On the first of next month, Monsieur de Catinat,” we read in a letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, “will be the governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s possession.” He refers to Casale, and these words would suffice to prove, what is already attested by the active part played by Saint-Mars with Catinat in 1679, viz., that Saint-Mars had been kept informed of all the details of the two negotiations. Consequently, as we have already shown in the preceding chapter, the famous sentence of Louvois’ despatch to Saint-Mars, August 13, 1681—“The King having ordered Monsieur de Catinat to proceed as soon as possible to Pignerolon the same business which took him there at the commencement of the year 1679”—has and can have only one meaning, that is to say, the taking possession of Casale, and not the arrest of a new prisoner.But M. Loiseleur brings forward another argument in order to attempt to prove that an obscure spy was arrested by Catinat in 1681. This is the following letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, September 20, 1681:—“The King does not disapprove of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison, and has left that in which you are keeping him. His Majesty desires that you shall execute the order which he has sent you,” &c. And the same critic concludes, from a despatch from Saint-Mars to Louvois, March 11, 1682, which again mentions two prisoners, that, between September 20, 1681, and March 11, 1682, a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars.Let us remark, firstly, that the space of time in question is much more limited still. M. Loiseleur only made use of documents already published. But, November 18, 1681, Louvois, in a despatch as yet unprinted, says to Saint-Mars, with reference to his prisoners: “The King approves of your choosing a doctor to visit your prisoners, and of your employing the Sieur Vignon to confess them once a year.” From this it would appear that a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars, between September 20 and November 18, 1681; but, as we have already said in the last chapter, there is nowhere any trace of this prisoner, this so-called spy. On the other hand, for the despatch of September 20, 1681, to have the meaning which M. Loiseleur attributes to it, one of the two prisoners of the lower Tower must have died some days previous to September 20, since at this date only one prisoner is spoken of. Of this death or disappearance we have no proof or even trace. Thus the whole argument rests upon this single despatch, of which M. Loiseleur not only makes use in order to prove that a new prisoner had been confided to Saint-Mars, but from which he also deduces that one of the prisoners previously confined had disappeared.This single despatch thus standing alone, and completely unsupported, would be far from being sufficient to establish this theory. Nevertheless, it is essential to discover its true meaning, so as to leave no doubt in the reader’s mind, and to make every part of our demonstration clear and plain. I acknowledge having spent a considerable time in thinking over this despatch, which was contradicted by all the others, which suited no theory, and which was nevertheless authentic and very exactly reproduced, since I went several times to read the draft of it, at the Archives of the Ministry of War. Even if it had possessed the meaning that M. Loiseleur attributed to it, it would not have destroyed my conclusions at all, since the proofs which I had furnished of the obscurity of the Exiles prisoners were also applicable to this new prisoner brought between November and September, 1681, and because the superior importance of the prisoners afterwards taken from Pignerol to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, would not have been demonstrated any the less clearly by the despatches which I am about to quote. But it was repugnant to me to leave a single point obscure; and after much reflection, and after having been for a long while of M. Loiseleur’s opinion, although nothing outside of this despatch justifies his interpretation, I believe that I have discovered its true meaning.