Third Hypothesis--Reconciliation of Louis XIII. and Anne of
Austria--The Queen _enceinte_ for the Fourth Time--Suspicions with
which Royal Births have sometimes been received--Precautions adopted
in France for the Purpose of avoiding these Suspicions--Story of
Louis XIV.’s Birth--Impossibility of admitting the Birth of a
Twin-brother--Richelieu’s Absence--Uselessness of abducting and
concealing this pretended Twin-brother.
Seven years were to elapse before the realization of the wishes of
the nation, which ardently desired a Dauphin, and was alarmed at the
prospect of seeing the little-loved brother of Louis XIII. ascend the
throne of France. Anne of Austria was _enceinte_ anew, in January,
1638: not, as Voltaire has said, and as people have so frequently
repeated after him, “in consequence of a reconciliation brought
about by chance between the two spouses, who had lived separately
for a long time.”[92] There was no longer any need either of a storm
surprising Louis XIII., ready to set out for the chase, or the pressing
entreaties of Mademoiselle de la Fayette, or the supplications of
the Captain of his Guards, in order to induce the King to visit the
Queen. Unquestionable documents[93] show that long before the month
of December, 1637, Louis XIII. knew how to reconcile his duties as
a husband with his ever-increasing passion for the chase, and that
when this sport kept him away from the Louvre for too long a time,
his habit was to send for the Queen. On September 5, 1638, the latter
brought into the world a prince, who was afterwards Louis XIV. It is
upon this day that the birth of the Man with the Iron Mask is fixed
by those[94] who recognise in this personage not an adulterine son of
Anne of Austria, but a legitimate twin-brother of Louis XIV., born some
hours after him, and condemned, for his late arrival in the world, to a
perpetual imprisonment.
There are few royal births that have not been the object of malevolent
insinuations, and often of very plain accusations of criminal fraud.
Such an event almost always destroys the right of some collateral heir,
who has perhaps long coveted the crown. Sometimes even it ruins the
projects of a whole party; and whilst it confirms the position of some,
it suddenly throws down a hundred ambitions, and exposes those who are
disappointed in their expectations to the temptation of gainsaying
that which destroys their hopes. When, on June 21, 1688, Marie d’Este,
second wife of James II., rendered him the father of a son,[95] William
of Orange, then long married to the Princess Mary, the eldest daughter
of the King of England, seeing his wife’s rights annihilated by this
unexpected birth, refused to admit as real an event so fatal to him.
He caused accusatory libels to be spread throughout Holland, and even
in England,[96] in which it was represented that the Queen’s pregnancy
was feigned, that the birth was imaginary, and that an unknown child,
picked up at hazard, had been furtively introduced into the bed of its
pretended mother.[97] Several English writers, and, at their head, the
ardent Burnet, welcomed this opinion, and the scandal which they raised
contributed, some months afterwards, to the success of the attempt made
by William of Orange to seize on the throne at the very moment when he
seemed to have been excluded from it for ever.
In France, doubts of this nature being rendered still more easy by
the sceptical and fault-finding spirit of the nation, care has been
taken at all times to avoid even a pretext for them, by infinite
precautions and excellent customs. Not only had the birth of a prince
the greatest personages of the State for obligatory witnesses, but the
people themselves were also invited to be present at the advent to
life of him whom a very old tradition happily designates as the Child
of France. The doors were opened to the public, who penetrated freely
into the royal dwelling at the solemn moment when the family of their
rulers was perpetuated. They also entered there on certain occasions
when the King allowed himself to be seen at table by his subjects.
These two privileges were the only ones granted to them at that time,
and, reasonably enough, they were not disposed to rest content with
them for ever. The first, however, at least, offered the advantage
of making them forget for an instant that they were nothing, and of
associating them in some way with the greatest event connected with the
reigning family. When Marie Antoinette gave birth to her first child,
the concourse of people in her chamber was such that Louis XVI. broke a
window to give air more quickly to the Queen, who was on the point of
losing consciousness. From that day the people ceased to be admitted
to the birth of the King’s children. But long before Louis XIV. came
into the world, nothing was neglected that could give the greatest
authenticity to this event, and the accurate Héroard[98] shows us the
chamber of Marie de Medicis filled with spectators at the moment of the
birth of Louis XIII.
