_Monsieur le Duc_ and Madame de Prie determine to break off
the marriage of Louis XV. and the Infanta, and to marry the
young King to a princess capable of at once giving him an
heir--Double interest of the favourite in the accomplishment
of this design--Question of the remarriage of _Monsieur le
Duc_--Madame de Prie, unable to oppose this, selects Marie
Leczinska--Rupture of the Spanish marriage--Exasperation of
the Court of Madrid--Difficulty of finding a suitable consort
for Louis XV.--Madame de Prie accused of having barred the way
of Mlle. de Vermandois to the crown matrimonial--The favourite
advocates the claims of Marie Leczinska, who is eventually
chosen--Triumph of Madame de Prie--Arrival of the new Queen--A
model husband--Growing unpopularity of the Government and
increasing influence of Fleury--An unsuccessful intrigue--Madame
de Prie retires from Court, but _Monsieur le Duc_ insists on
her return--Disgrace of _Monsieur le Duc_--His mother and his
mistress follow him to Chantilly--Madame de Prie is exiled to
Normandy--A touching farewell--Chivalrous behaviour of the
prince--Death of Madame de Prie--Remarriage of _Monsieur le
Duc_--His death.
_Monsieur le Duc_ and Madame de Prie did not allow themselves to
be cast down by the reverse which they had sustained at the Palais de
Justice, since for some months they had been meditating a most daring
project, which, they believed, would render them absolute masters of
the field.
We have mentioned that in 1721 the Infanta Luisa Isabella, then in her
fifth year, had been sent to the French Court to be brought up there
until she had reached a marriageable age, when she was to become the
wife of Louis XV. Well, this arrangement had always been regarded with
the strongest disfavour by _Monsieur le Duc_ and his mistress.
In the first place, years must elapse before the “Infanta-Queen,” as
the little princess was called, would be able to bear an heir to the
throne, and should Louis XV. die without male issue, their enemy, the
Duc de Chartres, would become King. In the second, should the Infanta
succeed in gaining any influence over the young monarch’s mind, that
influence would certainly be exploited by Philip V. to bring about the
dismissal of _Monsieur le Duc_ and the elevation of the Orléans.
During the visit of the King to Chantilly in the previous summer they
had taken counsel with Pâris-Duverney and their principal advisers, and
had decided that the Infanta must be sent back to Spain, even at the
risk of an open breach with Philip V.; and Louis XV. married to some
princess who could at once make him a father.
Madame de Prie had personally a double interest in the accomplishment
of this design, for not only would it remove the greatest dangers
which _Monsieur le Duc_ had to fear and immensely strengthen
his position, but the marriage of the King and the birth of a prince
would serve to retard perhaps indefinitely the marriage of her lover.
For while only two lives stood between _Monsieur le Duc_ and the
throne, it was obviously his duty to take a second wife, and _Madame
la Duchesse_ was continually urging him to do so. Such a prospect
was naturally most distasteful to Madame de Prie, not because she had
much reason to fear a rival in the prince’s affections, but because
she had become so attached to him that she could not bear the thought
of surrendering him, even nominally, to another woman. Moreover, his
remarriage must interfere to some extent with that free intercourse
which had hitherto existed between them, and which, for political as
well as sentimental reasons, might occasion serious inconvenience.
However, since she did not see her way to offer any opposition to
the affair without the risk of an open quarrel with _Madame la
Duchesse_, she decided to accept the inevitable, and to occupy
herself in finding a wife for her lover who, while not possessing
sufficient personal attractions to cause her any jealousy, would be
sufficiently complaisant to reduce the inconveniences which she feared
to a minimum.
She accordingly lent _Madame la Duchesse_ her most devoted
adherents, the same whom she was presently to employ on behalf of
Louis XV.; and the Courts of Europe were ransacked to find a suitable
partner for the chief of the Condés. The search proved to be a
difficult one, for Madame de Prie’s requirements naturally caused not
a few otherwise eligible young ladies to be passed over by her agents;
but, at length, her old admirer Lozilières, formerly secretary to the
Embassy at Turin, who journeyed under the name of the Chevalier de Méré
and in the character of a wandering artist, reported the discovery of
one whom he thought might answer her purpose.
The princess in question was Marie Leczinska, daughter of Stanislaus
Leczinski, the dethroned and fugitive King of Poland, who was now
vegetating sadly at Weissembourg, in Alsace. She was described as
pleasing in appearance, though without any pretensions to beauty, very
amiable, very kind-hearted, and entirely devoid of ambition; in short,
exactly the kind of young woman to make _Monsieur le Duc_ a good
wife, without threatening any danger to his mistress. The favourite’s
suggestion of an alliance between the Duc de Bourbon and the Polish
princess was well received by _Madame la Duchesse_, for, though
the young lady’s father was at present in exile, it was far from
improbable that a turn of fortune might one day restore him to his
throne; _Monsieur le Duc_ offered no opposition; Stanislaus gave
thanks to Heaven that his daughter’s hand was sought by so powerful a
prince; Marie had no other wish than that of her father; and the affair
was almost concluded, when events occurred which decided the Government
that the marriage of the King to a princess capable of bearing him
children was a question which admitted of no delay.
On 30 August, 1724, the young King of Spain died, and Philip V. resumed
the crown which he had resigned a few months before. Early in 1725,
a despatch from Philip to his Ambassador at the Court of Versailles
was intercepted by the agents of _Monsieur le Duc_, which showed
that it was his intention to demand “the public declaration of the
nuptial arrangements” between Louis XV. and the Infanta. And, almost
immediately after this discovery, the young King fell so ill that for
several days he was believed to be in serious danger.
This last event precipitated matters, and the French Government
resolved not to wait until the new _fiancée_ was chosen, but to
inform the Court of Madrid at once of the resolution at which they had
arrived. The Maréchal de Tessé, the French Ambassador, little suitable
to undertake so disagreeable a commission, on account of his great
attachment to Philip V., was recalled, and it was the Abbé de Livry,
_chargé d’affaires_ at Lisbon, who presented to his Catholic
Majesty the letter in which Louis XV. endeavoured to justify the
affront which he was inflicting on his uncle. “Trembling from head to
foot, the abbé presented to the King his master’s letter. The Queen was
at the end of the cabinet, occupied with her correspondence. Suddenly,
she heard the King strike the table violently, and cry out: ‘Ah! the
traitor!’ She ran to him.... The King handed her the letter, saying:
‘Take it, Madame, read it!’ The Queen read it, and then, handing back
the letter, she replied with great composure: ‘Well! We must send to
receive the Infanta.’”[269]
When the news was known in Madrid, the indignation of the populace knew
no bounds; excited crowds paraded the streets; the King of France was
burned in effigy, and the French residents trembled for their safety.
Philip V. even talked of imprisoning his widowed daughter-in-law and
her sister, Mlle. de Beaujolais, in some remote corner of the kingdom,
where they should remain as hostages. But afterwards he changed his
mind, and at the end of March they were sent back to France, the want
of courtesy shown them being in striking contrast to the infinite
formalities which marked the journey of the Infanta from Versailles to
Bayonne. That little princess departed under the impression that she
was merely going to pay a visit to her family.
Meanwhile, the search for the future Queen of France was being busily
prosecuted. The claims of over one hundred princesses were discussed
by the Council, and one after another eliminated from the list, on the
score that they were too old or too young or too poor or too delicate,
until the number was reduced to three; the two youngest sisters of
_Monsieur le Duc_, Mlle. de Vermandois and Mlle. de Sens, and the
Princess Anne of England.
The idea of a marriage between Louis XV. and one of the Condés
displeased Fleury, while _Monsieur le Duc_ feared that it might
expose him to the charge of having sent away the Infanta in order to
elevate his own family; and it was therefore decided to demand the
hand of the English princess. It seems astonishing that _Monsieur le
Duc_ and his advisers should not have understood that the question
of religion would prove an insuperable obstacle to the proposed
alliance. They made it conditional on the Princess Anne’s conversion
to Catholicism, although the Hanoverian dynasty occupied the throne
of England in virtue of its Protestant professions. As every one but
themselves must have foreseen, George I.’s answer was a courteous but
firm refusal.
_Monsieur le Duc_ appeared to find himself thrown back upon his
sisters. Both possessed all the physical and mental qualifications that
could be desired in a queen; but the younger, Mlle. de Sens, was very
much under the domination of her mother, and Madame de Prie feared
that _Madame la Duchesse_ might exercise through her an influence
hostile to her own. The same objection did not apply to her elder
sister, and there is a tradition that the favourite went, under an
assumed name, to the Abbey of Fontevrault, of which Mlle. de Vermandois
was a _pensionnaire_, to inform her, on behalf of _Monsieur le
Duc_, of the honour in store for her; that, in the course of their
conversation, she inquired if she had ever heard of Madame de Prie,
to which the young princess replied, in a horrified tone, that the
said lady was a “_méchante créature_,” whom no one ever mentioned
in the convent without making the sign of the Cross; that it was
deplorable that her brother should have fallen under the influence of
a person who was detested by all France, and that he would be well
advised to get rid of her as soon as possible. Whereupon, we are told,
Madame de Prie abruptly quitted the room, exclaiming furiously: “_Va!
tu ne seras pas reine de France._”
In a monotonous age it seems a pity to spoil so striking a story,
but, in the interests of truth, we feel bound to mention that, some
three months after the date at which this incident is supposed to
have occurred, Mlle. de Vermandois wrote to the favourite a letter
couched in the most cordial terms, and concluding thus: “I cannot too
often repeat to you, Madame, what are the sentiments of confidence,
friendship, and consideration that I entertain for you.”[270]
The fact of the matter is that Mlle. de Vermandois did not become
the bride of Louis XV., because she preferred to become the bride of
Heaven, in which she perhaps showed a wise discretion.
