The Isles Sainte-Marguerite--Their Appearance--Their Past--Various
Causes of their Celebrity--How I was led to suppose that Matthioly was
not taken to Exiles by Saint-Mars--Documents which prove him to have
been left at Pignerol--Obscurity of the two Prisoners transferred to
Exiles by Saint-Mars--Neither of them could have been the Man with
the Iron Mask--Removal of the Prisoners of Pignerol to the Isles
Sainte-Marguerite.
On each side of Cannes, the coast of Provence, describing a slight
curve, forms the two gulfs of Napoule and Jouan, separated by the Point
of the Croisette.[564] Off this point, distant about a mile from shore,
are two islands, situated one in front of the other like advanced
sentinels, and affording each other mutual protection. The approach to
them is rendered far from easy by the rocks and reefs with which nature
has surrounded them. Both are oblong in shape, lying from east to west,
and the one nearest to the shore is also much the larger. Owing to
the great number of pines with which they are covered, the view from
them is limited; but if we ascend one of the highest towers, we behold
the most dazzling and wonderful of pictures. On every side is a
marvellous profusion of light; just in front of us is Cannes, and its
elegant villas, bathed by the waves of the sea; a little further inland
lies the magnificent valley of Grasse, with its hills covered with
olive-trees, its green mountain-slopes, and luxuriant vegetation;[565]
on the left is the sharp and varied outline of the long chain of the
Esterel; on the right, the Maritime Alps, almost touching the sky, with
their snowy summits glittering in the sun; and in the background, a
pile of savage mountains and gigantic rocks forms a striking contrast
with this privileged spot, and provides for it at once both a sure
shelter and a most picturesque framework.
These two islands, so appropriately situated for the embellishment
of these peerless localities, have no share in the life or animation
that surrounds them. As a rule, uncultivated, and inhabited solely
by their garrison and a few fishermen’s families, intersected here
and there by ancient salt-marshes, and of a sad and monotonous
appearance, one would say that they belonged altogether to the past.
On these tranquil coasts everything tends to meditation and to poetry.
Day-dreams are natural and easy here, for there is nothing to disturb
the grand recollections which the spot evokes, and in which history
and legend have an equal share. The Romans have occupied these islets;
pious hermits have established themselves on them; the Saracens have
invaded and the Spaniards have pillaged them in turn.[566] In the early
part of the fifth century, Saint-Honorat founded a monastery here,
which was for a long time the most celebrated of Gaul, and in which
thousands of apostles were trained in virtue and knowledge, of whom
some became celebrated bishops, and very many martyrs.[567] Everywhere
on this land of the past vestiges of ancient buildings[568] are to be
perceived, and traces of savage devastation. Everywhere the uncertain
and poetic recollections preserved by tradition are mingled with the
unquestionable events of the history of France. Here, in the smaller
of the two islands, is still to be seen the inexhaustible well that,
according to the legend, Saint-Honorat caused to be dug, and from which
fresh water miraculously issued forth on to a salt and arid shore till
then deprived of it. Not a long while ago one used to be shown the
place where the Saint, perched on a high tree, escaped the flood of
waters he had called forth by his prayers, and which, on afterwards
retiring, carried off with them the serpents with which the islands
were infested. It was here also that Francis I. stopped when a prisoner
of the Spaniards after the fatal battle of Pavia, and this was the
last spot of French earth trodden by the unfortunate monarch before
commencing his rigorous captivity. It was here also--a recollection
at once sad and glorious--that Prince Eugène and the Duke of Savoy
encountered the most obstinate resistance when they were invading the
South of France, and were marching first upon Cannes and then upon
Toulon by the road bordering the sea.[569] It was from here that the
cannon-shots were fired which, by delaying the enemy’s march, gave
time for Toulon to be defended; and after the raising of the siege, it
was the attack from here that compelled the Germans and Piedmontese,
on their return, to leave the sea-shore, and take refuge among the
hills and mountains, where they fell under the multiplied blows of the
energetic peasants of Provence.