“The King does not disapprove,” says the despatch which we are discussing, “of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison and has left that in which you are keeping him.” At first I thought it very strange that one of Saint-Mars’ prisoners should “settle” in his prison without his gaoler, and connecting this fact with the numerous despatches which show that at this period, or at least at one not very remote from it, Saint-Mars still had two prisoners, I have ended by concluding that the word “prisoner” is not used here by Louvois in its ordinary sense, but figuratively. I then recollected that in 1681, as in 1679, Catinat was at Pignerol, and treated in appearance at least as a prisoner. The following despatch from Catinat to Louvois, September 6, 1681, leaves no doubt on the subject: “I have called myself Guibert, (we have seen that in 1679, he had taken the name of Richemont), and I am supposed to be an engineerwho has been arrestedby the King’s orders for having deserted with a number of plans of places on the frontiers of Flanders. M. de Saint-Marskeeps me here with every appearance of my being a prisoner,” &c. On the other hand, during Catinat’s two stays at Pignerol, with two years’ interval between them, a profound friendship had sprung up between him and Saint-Mars. The despatch which we are discussing was dated September 20, 1681. Now, on the 28th, Catinat was to leave, and indeed did leave Pignerol, and on October 1, he was installed at Casale as governor. In an unpublished letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, is an expression which explains everything: “I have given your letter to M. de Catinat, and he will have the honour to communicate with you when he issettled. He leaves to-morrow, Sunday, with the infantry, and no one is more your servant than he is. The first of next month he will be received as governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s possession (Casale).”—Imperial Library, Manuscripts,Papiers d’Estrades. Now this very expression, “when he is settled,” occurs in Louvois’ despatch, September 20, which Saint-Mars had just received when he was writing to d’Estrades.But, it will be said, why does Louvois make use of the words “in his new prison” to describe Casale? Because, no doubt, Catinat had not left Louvois ignorant that a monotonous residence at Casale was disagreeable to him, and that he would very much prefer to return to the army of Flanders. Lastly, December 14, 1681, Louvois writes to Saint-Mars, who, from his excessive scruples, had probably renewed his request for an authorisation: “Nothing need prevent your going to Casale from time to time, in order to visit M. Catinat.”It is therefore to Catinat that reference is made in the despatch of September 20, 1681, to Catinat, the last of the prisoners whom Saint-Mars still had in his care, for, since the month of June, Matthioly had been confided to Villebois, and the two prisoners left to Saint-Mars were two “crows,” whom no doubt he had already taken to Exiles.It is to Catinat that he refers, and this despatch can no longer be made to serve as a pretext for the theory according to which a new prisoner was arrested by Catinat in 1681.[587]Saint-Mars was now at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite.[588]This and the three preceding despatches are from Louvois to Saint-Mars, and are to be found in the Archives of the Ministry of War.[589]The “crow” taken by Saint-Mars to the Islands was undoubtedly the Jacobin monk, as is proved by the following despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars: “Versailles, August 13, 1691—Your letter of the 26th of last month has been handed to me. When you have anything to inform me concerning the prisoner who has been in your charge for the last twenty years, I beg you to adopt the same precautions as you made use of when communicating with M. de Louvois.” Twenty years is undoubtedly a round number, and the Jacobin monk, imprisoned since 1674, had then suffered seventeen years of captivity. A great deal of importance has been ascribed to this despatch, because it was one of the very few belonging to this period which were known to exist. We have just seen, however, that its value is very much diminished by comparison with the other letters which we have transcribed. The recommendation that Barbézieux gives in it is purely a matter of form, and similar injunctions were transmitted to Villebois and afterwards to Laprade, when charged with the care of Matthioly.[590]Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, February 26, 1694:—Archives of the Ministry of War.[591]Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, March 20, 1694:—Ibid.[592]“The King charges you that no one but yourself shall give them to eat, as you have done since they were confided to your care;”—Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Laprade, who, on the death of Villebois, succeeded to the governorship of the donjon of Pignerol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[573]Archives of the Ministry of War.