The refusal of Mlle. de Vermandois was probably a relief to _Monsieur
le Duc_, who was aware that the bitterness and jealousy aroused by
the elevation of his sister would go far to outweigh the advantages
which he would gain from his close connexion with the King. At the same
time, it threatened to prolong a situation the dangers of which had
been brought home to him very forcibly by the recent serious illness of
his young Sovereign.
It was at this moment that he received, from the Empress Catherine
of Russia, an offer which contributed indirectly to give to the
great affair of the marriage of Louis XV. the most unexpected
_dénoûment_. Catherine proposed that her daughter Elizabeth
should wed the King of France, and that _Monsieur le Duc_ himself
should marry Marie Leczinska--with whom she was no doubt aware that he
had already opened matrimonial negotiations--and become the Russian
candidate for the throne of Poland, in succession to Augustus III.
This gave Madame de Prie an opening of which she was not slow to take
advantage. The Russian alliance, she declared, to _Monsieur le
Duc_, was quite out of the question, for the Princess Elizabeth
was reported to be a true child of her mother, and would be certain to
acquire a great influence over the young King, which would, of course,
be directed by Catherine. But let the prince resign his own pretensions
to the hand of Marie Leczinska in favour of his Sovereign, and not only
would he escape a marriage which only a sense of the duty he owed his
family was impelling him to contract, but he would secure a Queen who
would owe everything to him, who had no support either in France or
abroad, and whose character promised obedience and docility.
The name of Marie Leczinska had already been erased from the list of
marriageable princesses, on the ground that she belonged to a poor and
dispossessed family; but, urged on by his mistress and Pâris-Duverney,
_Monsieur le Duc_ immediately proceeded to advocate her claims.
His proposal met with the most violent opposition from the Duc
d’Orléans, who presented himself before Louis XV., with tears coursing
down his cheeks, and endeavoured to persuade him from a marriage
contrary, he declared, to the wishes of the nation; while the King
of Sardinia, his Majesty’s grandfather, indignant at not having been
consulted, addressed the most reproachful letters to the young monarch
concerning the _mésalliance_ which he was about to commit. But
Fleury, a word from whom would have had more weight with Louis XV. than
the expostulations of all the kings and princes in Europe, excused
himself from expressing an opinion, and on 27 May, 1725, his Majesty
announced publicly, after dinner, his approaching marriage with Marie
Leczinska.
It was a great triumph for _Monsieur le Duc_ and his mistress.
At one blow, so to speak, they had got rid of the Infanta and the
dreaded influence of Philip V.; affianced the King to a princess who
might before a year had elapsed bear him a son to stand between the
Duc d’Orléans and the throne, and secured a Queen of France from whose
influence they had nothing to fear and everything to hope.
The exiles of Weissembourg were not allowed to remain in doubt as to
whom they were indebted for their amazing good fortune, and they
displayed a gratitude proportioned to their joy. “In his correspondence
with the Maréchal de Bourg,” writes M. Thirion, “the dethroned King
returned constantly to the gratitude which he, his wife, and his
daughter had vowed to the Marquise de Prie, to the admiration which
she had inspired in them, to the affection which they all three bore
her, to the respectful gratitude which they professed for _Monsieur
le Duc_. It was to Madame de Prie that they addressed themselves,
when they desired to know what they were expected to do, of this or
that custom of the Court. And the day when, in a scene which has
remained celebrated, the ex-King of Poland threw himself on his knees
to return thanks to Heaven for having called his daughter to such high
destinies, he thought still of the favourite. He mentioned her in his
thanksgivings.”
But great triumphs, whether military or political, are seldom cheaply
obtained, and in the present instance the cost was very considerable.
Spain had been exasperated to the last degree by the almost brutal
repudiation of the Infanta and had thrown herself into the arms of
Austria; the Orléans were furious at being outwitted and at the
treatment to which _Monsieur le Duc’s_ action had exposed their
relatives in Spain, and were more than ever determined to compass his
disgrace; while a great part both of the Court and the nation was
indignant at the selection of a princess without alliance, without
fortune, and without credit.
However, when all things were taken into account, the Prime Minister
and his favourite felt that they had good cause for rejoicing, and
they awaited with impatience the coming of Marie Leczinska and the
consummation of their hopes.
On 15 August, 1725, the Duc d’Orléans, in the name of the King of
France, espoused Marie Leczinska, at Strasbourg. For obvious reasons,
the duty could not have been an altogether pleasant one for his Royal
Highness to perform, nor was it rendered any the more agreeable by the
fact that his enemy, Madame de Prie, in her capacity as one of the
twelve _dames du palais_ of the Queen of France, was a witness of
his discomfiture. The favourite might have aspired to the more exalted
post of _dame d’atours_ (mistress of the robes), but this she had
prudently decided to forgo, lest she should be accused of wishing to
dominate her Majesty too ostensibly. But the successful candidate, the
Comtesse de Mailly, mother-in-law of the future mistress of Louis XV.,
was her selection, as were all the ladies-in-waiting.
Two days later, Marie Leczinska set out to join the King, who had
just established himself at Fontainebleau. It was remarked that both
at Strasbourg and during the journey her Majesty showed an extreme
graciousness towards Madame de Prie, and conversed with her longer
and more frequently than with any of her colleagues. At Moret, the
Queen was met by Louis XV., accompanied by all the Princesses. Marie
descended from her coach, and was preparing to kneel on a cushion
hastily thrown, but the King prevented her, kissed her on both cheeks,
“with a vivacity which astonished those who were aware of his timidity
where women were concerned,” and did not conceal his pleasure. On 5
September, the marriage was celebrated, in the chapel at Fontainebleau,
with the utmost magnificence, and the next day _Monsieur le Duc_
wrote to Stanislaus Leczinski that his Majesty’s attitude towards his
wife “had surpassed his hopes, and, if possible, his desires,” adding
certain intimate details, upon which, however, we dare not venture.
The Court remained at Fontainebleau until the first days of December,
when it returned to Versailles, where the young Queen was installed
in the apartments formerly occupied by Marie Thérèse of Austria and
the Duchesse de Bourgogne. No cloud had as yet troubled the royal
honeymoon. The King was quite a devoted husband; he passed every
night with his wife; compared her to Queen Blanche, the mother of
Saint-Louis, and said to those who drew his attention to the beauty of
some lady of the Court: “I find the Queen still more beautiful.”
_Monsieur le Duc_ and Madame de Prie were delighted, believing
that from this passion would spring true friendship and confidence;
that gradually Marie Leczinska would acquire ascendency over the mind
of this young King, half-man, half-child, and that they would be able
to govern him through her.
And badly did they stand in need of a support near the throne, for
every day the Government of _Monsieur le Duc_ was becoming more
unpopular. The cruel edict of May, 1724, against the Protestants,
loudly condemned even by many staunch Catholics; the brutal manner in
which the laws against mendicity were enforced; the failure of the
prosecution of Le Blanc; the restriction of the privileges of the
magistracy, in which most people saw only an act of vengeance for the
acquittal of the ex-Minister for War; the favour shown to the Pâris
brothers, who were generally hated; the sudden alliance of Austria and
Spain and the fear that another war was on the point of breaking out;
the enormous rise in the price of bread, which, though mainly due to
the failure of the harvest of 1725, was attributed by the people to the
operations of Madame de Prie and the Pâris brothers; and the ceaseless
intrigues of the Orléans faction, had raised against it a perfect
tempest of indignation. Riots broke out in several towns, and were with
difficulty suppressed; satires and pamphlets against the Government
poured from the printing-presses of the capital; more than one Minister
talked of resigning his office. Unless _Monsieur le Duc_ could
secure the favour and confidence of the King, his Ministry was doomed.
But between _Monsieur le Duc_ and the King stood the figure of
Fleury. The prince had now been Prime Minister for two years, yet never
had he succeeded in obtaining a single hour’s private conversation with
Louis XV. on affairs of State. A score of times when he imagined that
he had found a favourable occasion to speak to him on business, the
King had immediately turned the conversation to the chase, the play
or some kindred subject, on which he continued to talk until Fleury,
whom he never failed to summon, entered his cabinet. The previous year,
when Louis XV. was at Chantilly and the Bishop of Fréjus had gone to
spend a week at the country-house of the Duc de Liancourt, _Monsieur
le Duc_ had endeavoured to take advantage of his absence; but the
King intimated to him that he would do nothing until the return of his
preceptor, and even refused to sign some papers of trifling importance
which were awaiting his signature. All his efforts to secure the
confidence of the young monarch remained without result; the Bishop of
Fréjus perpetually barred the way.