It was the same at the birth of Louis XIV. The first signs of an
approaching accouchement showed themselves on September 4, 1638, at
eleven o’clock in the evening.[99] The next day, at five o’clock in
the morning, Louis XIII., learning that the pains are increasing,
visits the Queen, whom he does not quit till her delivery.[100] At
six o’clock arrive successively at Saint-Germain, Gaston d’Orléans,
so interested in watching the issue of an event which is, perhaps,
to put him aside from the throne for ever; the Princess de Condé,
Madame de Vendôme, the Chancellor, Madame de Lansac, the future
governess of the royal child, and Mesdames de Senecey and de la
Flotte, ladies of honour. Behind the canopy of the bed occupied by
the Queen, is erected an altar, at which the Bishops of Lisieux, of
Meaux, and of Beauvais, say mass in turns. Near the altar, and even
in the adjoining room, press Mesdames de la Ville-aux-Clercs, de
Liancourt, and de Mortemart; the Princess de Guéméné; the Duchesses
de la Trémouille and de Bouillon; the Dukes de Vendôme, de Chevreuse,
and de Montbazon; Messieurs de Souvré, de Liancourt, de Mortemart,
de la Ville-aux-Clercs, de Brion, and de Chavigny: the Archbishop
of Bourges; the Bishops of Metz, Châlons, Dardanie, and Mans; and,
finally, an enormous crowd which invades the palace at an early hour,
and soon completely fills it.[101] At eleven o’clock precisely Anne of
Austria brings into the world a child, the sex of which the midwife
at once causes to be verified by the princes of the royal family, and
particularly by Gaston d’Orléans. This latter remains quite stunned at
the sight, and cannot hide his vexation;[102] still the very visible
signs of his discontent are almost unperceived in the general gladness,
and amidst the noisy acclamations that arise on all sides. The joy of
Louis XIII. is as lively as his melancholy and dreamy nature allows. He
admires and makes those round him admire the shape of his son, who,
from his birth, like his father at a similar moment, gives proofs of
the extraordinary appetite[103] which characterizes his race. A short
time after, in the very chamber of the Queen, and before the same
spectators, the newly-born prince is baptized by the Bishop of Meaux,
first almoner. Louis XIII. then sends the Sieur Duperré-Bailleul to
Paris, charged with solemnly announcing the happy news[104] to the
Corporation. But, borne by the joyous cry of the populace, the news has
already traversed with surprising rapidity the distance which separates
Saint-Germain from Paris, where it is known at noon. It excites a
really sincere enthusiasm there, and the churches, for some months past
filled by people who ask of heaven the birth of a Dauphin, at once
resound with hymns of thanksgiving.
According to the romance of Soulavie a second son came into the
world at eight o’clock in the evening, nine hours after the first,
and, conformably to the advice of Richelieu, was hidden, brought up
mysteriously, and then placed in confinement. Let us remark, in the
first place, that the Cardinal de Richelieu, who is made to play
such an important part at Saint-Germain on September 5, 1638, had
been absent from that place since the end of July, and was then at
Saint-Quentin, whence he only returned to Paris on October 2.[105] But
do not let us stop at this first error. In cases of twins the presence
of the second child is invariably denoted by signs impossible to be
mistaken or passed over. Thus, even if the second birth did not at once
follow the first, in which case it would have had for witnesses the
whole of the persons assembled in the chamber, it would certainly have
been anticipated, and an expectation such as this could not have been
kept concealed from the crowd.[106]
But how can it be admitted that a fact of such importance was known
to so many persons without any of them betraying the secret in a
conversation which would have been eagerly seized upon by some
contemporary writer, or in one of those memoirs which numerous great
personages then delighted in leaving behind them? And yet they all
preserve the most complete silence on this subject. Contemporaries
have told us everything about the veritable actions as well as the
imaginary acts of Anne of Austria. They have penetrated to the recesses
of her private life, but nothing in their writings, not even the most
indirect allusion, permits one to suspect such an important event.
Supposing, however, that, extraordinarily and contrariwise to what
observation proves every day, this second birth took place nine hours
after the first, and without having been previously announced by any
revealing sign, and that the witnesses were very few in number and
remarkably discreet, what interest had Louis XIII. in concealing this
birth? Amongst the Romans, in France during the Middle Ages, as in
modern times, the twin that first comes into the world has always
been the eldest. Far, therefore, from being dismayed, as Soulavie
relates,[107] at this second birth, Louis XIII. ought to have rejoiced
at it, since it would have strengthened the direct line in his family.