[574]Given by Delort, p. 269.

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

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

[577]Archives of the Ministry of War.

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

[579]In 1633, Richelieu had the Fort Royal built on the northern shore of the Isle Sainte-Marguerite, but it was on the arrival of Saint-Mars that the buildings were erected which were to serve for prisoners of very various classes. The following unpublished letter, written by M. de Grignan, Lieutenant-General of Provence, September 29, 1691, proves that previous to this date the Isle Sainte-Marguerite was a State Prison:—“The guard which I had placed at Cannes have arrested a sailor, supposed to belong to Oneglia, who was coming from the direction of Genoa, and who, from his replies, in which he has varied a great deal, has given grounds for belief that he has been put ashore by the Spanish galleys and is a spy, who, under pretence of carrying to Toulon a letter from a captain of Genoa, was going there to obtain information. He has been taken to the Isles of Sainte-Marguerite.“L.de Grignan, L. G. of Provence.“September 29, 1691, to M. de Pontchartrain.”—Archives of the Ministry of Marine, Correspondence.Another letter, dated July 21, 1681, from Count de Grignan to M. de Pontchartrain, shows that the island was beginning to be armed for the defence of the coast:—“M. de Saint-Mars, governor of the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat de Lérins, speaks to me of provisions which he is obliged to fetch from the mainland, and of the twenty-five pieces of cannon which require carriages.”—Ibid.

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

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

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

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

[580]In a despatch dated January 8, 1688, Saint-Mars hastens to apprise Louvois that his new prisons are quite ready and waiting to be occupied:—“Monseigneur,—I will do myself the honour to tell you that I have placed my prisoner, who is generally in bad health, in one of the new prisons which I have had built according to your instructions. They are large, lofty, and light, and considering their excellence, I do not think that there are any stronger or more secure in Europe, and in like manner for everything that can concern the giving of intelligence by word of mouth from near and far, which was not the case in the places where I have had the care of the late Monsieur Fouquet from the moment that he was arrested. With a little precaution one might even allow the prisoners to walk about the whole of the island, without any fear of their escaping or of their giving or receiving news. I take the liberty, monseigneur, to point out to you in detail the excellence of this place in case you may at any time have prisoners whom you wish to put in perfect security with a fair amount of liberty.“Throughout this province people say that mine is Monsieur de Beaufort and others the son of the late Cromwell.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[585]Ibid.:—Ibid.