And he could not disguise from himself the fact that Fleury was no
longer content to remain neutral. He had become, if not the opponent of
_Monsieur le Duc_ himself, at least that of his chief advisers.
One day, in the spring of 1726, he drew the prince aside, denounced in
the strongest terms the conduct of Madame de Prie and Duverney, whom he
stigmatized as enemies of the State, and declared that “the reputation
of his Highness imperiously demanded that he should no longer submit
to the domination of such unworthy counsellors.” It was practically
an ultimatum, or, at any rate, _Monsieur le Duc_ regarded it in
that light. If he were willing to dismiss his mistress and Duverney
and govern on the advice of Fleury, the latter would graciously permit
him to retain the simulacrum of power. If not, the bishop intended to
procure the disgrace of all three.
The Prime Minister warmly defended his friends, asserting that they
were the victims of envy and prejudice, and ended by declaring that,
since he well knew that they were ready to hazard everything for him,
even their lives, if they were to fall, he would fall with them. Then,
after high words on both sides, the prince and the bishop parted.
When this conversation was reported to Madame de Prie, she at once
perceived that there could be no safety for the Ministry of _Monsieur
le Duc_ so long as Fleury remained at Court, and she represented
to her lover that all their efforts must henceforth be directed to
separating him from the King. It was, of course, too much to hope that
Louis XV. would ever consent to banish his former preceptor, but the
latter might be induced to believe that he had forfeited his Majesty’s
confidence and retire of his own accord.
But how was this to be accomplished? Obviously, by means of the Queen.
Marie Leczinska, thanks to the efforts of Madame de Prie and the ladies
whom the favourite had placed about her, who insinuated that Fleury was
jealous of the affection the King entertained for her, was already
prejudiced against the bishop; while she naturally felt herself under
great obligations to those who had placed the crown matrimonial upon
her head.
On 18 December, 1725, it was decided to make an attempt to accustom
the King to work with the Prime Minister without the presence of his
preceptor. The Queen, after a good deal of hesitation, had consented to
lend herself to this intrigue, certain indiscreet words which Fleury
had uttered in her presence having dissipated her last scruples.
In accordance with the plan agreed upon, when Louis XV. returned from
the chase, she sent to ask him to join her in her cabinet. It was then
about an hour before that which he invariably spent in conversation
with his preceptor.
On entering his wife’s apartments, the King found her with _Monsieur
le Duc_. With her most ingratiating smile, the Queen told him that
she had a favour to ask of him. Would he not consent to work in her
cabinet that evening with the Prime Minister only?
The King refused, though she continued to press him until the time
arrived for him to join Fleury. Before he left, however, she succeeded
in extracting a promise from him that he would return shortly.
Proceeding to his own apartments, where his preceptor was awaiting
him, the King gave him an exact account of all that had passed, at the
same time assuring him that, he was resolved never to work alone with
_Monsieur le Duc_ and not to return to the Queen. Fleury, however,
begged him to go back, as he had given his promise to the Queen, adding
that, if he were determined not to discuss affairs of State alone with
_Monsieur le Duc_, he had better send for him. “No, no!” replied
the King; “remain here; I shall return in a moment.”
Louis XV. went out, and did not return, the Queen and _Monsieur le
Duc_ having detained him on various pretexts. Fleury waited an hour,
and then, believing or, more probably, feigning to believe, that the
King had yielded to the persuasions of the Queen, retired, and on the
following morning wrote to the King, begging him, since his services
were no longer of any value to him, to permit him to spend the rest of
his days in retreat. After which, he quitted Versailles for a little
house which he owned in the village of Issy.
The King, who had started very early for the chase, did not receive
the letter until the afternoon. He appeared very much disturbed, and
retired at once to his apartments, where he threw himself into a chair
and remained for more than an hour in an attitude of the most profound
dejection. At length, one of his gentlemen of the Chamber, the Duc de
Mortemart, ventured to mention the cause of his sorrow. “What, Sire,”
said he, “are you not the master? Tell _Monsieur le Duc_ to send
at once for M. de Fréjus, and you will see him again.”
The King followed his advice; the Prime Minister was obliged to obey,
with what feelings may be imagined, and on the following morning Fleury
returned in triumph to Versailles.
From that hour it was clear that the Ministry was doomed, unless it
could come to terms with the bishop. The outcry against it redoubled
in intensity; its more lukewarm friends began to fall away and to pay
their court openly to Fleury; while the King’s manner towards his wife
plainly showed the irritation which he felt at her conduct.
It is probable that Fleury would have been prepared to leave the
nominal direction of affairs in the hands of _Monsieur le Duc_, at
any rate until the situation both at home and abroad had become less
embarrassing, if the prince had consented to the dismissal of Madame
de Prie and Duverney, the two particular objects of public hatred.
Several times he urged this step upon the prince, only to be met with
an assurance that both of them had practically ceased to exercise any
political influence. More wise than her lover, Madame de Prie sought to
conciliate the bishop by temporarily renouncing public life, and, when
her duties as _dame du palais_ did not require her presence at the
Court, passing the greater part of her time in Paris. At the beginning
of March, 1726, she withdrew to an estate which she had acquired near
Lisieux, whence she wrote begging the Queen to accord her permission
to remain there for some time and to allow one of her colleagues
to perform her official functions. _Monsieur le Duc_, however,
showed great irritation at the departure of his mistress, the more
so since it coincided with the absence of Duverney, who had decided
to efface himself for a while also, although the Prime Minister was
just then in particular need of his advice on some financial question;
and he accordingly sent the marchioness what was practically an order
to return to Versailles. She arrived, escorted by Duverney, who had
received a similar summons; and their unexpected appearance upon the
scene created a most unfortunate impression, and convinced Fleury that
all his remonstrances were useless, and that they had acquired such
ascendency over the Prime Minister that he would never consent to part
with them.
Henceforth, the only question with him was the choice of a convenient
moment for the disgrace of _Monsieur le Duc_. Both he and the
King, however, found it difficult to take the decisive step, and they
were still hesitating when, on 8 June, the Prime Minister, exasperated
by a fresh outburst against Madame de Prie, who had just returned to
Versailles from a visit to Paris, came to Louis XV. and tendered his
resignation. But it was not _Monsieur le Duc’s_ resignation that
the bishop required, but his dismissal, and, on his advice, Louis XV.,
with that dissimulation which was one of the least edifying traits in
his character, not only begged the Prime Minister to retain his office,
but gave him “marks of his friendship and satisfaction.”
_Monsieur le Duc_ had no choice but to withdraw his resignation,
and left the royal presence under the comforting impression that he
stood in no immediate danger. He was speedily undeceived.
On Tuesday, 11 June, at three o’clock in the afternoon, _Monsieur
le Duc_, Madame de Prie and Duverney being all three still at
Versailles, Louis XV. set out for Rambouillet. At dinner the King had
shown himself particularly gracious to the Prime Minister. He had given
him to taste some bread which had been kneaded specially for him at the
Ménagerie; had thrown a little loaf into his hat, and had said, as he
rose from table: “Monsieur, despatch your affairs and come early to
Rambouillet, because I shall sup at half-past eight,” a recommendation
which he repeated at the moment of entering his carriage.
After the King had driven away, _Monsieur le Duc_ went to his
cabinet, where he passed the rest of the afternoon working with the
Minister for War, Breteuil, and the Comptroller-General, Dodun. Shortly
before eight o’clock, the other Ministers left the château, and the
prince was about to follow them, when he was informed that the Duc de
Charost, Captain of the Guards, had been waiting for three-quarters of
an hour in order to speak to him.
But let us allow Mathieu Marais to relate what followed in his own
words:
“The prince went out and told the Duc de Charost that he was going to
join the King at Rambouillet, and was pressed for time, and asked him
to defer until the morrow what he had to say to him. The Captain of the
Guards answered in a low tone that what he had to say to him was from
the King; upon which they re-entered the cabinet. The Duc de Charost
handed him an order from the King, which was to the effect that, as he
wished to govern himself in the future, he was suppressing the office
of Prime Minister; that he thanked him for his services, and ordered
him to retire to Chantilly, until further orders. This order was in the
King’s own hand. The prince’s first movement was one of anger, after
which he said that he would obey. He asked: ‘And my papers?’ and was
told that there were no orders concerning them. He sorted them, burned
some, placed some in his pocket, and filled a despatch-box with others,
observing: ‘These are the King’s papers, and all the others that remain
are his.’ He wrote to _Madame la Duchesse_ almost, it is said,
in these terms: ‘Every day follows another, and does not resemble it.
Yesterday, I was Cæsar; to-day, I am Pompey. I am going to Chantilly.
I count, _belle maman_, on your still preserving for me your good
graces.’ He was asked for his parole, which he gave, and then entered
his carriage, which had been waiting for a long time to take him to
Rambouillet. He thanked all the courtiers who accompanied him to his
carriage, and when he was outside the gates, he was heard to say to
his postilion: ‘To Chantilly!’ M. de Saint-Pol, exempt of the Guards,
accompanied him as far as the château.”