Such are these two islands, sometimes designated under the common
name of the Lerins, but better known under that of the Isles
Sainte-Marguerite and Saint-Honorat, where the most varied remains
abound, but which the residence of the Man with the Iron Mask has
especially rendered for ever famous. Such are the spots which it
is impossible to visit, pronounce the name of, or call to mind
the recollection, without both the name and the recollection of
the mysterious prisoner who was confined in the larger of the two
islands--that of Sainte-Marguerite--immediately recurring also.
Whether we follow the tradition which represents the masked man as
being brought to Saint-Mars in this island,[570] or whether we think
that he was conducted thither by Saint-Mars himself, it is undeniable
that in 1698 the gaoler and his captive departed thence, for the
purpose of undertaking that journey which was mysteriously pursued
across France, exciting everywhere an inquisitive astonishment, having
Villeneuve-le-Roi for its principal halting-place and the Bastille for
termination. It is not less certain (and the unimpeachable journal[571]
of Dujonca is evidence of this) that the individual conducted to Paris
by Saint-Mars “in his litter, was an old prisoner whom he had at
Pignerol.”
Who was this prisoner?
It is very certain that there nowhere exists a collection of documents
specially relating to the Man with the Iron Mask. Louis XIV. had too
great an interest in surrounding this individual with uncertainty and
obscurity for him to have been pleased to collect and leave behind him
sure proofs of his identity. This interest in concealing the existence
of the captive became, as we shall see further on, very much greater at
the time of his removal to the Bastille. So his real name disappeared
almost entirely, and he was simply termed “the prisoner from Provence.”
It is consequently necessary to go back long before the date of this
removal, in order to establish his identity, and this can only be done
by comparing a great number of despatches, no one of which furnishes
of itself an unexceptionable proof, though their comparison and the
logical deductions to be derived from them enable us to come to a sure
conclusion. We must therefore request from our readers, especially at
this stage of the argument, a close and sustained attention.
We have terminated the preceding chapter by stating that M. Jules
Loiseleur has pronounced a decisive judgment on the question of the
Man with the Iron Mask, and we defy any attentive reader to study his
work without becoming convinced that the problem will never be solved.
But M. Loiseleur has made his inquiry merely with reference to the
documents as yet published. “His demonstrations, so clear, luminous,
and peremptory,” a critic has observed, “have exhausted the question,
and, in default of fresh documents, no profound mind will again recur
to it.”[572] It is these fresh documents which I am about to introduce
into the discussion, and I will proceed to state how I was led to
suppose their existence, and afterwards how I became the first to
establish it.
An unpublished despatch, addressed by Louvois to Saint-Mars, January 5,
1682, is thus conceived:--
“I have received your letter of the 28th of last month. You do not
know what is advantageous for you, when you ask to exchange the
governorship of Exiles for the command of the Château of Casale, which
brings in only two thousand livres of salary. Consequently I do not
advise you to think of it.”[573]
At first this despatch appears insignificant enough. It seems to
furnish but one proof more of Louvois’ kindly interest for Saint-Mars,
an interest which was due to the Minister’s intense affection for his
mistress, Madame Dufresnoy, sister-in-law to Saint-Mars, and also,
which is perhaps a more legitimate reason, to the perfect devotion and
tried fidelity of the gaoler of Fouquet and Lauzun. However, on reading
it over again, I asked myself how Saint-Mars could dream, if Matthioly
was one of his prisoners, of soliciting to be sent to Casale, to a town
altogether Italian and even Mantuan, where Matthioly might certainly
have succeeded, if not in escaping (we know that Saint-Mars’ prisoners
could scarcely indulge in that hope), at least in giving information
concerning himself, and revealing his situation. But the sole motive of
Louvois’ refusal is, as we have just seen, the smallness of the salary
given to the commandant of Casale. If Saint-Mars, to suppose what could
never have happened, had misconceived the danger likely to be caused
by Matthioly’s presence at Casale, even as a prisoner, it is beyond
doubt that Louvois, naturally cautious (and here caution would have
been a duty) would have written to him in something like the following
words: “I am astonished that you should have formed the design of
removing to Casale. It is necessary to give it up entirely.” But on the
contrary, Louvois finds no other inconvenience in this plan than that
of the inferiority of the salary attached to the duties of Casale, and
he concludes with these words: “I do not advise you to think of it.”