There is nothing to disprove that a double birth may have been
prophesied by the two shepherds. Popular imagination, lively excited by
the universal desire for a Dauphin, and by the unexpected announcement
of the Queen’s condition, welcomed a thousand superstitious
predictions, that for some months served as food for conversation,
and helped to soften the delay. But this is the sole incident which
is not evidently false in the relation of Soulavie, which is refuted,
for the rest, by the impossibility of hiding a second birth from
the innumerable witnesses of the first, and by the absolute silence
of contemporaries, as well as by the incontestable inutility of the
removal and suppression of this younger brother of Louis XIV.
FOOTNOTES:
[92] Voltaire, _Dictionnaire Philosophique_, vol. i. p. 375.
[93] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section France, 5.
There exists, amongst others, a letter of January 10, 1637, in which
Louis XIII. writes to Richelieu “that he will have the Queen come to
Saint-Germain, the evenings there being very long without company.”
[94] Dulaure, _Histoire de Paris_; Simonde Sismondi, _Histoire des
Français_; Dufey de l’Yonne, _Histoire de la Bastille_; The Chevalier
de Cubières, _Voyage à la Bastille_.
[95] The Old Pretender.--_Trans._
[96] M. Topin is in error. William was, in fact, remonstrated with by
the Whigs for having publicly acknowledged a birth which the great
majority of the English people at that time believed to be a feigned
one.--_Trans._
[97] The child was said to have been brought in in a warming-pan.
[98] _Journal d’Héroard_, September 26, 27, 1601.
[99] _Corps Universel Diplomatique du Droit des Gens_, of Dumont,
Supplement, vol. iv. p. 176. Letter from Chavigny to the Cardinal
de Richelieu, September 6, 1638. Despatch from Louis XIII. to M. de
Bellièvre, his ambassador in England, September 5, 1638.--Manuscripts
of the Imperial Library, _fonds Saint-Germain_, _Harlay_, 364²⁷, fol.
170.
[100] “The King was present all the time, and his two attacks of fever
have not in any way diminished his strength,” writes Chavigny in the
letter in which he relates to Richelieu, then absent from the court,
the birth of the Dauphin. This precise statement destroys that of M.
Michelet, who, from an anonymous Life of Madame de Hautefort, says that
“Louis XIII. would have consoled himself without difficulty at seeing
his Spaniard die, and that during the pains he had history read to him
to find an example of a King of France having married his subject.”--M.
Michelet, _Histoire de France_, vol. xii. p. 211.
[101] Dumont, _Corps Diplomatique du Droit des Gens_, vol. iv. p. 176.
[102] Letter from Chavigny to the Cardinal de Richelieu, September 6,
1638. Louis XIII. made his brother a present of six thousand crowns,
“which consoled him a little,” says Chavigny.
[103] Letters of Louis XIII.:--Archives of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, section France, 5. _Journal d’Héroard_. _Lettres Missives
d’Henri IV._, vol. v. p. 507.
[104] It is generally believed that the famous vow of Louis XIII.,
placing his kingdom under the protection of the Virgin, was made on
account of Anne of Austria’s pregnancy. It was not so. The Queen’s
condition was manifest in January, 1638, and “the declaration for
the protection of the Virgin” is of December, 1637. It was made “on
account of gratitude for so many evident favours accorded to the
King.”--_Lettres et Papiers de Richelieu_, vol. v. p. 908.
[105] Richelieu left Ruel at the end of July, and went successively to
Amiens, Abbeville, Ham, and Saint-Quentin. It was in this last town
that he learnt the happy event and went at once to the church with a
grand _cortège_. “He heard mass sung there by his chaplain, then the
_Te Deum_ and the _Domine salvum_.” He then wrote to the King and
Queen to congratulate them.--_Gazette de France_, p. 535; _Lettres
et Papiers de Richelieu_, vol. vi. p. 75, _et seq._ The 2nd October,
Richelieu left the army to return to Saint-Germain. “The King arrived
on Wednesday at Saint-Germain, whither the Cardinal-duke repaired from
our armies the same day and almost the same hour as his Majesty, whom
he found in the room of Monseigneur the Dauphin, where the Queen also
was. It would be difficult to express with what transports of joy
his eminence was seized on seeing between the father and the mother
this admirable child, the object of his desires and the limit of his
content.”--_Gazette de France_, p. 580.
[106] At this part of his work, M. Topin has thought it necessary
for his argument to dwell on certain medical details, which, out of
delicacy to English readers, I have preferred to suppress.--_Trans._
[107] In the account we have reproduced in Chap. I. See p. 15 _ante_.