While Charost was communicating the wishes of the King to the Prime
Minister, Fleury, who was about to replace him, proceeded to the
Queen’s apartments, armed with a letter which he had dictated that
morning to his former pupil. It was as follows: “I beg you, Madame,
and, if need be, I order you, to do everything that the former Bishop
of Fréjus will tell you on my behalf, as if it were myself.”[271] The
selection of Fleury to inform the Queen of the disgrace of her friends
and to signify to her his orders was a refinement of cruelty, and the
poor woman wept bitterly. After a while, however, she recovered her
composure and wrote to the King: “Gratitude towards _Monsieur le
Duc_ has made me shed tears, but your commands dry them.”
As soon as the bishop had departed, the Queen sent for Madame de Prie
and the fallen Minister’s favourite sister, Mlle. de Clermont, whom she
informed of what had occurred. Both ladies started that same night for
Chantilly, where they arrived at daybreak. In the evening, _Madame
la Duchesse_, who had received the news of her son’s disgrace at
the Château of Saint-Maur, appeared upon the scene, with the faithful
Lassay in her train.[272] _Madame la Duchesse_ had always detested
Madame de Prie, and regarding her, as she now did, as the cause of her
son’s disgrace, her indignation against her knew no bounds. “She was
very surprised to learn that Madame de Prie was there, and manifested
it in terms which marked her contempt and hatred. After having embraced
her son, she told him that she hoped that the lady would not be so
indiscreet as to present herself before her. _Monsieur le Duc_
replied that she should have reason to be satisfied, and begged her not
to be displeased if he did not sup with her, as he was very tired. He
supped alone with Madame de Prie; _Madame la Duchesse_ supped with
M. de Lassay.
“On the Thursday, on descending to dinner, _Madame la Duchesse_
perceived that a place had been laid for Madame de Prie next to her
own. She stopped and manifested her surprise. Madame de Prie approached
and said to her: ‘Is it your wish that I retire?’ She replied: ‘No, you
may sit down to table!’ But she called the Prince di Carignano to sit
by her, and Madame de Prie took the prince’s place.
“As this was done in a manner sufficiently humiliating, there were,
after dinner, a great many comings and goings, in order to persuade
_Madame la Duchesse_ to permit Madame de Prie to sup with her.
Finally, _Madame la Duchesse_ consented, out of complaisance for
_Monsieur le Duc_, in the state in which he was.”[273]
For nearly two days after the disgrace of _Monsieur le Duc_
no steps were taken against his mistress. But no one at Chantilly
doubted that her respite would be but a brief one. Duverney had been
exiled forty leagues from Paris; all the Ministers most attached to
_Monsieur le Duc_ had been relieved of their functions; Le Blanc
and the Belle-Isles had been recalled, and the man who, if he had
received his deserts, would have been decorating a gibbet had actually
been reinstated in his old post of Secretary of State for War, in
place of the honest Breteuil. In such a revolution of the palace, it
was impossible for her to escape, and on the Thursday evening the blow
fell, in the shape of a _lettre de cachet_ exiling her to her
husband’s estate of Courbépine, in Normandy.
Her parting with _Monsieur le Duc_ on the morrow was a most
touching one. “She kept up the comedy to the last,” writes the author
of the manuscript we have just cited. “Twice after entering her
carriage she returned, not being able, she said, to depart without
again embracing _Monsieur le Duc_. She appeared in despair at
leaving him, and gave him all the tokens of a passionate love. The
prince, on his side, was so afflicted that it is impossible to describe
it.”
For ourselves, we prefer to believe that the grief of Madame de Prie
was as genuine as that of _Monsieur le Duc_. It would have been,
indeed, strange if it had not been so, since, with all his faults, he
had been to her the most devoted and generous of lovers, the truest and
best of friends.
The Château of Courbépine, which Louis XV. had fixed as Madame de
Prie’s place of exile, was situated a little to the north of the
town of Bernay, in the midst of an immense wooded plain. It had been
purchased by the Marquis de Prie, not long after his marriage, from
Léonor de Matignon, Bishop of Lisieux. At first, she received but few
visitors, but when it became known that _Monsieur le Duc_ had
expressed a very ardent desire to see her, and had told the Maréchal de
Villars that “he himself was the cause of all her misfortunes and that
she did not deserve them; that she had always been disinterested, and
that the unsatisfactory condition of her affairs would in time prove
this,” people began to think that, in view of a possible return of the
prince to power, it would be imprudent to ignore the woman who still
retained his affections. From that time it became quite the fashion
to go and spend a day or two with the proscribed, and the latter
never had any cause to complain of lack of company. Nevertheless, she
felt bitterly the change in her position, and could not disguise from
herself the fact that, notwithstanding the chivalrous endeavours of
_Monsieur le Duc_ to saddle himself with the responsibility for
their common misfortune, she had largely contributed to it. She saw,
too, her relatives and _protégés_ deprived of their charges and
reduced in some instances to poverty; and this troubled her sorely.
There can be no doubt that, in time, she would have been permitted to
return, if not to the Court, at least to Paris and Chantilly; but her
health, always delicate, had begun to give way beneath the stress of so
many agitations. She demanded and obtained authorization to visit the
waters of Forges, but the relief they afforded her was only temporary.
In the early autumn of 1727 she met with a carriage accident, and
though the injuries she received were not in themselves very serious,
they hastened her death, which took place on 7 October, 1727, in her
thirtieth year.
Her enemies attributed her death to poison administered by her own
hand, and the Marquis d’Argenson has published, in his “Mémoires,” a
highly-coloured version of this hypothesis, upon which we need not
dwell here, since its absurdity has now been clearly established.
* * * * *
_Monsieur le Duc_ survived his mistress nearly fourteen years. In
1730, he was pardoned and returned to Court, but he never reappeared
again on the political stage, and consecrated the last years of his
life to the study of chemistry and natural history. In 1728, he took
unto himself a second wife, in the person of the Princess Charlotte
of Hesse-Rheinfels, who is described as “_blonde et d’un embonpoint
agréable_,” with whom he seems to have lived very contentedly,
notwithstanding the fact that she is said to have been erased from the
list of eligible princesses at the time of the marriage of Louis XV.
on account of her bad temper. By her he left one son, Louis Joseph
de Bourbon, Prince de Condé, the organizer and leader of the “Army
of Condé,” which played so gallant a part in the Wars of the French
Revolution. _Monsieur le Duc_ died on the 27 January, 1740, in his
forty-ninth year.
PRINTED BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Court was staying at the Château of la Roche-Guyon, not far
from Mantes. As there had been a heavy fall of snow, François I.
suggested that the younger members of the Court should organize a
snowball-fight. Sides were accordingly formed; one led by the Dauphin
and François de Lorraine, afterwards Duc de Guise, defending a house;
the other, led by Enghien, besieging it. “During the combat,” says
Martin du Bellay, “some ill-advised person threw a linen-chest out of
the window, which fell on the Sieur d’Enghien’s head, and inflicted
such injuries that he died a few days later.” Du Bellay does not
give the name of the “ill-advised person,” but certain writers, less
reticent, name François de Guise, and have even gone so far as to
assert that he acted by orders of the Dauphin, who was jealous of
Enghien’s military fame, while others say that he was a certain Conte
di Bentivoglio, an Italian noble in the service of the Guises, whom
they accuse of having instigated the deed. It is probable, however,
that the death of Enghien was due merely to one of those acts of brutal
horse-play so common at this epoch, and that the culprit, whoever he
may have been, was innocent of any homicidal intention. See on this
matter the author’s “Henri II.: his Court and Times” (London, Methuen;
New York, Scribner, 1910).
[2] “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[3] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé,
1535–1564.”
[4] Brantôme.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Beaucaire.
[7] Vincent Carloix, “Mémoires sur le maréchal de Vieilleville.”
[8] Antoinette de Bourbon, sister to Charles de Bourbon, Duc de
Vendôme, Condé’s father, had married Claude de Lorraine, Duc de Guise,
and was the mother of Duc François de Guise and his brothers.
[9] De Thou.
[10] By her marriage with Fery II. de Mailly, Baron de Conty.
[11] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé.”
[12] “Additions aux Mémoires de Castelnau.”
[13] “Histoire de la Maison de Bourbon.”
[14] “Mémoires du Duc de Luynes.”
[15] A _compagnie d’ordonnance_ was composed of from seventy-five
to three hundred men, one third being men-at-arms, or heavy cavalry,
the rest foot-soldiers.
[16] La Noue, “Mémoires.”
[17] Saint-André had also been taken prisoner, but among his captors
was a Huguenot gentleman named Bobigny whom he had deeply injured,
and who proceeded to revenge himself by blowing out the unfortunate
marshal’s brains with a pistol.
[18] It was here that Lord Grey de Wilton had been incarcerated after
being made prisoner at Guines, in 1558. His captor, the Comte de la
Rochefoucauld, treated him most harshly, and he only recovered his
liberty by the sacrifice of practically the whole of his fortune.
[19] Smith to Cecil, March 12, 1563, State Papers (Elizabeth), Foreign
Series.
