_Marechal d’Ancre._
XCI. It has so happened, that the tracts of history inserted in this
discourse, are mostly favourable to, or in mitigation of the offences of
some famous delinquents. There has scarce been a favourite since the days
of Sejanus to our times, who was so universally detested, and, according
to the process that was instituted against him, with so much reason,
as the Marechal d’Ancre; who was a Florentine by birth, named Concino
Concini, and who came to France with queen Mary of Medicis, by whose
favour, during her regency, he was raised to the first offices in the
state, and arrived at having the absolute controul of the whole monarchy.
His insolence, his ambition, his cruelty, and his avarice, occasioned it
to be resolved upon, as soon as Lewis the Thirteenth ascended the throne,
to take away his life; but as on account of his creatures, and his great
power, they did not dare attempt the thing by a regular process, they
gave a commission to one Vitri, who was a captain in the guards, to put
him to death in any manner that he should find most expedient; which he
executed, by pistoling him upon the Pont Neuf, where he happened to meet
him, unprepared or provided for his defence. The fury of the populace,
manifested the implacable and inveterate hatred, which was entertained
against the defunct favourite: they tumultuously dragged his body from
the church, and hung it upon a gallows, which the Marechal had erected
to hang those on who should murmur against him; they next beheaded him,
and dragged the body through the streets and squares of the city; after
this, they cut pieces off from it, with an intent to preserve them as
precious mementos of the public vengeance. It is said, the ears were
sold at a very high price. The grand provost, attended by his archers,
attempted to restrain the populace, but was obliged to desist, as they
threatened, if he did not remain quiet, to bury him alive. They threw
the entrails into the river, and burnt part of the body before the
statue of Henry the Fourth, which stands on the Pont Neuf; and some cut
pieces of flesh, which they broiled at the fire they had made, and ate
them: one manifested his rage, by tearing out and publicly eating the
heart; and another, who by his dress appeared to be a man of condition,
running his hand into the carcase, and drawing it out all besmeared with
blood, lifted it to his mouth and sucked it; and scarce ever was the
hatred of any people carried to such a pitch of fury. After he was dead,
they instituted that prosecution against him which they did not dare to
commence while he was living; and upon the depositions and evidence which
were laid before his judges, they not only declared him guilty of high
treason, but of having professed Judaism, and been in league with the
Devil; and a little while afterwards, they beheaded and burnt his wife
Leonora Gallagai, for the same crimes.
XCII. With all this, there has not been wanting a person, who has
attempted to excuse and justify the Marechal d’Ancre, and not one who
was a creature or countryman of his, or in any shape connected with him,
but a Frenchman, a peer, and Marechal of France, Francis Annibal Duke
d’Etré, a man famous for his military exploits and his embassies, and
one who was very well informed with respect to the intrigues and secret
management of those times. This nobleman, in his Memoirs of the Regency
of Mary of Medicis, attributes the tragedy of the Marechal d’Ancre to
mere misfortune; he celebrates his great talents, and says, that he was
naturally disposed to do what was right, and that, therefore, very few
people who knew him disliked him; but he acknowledges, that although he
was a pleasing man in conversation, he entertained high and ambitious
notions; but adds, that he concealed them profoundly; and he concludes
with saying, that he had heard him declare many times, they murdered the
king without his order or knowledge.
XC. These contradictions in history are truly astonishing. The Marechal
d’Etré is an evidence superior to all exception; for if he could ever
have had any obligations to d’Ancre, they must have been but trifling,
because he obtained his most distinguished honours, and such as were
very correspondent to his merit, in the reign of Lewis the Thirteenth.
What then shall we say to all this? why, under such circumstances,
good criticism will pursue a middle course; and conclude, that d’Ancre
incurred the public hatred, partly on account of his being so great a
favourite, which of itself is sufficient to make a man regarded with
an evil eye; and partly on account of his being a stranger, which is a
circumstance that nearly always produces, in those who are to obey, envy
and indignation: and finally, the abuse of his power, in some instances
of his conduct, may also have contributed to raise the flame. But the
most atrocious crimes alledged against him in his prosecution, we may
suppose, were the invention of his enemies; for, notwithstanding the
evidence upon record seems to confirm the truth of them, we may conclude,
that out of so great a number as these consisted of, and who were for the
most part enraged witnesses, there would not be wanting some of them, who
would give such testimony as their rage dictated to them, although it was
contrary to truth, and against their consciences.