[586]Manuscripts of the Imperial Library,Papiers d’Estrades. This letter and several others in the same collection are a proof of the friendship which subsisted between Saint-Mars and the Abbé d’Estrades.“On the first of next month, Monsieur de Catinat,” we read in a letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, “will be the governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s possession.” He refers to Casale, and these words would suffice to prove, what is already attested by the active part played by Saint-Mars with Catinat in 1679, viz., that Saint-Mars had been kept informed of all the details of the two negotiations. Consequently, as we have already shown in the preceding chapter, the famous sentence of Louvois’ despatch to Saint-Mars, August 13, 1681—“The King having ordered Monsieur de Catinat to proceed as soon as possible to Pignerolon the same business which took him there at the commencement of the year 1679”—has and can have only one meaning, that is to say, the taking possession of Casale, and not the arrest of a new prisoner.But M. Loiseleur brings forward another argument in order to attempt to prove that an obscure spy was arrested by Catinat in 1681. This is the following letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, September 20, 1681:—“The King does not disapprove of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison, and has left that in which you are keeping him. His Majesty desires that you shall execute the order which he has sent you,” &c. And the same critic concludes, from a despatch from Saint-Mars to Louvois, March 11, 1682, which again mentions two prisoners, that, between September 20, 1681, and March 11, 1682, a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars.Let us remark, firstly, that the space of time in question is much more limited still. M. Loiseleur only made use of documents already published. But, November 18, 1681, Louvois, in a despatch as yet unprinted, says to Saint-Mars, with reference to his prisoners: “The King approves of your choosing a doctor to visit your prisoners, and of your employing the Sieur Vignon to confess them once a year.” From this it would appear that a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars, between September 20 and November 18, 1681; but, as we have already said in the last chapter, there is nowhere any trace of this prisoner, this so-called spy. On the other hand, for the despatch of September 20, 1681, to have the meaning which M. Loiseleur attributes to it, one of the two prisoners of the lower Tower must have died some days previous to September 20, since at this date only one prisoner is spoken of. Of this death or disappearance we have no proof or even trace. Thus the whole argument rests upon this single despatch, of which M. Loiseleur not only makes use in order to prove that a new prisoner had been confided to Saint-Mars, but from which he also deduces that one of the prisoners previously confined had disappeared.This single despatch thus standing alone, and completely unsupported, would be far from being sufficient to establish this theory. Nevertheless, it is essential to discover its true meaning, so as to leave no doubt in the reader’s mind, and to make every part of our demonstration clear and plain. I acknowledge having spent a considerable time in thinking over this despatch, which was contradicted by all the others, which suited no theory, and which was nevertheless authentic and very exactly reproduced, since I went several times to read the draft of it, at the Archives of the Ministry of War. Even if it had possessed the meaning that M. Loiseleur attributed to it, it would not have destroyed my conclusions at all, since the proofs which I had furnished of the obscurity of the Exiles prisoners were also applicable to this new prisoner brought between November and September, 1681, and because the superior importance of the prisoners afterwards taken from Pignerol to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, would not have been demonstrated any the less clearly by the despatches which I am about to quote. But it was repugnant to me to leave a single point obscure; and after much reflection, and after having been for a long while of M. Loiseleur’s opinion, although nothing outside of this despatch justifies his interpretation, I believe that I have discovered its true meaning.“The King does not disapprove,” says the despatch which we are discussing, “of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison and has left that in which you are keeping him.” At first I thought it very strange that one of Saint-Mars’ prisoners should “settle” in his prison without his gaoler, and connecting this fact with the numerous despatches which show that at this period, or at least at one not very remote from it, Saint-Mars still had two prisoners, I have ended by concluding that the word “prisoner” is not used here by Louvois in its ordinary sense, but figuratively. I then recollected that in 1681, as in 1679, Catinat was at Pignerol, and treated in appearance at least as a prisoner. The following despatch from Catinat to Louvois, September 6, 1681, leaves no doubt on the subject: “I have called myself Guibert, (we have seen that in 1679, he had taken the name of Richemont), and I am supposed to be an engineerwho has been arrestedby the King’s orders for having deserted with a number of plans of places on the frontiers of Flanders. M. de Saint-Marskeeps me here with every appearance of my being a prisoner,” &c. On the other hand, during Catinat’s two stays at Pignerol, with two years’ interval between them, a profound friendship had sprung up between him and Saint-Mars. The despatch which we are discussing was dated September 20, 1681. Now, on the 28th, Catinat was to leave, and indeed did leave Pignerol, and on October 1, he was installed at Casale as governor. In an unpublished letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, is an expression which explains everything: “I have given your letter to M. de Catinat, and he will have the honour to communicate with you when he issettled. He leaves to-morrow, Sunday, with the infantry, and no one is more your servant than he is. The first of next month he will be received as governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s possession (Casale).”—Imperial Library, Manuscripts,Papiers d’Estrades. Now this very expression, “when he is settled,” occurs in Louvois’ despatch, September 20, which Saint-Mars had just received when he was writing to d’Estrades.But, it will be said, why does Louvois make use of the words “in his new prison” to describe Casale? Because, no doubt, Catinat had not left Louvois ignorant that a monotonous residence at Casale was disagreeable to him, and that he would very much prefer to return to the army of Flanders. Lastly, December 14, 1681, Louvois writes to Saint-Mars, who, from his excessive scruples, had probably renewed his request for an authorisation: “Nothing need prevent your going to Casale from time to time, in order to visit M. Catinat.”It is therefore to Catinat that reference is made in the despatch of September 20, 1681, to Catinat, the last of the prisoners whom Saint-Mars still had in his care, for, since the month of June, Matthioly had been confided to Villebois, and the two prisoners left to Saint-Mars were two “crows,” whom no doubt he had already taken to Exiles.It is to Catinat that he refers, and this despatch can no longer be made to serve as a pretext for the theory according to which a new prisoner was arrested by Catinat in 1681.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Index Next