[20] The post of Lieutenant-General of the Kingdom.
[21] Henri Martin, “Histoire de France jusqu’en 1789.”
[22] D’Aubigné, “Histoire Universelle.”
[23] Brantôme.
[24] M. Henri Bouchot, “les Femmes de Brantôme.”
[25] She was the daughter of Louis de la Beraudière, Sieur del’ Île
Rouet, in Poitou.
[26] By the King of Navarre she had had a son, Charles de Bourbon, who
became Archbishop of Rouen.
[27] “Un royaume par escript,” means the illusory kingdom in the South
promised Antoine by Philip II. of Spain.
[28] Henri Martin, “Histoire de France jusqu’en 1789.”
[29] Isabelle’s father, Gilles de la Tour, Sieur de Limeuil, was the
second son of Antoine de la Tour, Vicomte de Turenne. From Gilles’s
elder brother, François, sprang, in the fifth generation, the
celebrated Maréchal de Turenne.
[30] He must not be confused with his cousin, Florimond Robertet, Sieur
d’Alluye, who was also a Secretary of State.
[31] La Ferrière, “Trois amoureuses au xvi^e siècle.”
[32] J. A. Froude, “History of England,” vol. vii.
[33] Condé to Elizabeth, 8 March, 1563, in the Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire
des Princes de Condé.”
[34] Middlemore to Cecil, 30 March, 1563.
[35] Cecil to Smith, 4 June, 1563.
[36] _Ibid._
[37] J. A. Froude, “History of England.”
[38] Notre-Dame.
[39] The Porte Saint-Antoine.
[40] The name of the unfortunate gentleman was Couppé.
[41] Middlemore to Cecil, 17 June, 1563, State Papers (Elizabeth),
Foreign Series. The _dé noûment_ of this affair is a singular
illustration of the impotence or unwillingness of the Law to punish
crimes committed against the Protestants by the ferocious rabble of the
capital.
On the day following the outrage, the King sent for the Provost of
the Merchants and ordered him to bring the murderers to justice,
under pain of answering for them himself, adding that “if any more of
such insolences were done in Paris, he would send the four marshals
of France there to see better order kept.” The provost, trembling
in his shoes, returned home, and, next day, the authorities caused
one Garnier, a captain of the city militia, and another person to be
arrested, on suspicion of being concerned in the crime. Whereupon “the
rest of the captains and lieutenants of Paris gathered themselves
together to 4000 or 5000, and made such ado that they were glad to let
them go.” No further attempt to execute justice was made, nor could the
authorities even secure decent burial for the murdered gentleman. By
a decree of the Châtelet, the body was ordered to be interred in the
cemetery of the Innocents, together with that of an unknown Huguenot,
“whom also on the Thursday, in the worship of that holy day, the
Parisians had sacrificed and, after their manner, thrown into the water
(the Seine). But certain women and boys (for they are now the judges
and executioners of Paris) digged them up again; which being known, to
avoid danger they were buried there again by the watch, and were again
unburied, and no man knows what is done with them.”--“Journal of Sir
Thomas Smith,” State Papers (Elizabeth), Foreign Series.
[42] Smith to Cecil, 22 May, 1563.
[43] “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[44] François Billon, “le Fort inexpugnable de l’honneur féminin.”
Paris, 1555.
[45] La Rochefoucauld had married Catherine de Roye, younger sister of
the Princesse de Condé.
[46] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé.”
[47] Bèze. But other writers assert that the princess’s attendants had
provoked the attack by insulting the priests.
[48] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé.”
[49] Letter of Almerigo Bor Fadino to Pierre du Bois, merchant of
Antwerp, 13 November, 1563, State Papers (Elizabeth), Foreign Series.
[50] F. Decrue, “Anne, duc de Montmorency, connétable et pair de
France.”
[51] Smith to Cecil, 14 April, 1563, State Papers (Elizabeth), Foreign
Series.
[52] Letter of 6 May, 1564, published by the Comte Jules Delaborde.
[53] “Which was a great infamy for the so-called Reformed
Religion.”--“Journal de Bruslard.”
[54] La Ferrière, “Trois amoureuses au XVI^e siècle.”
[55] “Abrégé chronologique de l’histoire de France.”
[56] Charles de Bourbon. He and his elder brother, Louis, Duc de
Montpensier, represented the younger branch of the Bourbons.
[57] Philippe de Montespidon. She had been previously married to the
Maréchal de Montjean.
[58] Charles de la Marck (1538–1622). He was the second son of Robert
de la Marck, Duc de Bouillon. It is singular, in view of what we
are about to relate, that he afterwards married as his second wife
Antoinette de la Tour, younger sister of Isabelle.
[59] “Information contre Isabelle de Limeuil,” cited by La Ferrièrè.
[60] “Information contre Isabelle de Limeuil.”
[61] The word, almost illegible, may be either _partir_ or
_pâtir_ (to be in distress).
[62] A Latin satire of the time ran:
“At multi dicunt quod pater
Non est princeps, sed est alter
Qui Regi est a secretis
Omnibus est notus satis.”
[63] The sister of Brantôme.
[64] From this it is evident that Isabelle had refrained from informing
Condé of the charge that had been brought against her, and allowed
him to suppose that the Dijon scandal was the sole cause of her
imprisonment.
[65] Marguerite de Valois, youngest daughter of Francois I., who had
married, in 1559, Emmanuel Philibert X., Duke of Savoy.
[66] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé.”
[67] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé.”
[68] Martin Hume, “The Courtships of Mary Stuart.”
[69] Castelnau, “Mémoires.”
[70] Antoinette de Bourbon, widow of Claude de Lorraine.
[71] Labanoff, “Lettres de Marie Stuart.”
[72] State Papers (Elizabeth), Foreign Series.
[73] Calvin had died on 27 May, 1564.
[74] Renée de Bourbon, Abbess of Chelles, sister of Condé.
[75] Presumably Condé’s chaplain, Pérssel, whose name is sometimes
written Pérocel.
[76] Françoise Marie d’Orléans, posthumous daughter of François
d’Orléans, Marquis de Rothelin, a cadet of the House of Longueville,
and Jacqueline de Rohan. The House of Longueville was a branch of
the Royal House of France, descended from the celebrated Comte de
Dunois--the “Bastard of Orleans”--son of Louis I., Duc d’Orléans. His
nephew, Charles VII., gave him, in 1463, the county of Longueville, in
the district of Caux, which had been ceded to Charles VI. by Bertrand
du Guesclin, half a century earlier. Dunois’s grandson, François, was
created a duke in 1505, and, in 1571, his successor, Léonor, brother to
the second Princesse de Condé, received from Charles IX., for himself
and his descendants, the title of Princes of the Blood.
[77] Brantôme.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Smith to the Earl of Leicester, 5 May, 1565. State Papers
(Elizabeth), Foreign Series.
[80] D’Aubigné.
[81] It was a perilous journey, for they were hotly pursued, and had
not the Loire risen in sudden flood just after they had forded it near
Sancerre, and arrested the pursuit, they would certainly have been
captured. The fugitives saw in this event the direct interposition of
Providence in their favour, and falling on their knees, sang the Psalm:
_In exitu Israel_.
[82] D’Aubigné, “Histoire universelle.”
[83] Brantôme.
[84] By the orders of his master, it was generally believed. “He
(Condé),” writes Brantôme, “had been very earnestly _recommended_
to several of the favourites of the said _Monseigneur_ (Anjou)
whom I knew.”
[85] Davila, cited by Mr. A. W. Whitehead, “Gaspard de Coligny.”
[86] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[87] The surviving children by his marriage with Éléonore de Roye were:
(1) Henri de Bourbon, Prince de Condé; born 27 December, 1552;
died 5 March, 1588.
(2) François de Bourbon, Prince de Conti, born 18 August, 1558.
(3) Catherine de Bourbon.
(4) Charles de Bourbon, afterwards the third Cardinal de
Bourbon, born 30 March, 1562.
Those by his marriage with Françoise d’Orléans were:
(1) Charles de Bourbon, Comte de Soissons, born 3 November, 1566.
(2) Louis de Bourbon.
(3) Benjamin de Bourbon.
Both of the two last children died young.
[88] Comte Jules Delaborde, “Éléonore de Roye, Princesse de Condé.”
[89] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[90] They received a general amnesty and the restoration of their
confiscated estates. They were admitted upon equal terms with
their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to the benefit of all public
institutions, and declared eligible to fill every post in the State.
They were permitted to appeal from the judgment of the notoriously
hostile Parlement of Toulouse to the Cour des Requêtes, in Paris.
Finally, they were permitted to retain possession of four towns which
they had conquered: La Rochelle, Cognac, La Charité, and Montauban,
as a guarantee of the King’s good faith, on condition that Henri of
Navarre and Condé bound themselves to restore them to the Crown two
years after the faithful execution of the Peace.
[91] From the two royal plenipotentiaries who concluded it, the
Maréchal de Biron, who was lame, and Henri de Mesmes, Sieur de
Malassise.
[92] The three girls were co-heiresses to the great wealth of the Duc
de Nevers, as he had left no son. The eldest, Henriette, Duchesse de
Nivernais, married Ludovico di Gonzaga, brother of the Duke of Mantua;
the second, Catherine, married Antoine de Croy, Prince de Porcien, who
died in 1564; and, six years after her husband’s death, became the
wife of Henri de Lorraine, Duc de Guise. The Prince de Porcien had
been one of the leaders of the Huguenots and had entertained the most
violent hatred of the Guises. On his death-bed, he is said to have thus
addressed his wife: “You are young, beautiful, and wealthy; you will
have many suitors when I am gone. I have no objection to your marrying
again, if only it be not the Duc de Guise. Let not my worst enemy
inherit what of all my possessions I have cherished the most.”
[93] Marie de Clèves, Marquise d’Isles, Condé’s betrothed.
[94] Françoise d’Orléans, Princesse de Condé.
[95] See the author’s “Queen Margot” (London, Harpers; New York,
Scribner, 1906).
[96] “Journal du règne de Charles IX.”
[97] It is to her that Baïf dedicated his “Hymne de Vénus”:
“Noble sang des Rieux, si mes vers ne desdaigne....”
[98] After he succeeded his brother on the throne, he appeared, on one
occasion at a Court ball, his face rouged and powdered, the body of
his doublet cut low, like a woman’s, with long sleeves falling to the
ground, and a string of pearls round his neck.
“Si qu’au premier abord, chacun étoit en peine
S’il voyoit un roi femme ou bien un homme reine.”
[99] The Duc d’Aumale (“Histoire des Princes de Condé”) asserts that he
was also compromised by the confessions of La Môle, but, in justice to
that unfortunate gentleman, we must observe that such was not the case.
La Môle, though most horribly tortured, exhibited remarkable fortitude,
and compromised no one, with the exception of Guillaume de Montmorency,
who had already compromised himself by taking to flight.
[100] Catherine de Bourbon, Marquise d’Isles. She died unmarried in
1592.
[101] Daughter of Nicolas, Comte de Vaudémont, and Marguerite d’Egmont.
[102] It was on the occasion of his marriage that his Majesty made
another attempt to provide Mlle. de Châteauneuf with a husband. This
time, however, he flew at much higher game than a provost of Paris,
his vassal, François de Luxembourg, being his quarry. Luxembourg had
been a suitor for the hand of Louise de Lorraine, and his addresses
had been very favourably received by the lady, until the appearance
of the King of France in the field had put an end to his hopes. The
prince had attended the _Sacre_ and the marriage, and, a day or
two after the latter ceremony, his suzerain drew him aside and said:
“Cousin, I have married your mistress; but I desire that, in exchange,
you should marry mine.” And he offered him the hand of Mlle. de
Châteauneuf. Luxembourg, making, very naturally, a distinction between
the two senses attached to the word “mistress,” thanked the King for
his thoughtfulness, but begged him to give him time to think the matter
over. “I desire,” replied his Majesty, “that you should espouse her
immediately.” The unfortunate prince then “begged very humbly that the
King would grant him a week’s respite.” To which the King answered that
he would give him three days only, at the expiration of which, if he
were not prepared to marry the damsel, something exceedingly unpleasant
would probably befall him. Before another day had dawned, Luxembourg
was riding for the frontier as hard as his horse could gallop.
Soon after this episode, Mlle. de Châteauneuf was expelled both from
Catherine’s squadron and the Court, for impertinence towards the
young Queen. Having thus fallen into disgrace, she condescended to
espouse a Florentine named Antinoti, who was intendant of the galleys
at Marseilles. The marriage, however, had a tragic termination,
for, “having detected him in a compromising situation with another
demoiselle, she stabbed him bravely and manfully with her own hand.”
Shortly afterwards, she married another Florentine, Alloviti by name,
who called himself the Baron de Castellane; but, a few months later,
the baron was killed in a brawl by Henri d’Angoulême, Grand Prior of
France, a natural son of Henri II., by Mary Stuart’s governess, Lady
Fleming, though not before he had succeeded in mortally wounding his
antagonist.
[103] In February, 1576, the King of Navarre also made his escape, and
promptly reverted to the Protestant faith, but he took no active part
in the remainder of the war.
[104] It was in this engagement that the duke received the wound in the
face which earned him, like his celebrated father, the name of “_le
Balafré_.”
[105] The young lady, of course, intended to write “Monsieur.”
[106] Published by Édouard Barthélemy, “la Princesse de Condé:
Charlotte Catherine de la Trémoille.”
[107] “Véritable discours de la naissance et de la vie de Monseigneur
le prince de Condé jusqu’à présent, à lui desdié par le sieur de
Fiefbrun,” publié par Eugène Halphen (Paris, 1861).
[108] Fiefbrun.
[109] Édouard de Barthélemy, “la Princesse de Condé: Charlotte
Catherine de la Trémoille, d’après les lettres inédites conservées dans
les archives de Thouars” (Paris, 1872).
[110] De Thou.
[111] Fiefbrun.
[112] It had had an eventful history during the Hundred Years’ War,
when it was more than once taken and re-taken. In 1562, a daring
Huguenot adventurer named Romegoux escaladed it, by means of poniards
fixed in the interstices of the walls, and for some years used it as
a base for his operations against the Catholics of the surrounding
country.
[113] “Veritable discours de la naissance et de la vie de Mgr. le
prince de Condé.”
[114] So incensed was the poor prince at these pleasantries that when
his cousin summoned him to attend a Protestant conference at Bergerac,
he declined to obey.
[115] De Thou.
[116] Édouard de Barthélemy, “La Princesse de Condé: Charlotte
Catherine de La Trémoille.”
[117] The Marquis de Conti had gone to Strasbourg to take the nominal
command of the Germans.
[118] The Duc d’Aumale (“Histoire des Princes de Condé”) says that the
princess remained at Saint-Jean-d’Angely, but this is incorrect.
[119] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[120] “Rapport des médecins et chirurgiens sur la mort de Monseigneur
le Prince de Condé,” published by Édouard Barthélemy, “La Princesse de
Condé: Charlotte Catherine de la Trémoille.”
[121] She was three months pregnant.
[122] “Rapport des médecins et chirurgiens sur la mort de Monseigneur
le Prince de Condé.”
[123] “Lettres missives de Henri IV.”
[124] The King of Navarre to M. de Scorbiac, 11 March, 1588.
[125] He was a lad of about sixteen, a Périgourdin.
[126] His name was Antoine Corbais, and he was a native of La Fère.
[127] They could not, of course, arrest the man within the town, since
it was in the hands of the Catholics.
[128] “Lettres missives de Henri IV.”
[129] Published by the Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[130] Presumably, the Cardinals de Bourbon and de Guise.
[131] “Bibliothèque Nationale,” Brienne Collection, published by Eugène
Halphen in his introduction to Fiefbrun.
[132] Memoir published by Édouard de Barthélemy, “la Princesse de
Condé: Charlotte Catherine de la Trémoille.”
[133] Édouard de Barthélemy, “Charlotte Catherine de la Trémoille,
Princesse de Condé.”
[134] E. Halphen, “Introduction to Fiefbrun.”
[135] Until the death of his eldest brother François, Maréchal Duc de
Montmorency, in 1577, Henri de Montmorency had borne the title of Baron
de Damville, which was now assumed by the third of the Montmorency
brothers, until then known as the Seigneur de Méru.
[136] Natural daughter of Henri II. by Filippa le Duc, a Piedmontese
girl of humble origin, and not of Diane de Poitiers, as several
historians have wrongly stated. She married, first, Orazio Farnese,
Duke of Castro, and, _en secondes noces_, François de Montmorency,
elder brother of the Constable.
[137] Afterwards Duc d’Angoulême. He was a natural son of Charles IX.
by Marie Touché, and had married Charlotte de Montmorency, daughter of
the Connétable Henri de Montmorency.
[138] Désormeaux.
[139] He was a Portuguese Dominican monk, who settled in France, and
became Almoner to Henri IV. and confessor to the Dowager-Princesse de
Condé.
[140] “Rerum ab Henrici Borbonis Franciae protoprincipis majoribus
gestarum Epitome.”
[141] “Recueil de l’Academie des inscriptions et belles-lettres.”
Halphen.
[142] Letter of Pisani to Villeroy, 5 March, 1598, cited by the Duc
d’Aumale.
[143] The Abbey of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, situated a little beyond the
Bois de Vincennes, had been secularized in 1533, and afterwards sold
to Catherine de’ Medici, from whose executors the Dowager-Princesse
de Condé had recently purchased it. It afterwards became one of the
favourite country-seats of the Condés.
[144] Cardinal Bentiviglio, “Relazioni.”
[145] By his second wife, Louise de Budos, a woman of middling birth,
but of such extraordinary beauty that some persons attributed it to
supernatural agency.
[146] “Relazioni.”
[147] Maréchal de Bassompierre, “Mémoires.”
[148] The Dowager-Princesse de Condé was, through her mother, a niece
of the Constable.
[149] L’Estoile.
[150] “Mon ami--_M. le Prince_ (Condé) est icy qui faict le
diable; vous seriez en colère et auriez honte des choses qu’il dit de
moi; enfin, la patience m’échappera et je me resous de bien parler à
lui” (Henri IV. to Sully, 9 June, 1609).
[151] André Chénier, “les Poésies de Malherbe.”
[152] Henrard, “Henri IV. et la Princesse de Condé.”
[153] Tallemant des Réaux, “Historiettes.”
[154] Cited by the Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[155] Claude Enoch Virey (1566–1636). He was a Doctor of Laws, had
fought as a Catholic volunteer in Henri IV.’s army at the battles of
Arques and Ivry and at the sieges of Paris and Rouen, and was a poet
of some distinction. The Président de Harlay, whose life he had saved
on the Day of the Barricades, procured him a post on the educational
staff of the young Condé, and he was subsequently appointed his private
secretary.
[156] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[157] In May, 1598, Philip II. had ceded the Netherlands, the
Franche-Comté, and the Charolais to his daughter Isabelle. The Archduke
Albert, brother of the Emperor Rudolph, at that time governor of the
Netherlands, renounced Holy Orders in order to marry the princess;
and the pair had since exercised a sort of vice-regal authority, with
very extensive powers. Their contemporaries always called them “the
Archdukes.”
[158] Éléonore de Bourbon had married Philip William, of Nassau, Prince
of Orange, eldest son of William the Silent, in 1606.
[159] Spinola, who had come to the Netherlands in 1602, at the head
of a force maintained, like the old _condottieri_, at his own
expense, had, after the reduction of Ostend, been given the command of
all the Spanish and Italian troops in Flanders.
[160] Simancas Collection, cited by the Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des
Princes de Condé.”
[161] Cardinal Bentivoglio, “Relazioni.”
[162] Letter of Jehan Simon, secretary to the Flemish Ambassador in
Paris, to Pretorius, Secretary of State at Brussels, cited by Henrard,
“Henri IV. et la Princesse de Condé.”
[163] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.” Cardinal
Bentivoglio, “Relazioni.”
[164] “Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots in France.”
[165] Pecquius to the Archduke Albert, 28 April, 1610. It appears
to have been on this occasion that Père Cotton begged the Flemish
Ambassador to intimate to the Archdukes that, though the solemn promise
which they had given Condé might prevent them from surrendering his
wife, they might, without any undue strain to their consciences,
connive at her escape, since it was undoubtedly their duty to do
everything in their power to avert so terrible a calamity as war. But
this insidious suggestion their Highnesses very honourably declined to
entertain.
[166] “L’Estoile.”
[167] The regency in France belonged, in theory, to the first Prince of
the Blood. As, however, Catherine de’ Medici had created a precedent in
the Queen-Mother’s favour, and, as Henri IV. had as good as named her
Regent, Marie de’ Medici had seized the office immediately on the late
King’s death. But for the circumstance that Condé was in exile at the
time, it is open to question whether she would have been permitted to
do this.
[168] “Journal historique et anecdote de la Cour et de Paris,”
MSS. of Conrart, cited by Victor Cousin, “la Jeunesse de Madame
de Longueville.” The chronicler speaks frequently of the prince’s
ill-treatment of his wife, for which he appears to think there was no
justification.
[169] “Journal historique et anecdote de la Cour et de Paris.”
[170] In the preamble of this document, Louis XIII. strove to throw the
responsibility for his cousin’s long detention upon Marie de’ Medici
and her adherents, although the real cause seems to have been the fears
of Luynes lest Condé should attempt to dispute his ascendency over the
young King. “Being informed,” said his Majesty, “of the reasons by
which his detention has been excused, I have found that there was no
cause save the machinations and evil designs of his enemies.”
[171] Enghien is the modern spelling; in the seventeenth century it was
written Anguien.
[172] Lenet, “Mémoires.”
[173] Madame de Motteville, “Mémoires.”
[174] By a will made shortly before his death, the Duc de Montmorency,
who left no children, had designated as heir to the greater part of
his immense estates the little François de Montmorency-Boutteville,
afterwards the celebrated Maréchal de Luxembourg, the posthumous son of
the Comte de Montmorency-Boutteville, executed for duelling in 1627.
But the duke’s condemnation rendered this document of no effect, and
the whole of his property reverted to the Crown. Louis XIII., however,
contented himself with retaining possession of Chantilly and Dammartin,
for the sake of the hunting, without, however, uniting them to his
demesne, and caused the rest of the property to be divided between the
Princesse de Condé and her two sisters, Richelieu, we may presume, not
being minded to set up another great feudal noble in the place of the
deceased duke.
[175] Lenet, “Mémoires.”
[176] Mlle. de Montpensier, “Mémoires.”
[177] According to Tallemant des Réaux, at one time, the poor woman
imagined that she was made of glass, and never sat down except with
infinite precautions; at another, she thought that her hands and feet
had turned to ice, and was continually warming them, even in the
hottest weather.
[178] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[179] Letter of Henri Arnauld to Barillon, April 11, 1640, cited by
Homberg and Jousselin, “la Femme du Grand Condé.”
[180] Mademoiselle de Montpensier, “Mémoires.”
[181] Earl Stanhope, “Life of Louis, Prince de Condé, surnamed the
Great.”
[182] “Archives de Chantilly,” cited by the Duc d’Aumale.
[183] Mademoiselle de Montpensier, “Mémoires.”
[184] “La Femme du Grand Condé.”
[185] Letter of Henri Arnauld to the President Barillon, cited by MM.
Homberg and Jousselin, “la Femme du Grand Condé.”
[186] Letter of 30 July, 1643, published by the Duc d’Aumale.
[187] According to some chroniclers, such was his emotion at parting
from his inamorata, that he fell down in a swoon at her feet.
[188] There were two convents of Carmelite nuns in Paris at this
period, one in the Faubourg Saint-Jacques, the other in the Rue Chapon.
The first, which was the parent-house of the order in France, was known
as the “_Grandes Carmélites_.”
[189] Published by MM. Homberg et Jousselin, “la Femme du Grand Condé.”
[190] Letter of Mère Agnes de Jésus, Prioress of the Carmelites of the
Faubourg Saint-Jacques, to Mlle. d’Épernon, cited by Victor Cousin, “la
Jeunesse de Madame de Longueville.”
[191] Voiture.
[192] Lenet, “Mémoires.”
[193] Marie de Bretagne, daughter of the Comte de Vertus, and wife of
Hercule de Rohan, Duc de Montbazon.
[194] Madame de Motteville, “Mémoires.”
[195] Letter of 18 August, 1646, Archives de Chantilly, cited by MM.
Homberg and Jousselin, “la Femme du Grand Condé.”
[196] Madame de Motteville, “Mémoires.”
[197] “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[198] It must be admitted that she had some excuse for her conduct, as
the deceased duke had been far from a faithful husband, and had gone
into his last fight with a garter of his lady-love, Mlle. de Guerchy,
bound round his arm.
[199] Duchesse de Nemours, “Mémoires.”
[200] On his father becoming Prince de Condé, the little Duc d’Albret
had assumed the title of Duc d’Enghien.
[201] La Rochefoucauld, “Mémoires.”
[202] In his negotiations with the Court, Madame de Châtillon had
persuaded Condé to stipulate that her services in the cause of peace
and concord should be recognized by a _gratification_ of 100,000
écus.
[203] In the night of 19–20 September, 1652, the Princesse de Condé
gave birth to a son. The little prince, who was baptized Louis de
Bordeaux and received the title of Duc de Bourbon, only lived a few
weeks.
[204] Lenet, “Mémoires.”
[205] Archives de Chantilly, cited by the Duc d’Aumale.
[206] “Gazette de France,” January, 1660.
[207]
“J’ai vu le temps de la bonne régence,
Temps où régnait une heureuse abondance,
Temps où la ville aussi bien que la cour
Ne respirait que les jeux et l’amour.”
Saint-Évremond, “Stances à Ninon.”
[208] Louise Marie de Gonzague. She had married in 1645 Ladislas IV.
King of Poland, and, after his death, she became wife of his brother,
John Casimir.
[209] Letters of 28 September, 7 and 8 October, published by the Duc
d’Aumale.
[210] “Gazette de France,” 17 January, 1671.
[211] By a separate deed, the princess was permitted to dispose as she
wished of her jewels and plate.
[212] Roger de Rabutin, Comte de Bussy (1618–1693), the celebrated
letter-writer and author of the scandalous “Histoire amoureuse des
Gaules,” which procured him a year in the Bastille and a sixteen years’
exile from the Court.
[213] Letter of 23 January, 1671.
[214] The best informed of all, the Duc d’Aumale, adopts a neutral
attitude, being of opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to
condemn either Condé or his wife.
[215] “Life of Louis, Prince of Condé, surnamed the Great.” It should
be mentioned that the distinguished historian declines to believe that
the princess had as yet exhibited any signs of insanity, but in this he
is quite mistaken.
[216] The seigneurie of Châteauroux was in 1497 erected into a county
in favour of André de Chauvigny. In 1613 it was acquired by Henri
II., Prince de Condé, who, three years later, obtained letters-patent
evicting it into a duchy-peerage.
[217] “Père Tixier,” by MM. Lemoine and Lichtenberger, “Revue de
Paris,” 15 November, 1903.
[218] Bishop Burnet, “History of his own Time.”
[219] Saint-Évremond, “Stances irrégulières.”
[220] Bossuet, “Oraison funèbre du Grand Condé.”
[221] Charles François Frédéric de Montmorency-Boutteville.
[222] Marie de Clérambault.
[223] Madame de Caylus.
[224] Saint-Simon.
[225] Philippi Mancini. Mazarin had bequeathed to him the duchy-peerage
of Nivernois and Donzois, which he had purchased from the Duke of
Mantua, in 1659.
[226] See the author’s “The Fascinating Duc de Richelieu” (London,
Methuen; New York, Scribner, 1910).
[227] The Duc de Nevers had inherited under his uncle’s will the
Palazzo Mazarini, at the foot of the Quirinal, and frequently spent the
winter there.
[228] This episode occurred in 1688, nearly two years after the death
of the Great Condé, when _Monsieur le Duc_ had become _Monsieur
le Prince_.
[229] The Grand Dauphin, only son of Louis XIV.
[230] Marie Charlotte de la Meilleraye-Mazarin. She was a daughter
of Armand de la Porte-Meilleraye-Mazarin, Duc de Mazarin, and the
beautiful Hortense Mancini, Mazarin’s favourite niece. On his marriage,
the former added the cardinal’s name to his patronymic, and was created
Duc de Mazarin.
[231] Madame de Richelieu was, of course, an Italian on her mother’s
side.
[232] 1. Marie Thérèse de Bourbon, born 1 February, 1666; married in
1688 Louis François, Prince de Conti; died in 1732.
2. Louis de Bourbon, born 11 October, 1668; became Louis III., Prince
de Condé in 1709; died the following year.
3. Anne Marie Victoire de Bourbon, Mlle. de Condé, born 11 August,
1675; died unmarried 23 October, 1700.
4. Anne Louise Bénédicte de Bourbon, Mlle. de Charolais, born 8
November, 1676; married in 1692 the Duc de Maine, son of Louis XIV. and
Madame de Montespan.
5. Marie Anne de Bourbon, called Mlle. de Montmorency, and later Mlle.
d’Enghien, born 24 February, 1678; married in 1710 the Duc de Vendôme;
died in 1718.
[233] Jean Auguste Deschamps, Sieur de Cotecoste.
[234] Duc d’Aumale, “Histoire des Princes de Condé.”
[235] Louis Armand de Bourbon (1661–1685). He must not be confused with
his younger, and far more celebrated brother, François Louis de Bourbon
(1664–1709) who succeeded him in the title, up to which time he was
known as the Prince de la Roche-sur-Yon.
[236] “I will tell you a great piece of news; it is that _Monsieur le
Prince_ was shaved yesterday. This is no mere rumour or gossip; it
is a fact; all the Court witnessed it; and Madame de Langeron, choosing
the time when he had his paws folded like a lion, made him put on a
_justaucorps_ with diamond buttons. A _valet de chambre_
also, taking advantage of his patience, curled his hair, powdered it,
and at last reduced him into being only the best-looking man at Court,
and with a head of hair that puts all wigs out of competition. This was
the prodigy of the wedding.”--Letter of 17 January, 1680.
[237] The Great Condé, who was tall, used to say, laughing, that, if
his race thus continued to dwindle, it would at last come to nothing.
[238] “Souvenirs et Correspondance de Madame de Caylus.”
[239] “Souvenirs et Correspondance de Madame de Caylus.”
[240] Louis Joseph de Bourbon, Prince de Condé, “Histoire de la Maison
de Bourbon.”
[241] Mademoiselle de Montpensier, “Mémoires.”
[242] MM. Homberg & Jousselin, “la Femme du Grand Condé.” During the
Revolution, some ruffians forced open the chapel in which was the
tomb of the unfortunate princess, carried off the leaden coffin and
scattered its contents.
[243] Désormeaux, “Histoire de la Maison de Bourbon”; Stanhope, “Life
of Louis, Prince de Condé, surnamed the Great.”
[244] “Histoire de Madame de Muci,” par Mlle. B---- (Valdory),
Amsterdam, 1731; “le Nouveau Siècle de Louis XIV.”; Desnoiresterres,
“les Cours galantes.”
[245] “Mémoires du Comte de Maurepas.”
[246] Her chief pleasure appears to have been gambling, which is
scarcely surprising, when we consider that she was the daughter of a
woman who had been accustomed to win and lose several hundred thousand
francs at a single sitting, and had on one memorable occasion lost
over two million. In May, 1700, Dangeau informs us that _Madame la
Duchesse_ wrote to Madame de Maintenon to tell her that she had
lost “from 10,000 to 12,000 pistoles [from 100,000 to 120,000 livres],
which it was impossible for her to pay just then.” Madame de Maintenon
showed the letter to the King and begged him to come to his daughter’s
assistance. His Majesty consented, and, after requesting that a
detailed statement of the whole of the lady’s liabilities should be
drawn up and submitted to him, paid them in full, without saying a word
to her husband, which was distinctly kind of him.
[247] In the _chansons_ attributed to her, some of which are
undeniably clever, she exercised her satirical wit at the expense of
the Duc and Duchesse de Bourgogne, Madame de Maintenon, her husband,
and even her royal father.
[248] Saint-Simon.
[249] Saint-Simon.
[250] Ibid.
[251] But, if we are to believe Saint-Simon, her heart was partially
occupied by the Comte de Léon, a son of the amorous Lassay by his first
marriage, who, “although he had the face of a monkey, was perfectly
well-made.”
[252] Here is the list:
1. Marie Gabrielle Éléonore (1690–1760), Abbess of
Saint-Antoine-lez-Paris.
2. Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon, Prince de Condé (1692–1740).
3. Louise Elisabeth, Mlle. de Bourbon (1693–1775).
4. Louise Anne, Mlle. de Charolais (1697–1741).
5. Marie Anne, Mlle. de Clermont (1697–1741).
6. Charles, Comte de Charolais (1700–1760).
7. Henriette Louise Marie Françoise Gabrielle, Mlle. de
Vermandois (born in 1703).
8. Elisabeth Alexandre, Mlle. de Sens (1705–1765).
9. Louis, Comte de Clermont (1709–1771).
[253] Saint-Simon.
[254] Saint-Simon.
[255] “Madame de Prie (1698–1727),” Paris, 1905.
[256] “Correspondance complète de Madame, duchesse d’Orléans,” Letter
of 27 Septembre, 1720.
[257] H. Thirion, “Madame de Prie.”
[258] Henri Martin, “Histoire de France jusqu’en 1789.”
[259] Saint-Simon.
[260] Gérard Michel, Seigneur de la Jonchère.
[261] The Emergency War Fund had been instituted by Louis XIV.’s
celebrated War Minister, Louvois, who wished to have large sums of
money always at hand for his great projects, without being obliged to
take the Minister of Finance into his confidence, and was maintained,
in time of war, by contributions levied on conquered territory, and,
in time of peace, by a variety of means. The treasurers were not bound
to render accounts annually, as in other Government offices, but were
permitted to retain the money and employ it in their own affairs. This
system had its advantages, but, on the other hand, it lent itself
readily to malversation on the part of those who had the management of
the Fund.
[262] In 1717, he had been summoned before the tribunal appointed to
investigate the accounts of the commissaries and revenue-farmers, and
ordered to make restitution to the amount of 600,000 livres to the
State.
[263] The letter in which Breteuil received his nomination stated that
Le Blanc had begged the King to permit him to retire. This was to
soften his disgrace, which was none the less real.
[264] “Journal de Barbier,” December, 1723.
[265] Louis XV.’s love of play first revealed itself towards the end
of 1722. In July, 1724, Marais writes that “the King is a terrible
gambler.”
[266] The total amount of the defalcations was estimated at 12,000,000
livres at the very least.
[267] See his “Histoire de la Régence,” and the author’s “The
Fascinating Duc de Richelieu” (London, Methuen: New York, Scribner,
1910).
[268] The Tournelle was the court of criminal jurisdiction of the
Parlement.
[269] Président Hénault, “Mémoires.” But, according to Coxe (“History
of the House of Austria”), Isabella Farnese was anything but composed:
“In the first paroxysms of rage, the Queen tore off a bracelet
ornamented with a portrait of the King of France and trampled it under
her foot; and Philip declared that Spain could never shed enough blood
to avenge the indignity offered to his family.”
[270] This letter has been published in full by M. Thirion, in his
interesting monograph on Madame de Prie.
[271] Maréchal de Villars, “Mémoires.” These orders were not to
receive _Monsieur le Duc_, in case he should present himself at
her apartments, and, on no consideration, to make any allusion in the
presence of the King to that prince, Madame de Prie, or Pâris-Duverney.
[272] See page 280, supra.
[273] “MS. of the Bastille,” published in “la Nouvelle Revue
rétrospective.”
Transcriber’s Notes:
1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been
corrected silently.
2. Where hyphenation is in doubt, it has been retained as in the
original.
3. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have
been retained as in the original.
4. Italics are shown as _xxx_.