It is the friend full of solicitude who speaks, and not the Minister
energetically rejecting a proposal so contrary to the interests
confided to him.
It was this despatch which first suggested to me the idea that,
contrary to the general opinion, Matthioly was not taken by Saint-Mars
from Pignerol to Exiles. As yet this was, it is true, but a very
weak presumption, which was destroyed by proofs that were apparently
irrefutable and had been accepted as such up to the present. We have,
in fact, seen that Matthioly, a short time after his arrest, was
placed in the lower Tower at Pignerol, and it was the prisoners of
this tower whom Saint-Mars was ordered to conduct to Exiles. Louvois’
despatch[574] of June 9, 1681, concludes with these words: “With regard
to the effects belonging to the Sieur Matthioly, which are in your
possession, you will have them taken to Exiles, in order to be able to
give them back to him if his Majesty should ever order him to be set at
liberty.” This is an explicit statement, and has naturally confirmed
every one in the opinion that Matthioly was removed from Pignerol to
Exiles. But the doubt which the despatch of January 5, 1682, had made
me conceive, was changed into certainty when I read the following
letter, written by Saint-Mars, to the Abbé d’Estrades, June 25, 1681,
and to be found in minute among the Estrades’ manuscripts in the
Imperial Library:--
“June 25, 1681.
“Sir, I should not deserve your pardon if I was certain of having
the government of Exiles without doing myself the honour to inform
you of it, and besides the respect which I have for you, Sir, I am
indebted to you to such a degree that I should be an ungrateful and
dishonest man if, during the whole of my life, I did not honour you
with the utmost affection and respect. Rely on me, Sir, as being the
most devoted person in the world towards yourself and bound for the
remainder of my days with heart and love to your service. I only
received yesterday my supplies as governor of Exiles with two thousand
livres of salary; my free company is preserved to me as well as two
of my lieutenants, and I shall also have in custody two crows, whom
I have here, who have no other names than Messieurs of the lower
Tower; Matthioli will remain here with two other prisoners. One of my
lieutenants named Villebois will look after them, and he has a warrant
to command either in the citadel or in the donjon during my absence,
and until M. de Rissan returns, or his Majesty shall have provided for
this office of Lieutenant of the King by naming some other person. The
Chevalier de Saint-Martin has been appointed Major of Montlouis with a
salary of seven hundred crowns, and Blainvilliers, his comrade, Major
of the citadel of Metz, with the same pay. I do not expect to leave
here before the end of next month. I could if I chose go there from
time to time in order to have the repairs made which are necessary
for the good of the service, as I have received my orders to go into
this place of exile whenever I please; but as nothing presses, and as
it will be necessary to take up my residence in this place in order
to pass the winter there with the whole of my family and the bears,
it will take time for me to accommodate myself as well as possible.
What consoles me is that I shall have the honour of being near to the
States of their Royal Highnesses, to whom I am as much a debtor as a
very respectful and humble servant.”
Consequently, Matthioly was not the prisoner who died at Exiles, the
commencement of January, 1687.[575] He was therefore left at Pignerol,
where we shall soon meet with him again in charge of the Sieur de
Villebois. Louis XIV. at first had the idea of having him removed to
Exiles, as is proved by Louvois’ despatch of June 9, 1681, the last
sentence of which we have quoted. But it is none the less certain
that this first design was abandoned, and that Matthioly was left at
Pignerol.
There is also another remarkable expression in Saint-Mars’ letter. He
writes, “I shall also have in custody two crows” (_merles_). Now even
in our own time the word “crow” (_merle_) is applied only to common
and insignificant persons, of as little notoriety as importance.
Up to the present, however, it is in one of these two “crows” that
people have seen the Man with the Iron Mask. Is it objected that one
proof alone is not sufficient to establish the entire obscurity of
these two prisoners of Saint Mars? But this is confirmed also by all
we have said concerning the treatment of which Saint-Mars’ prisoners
at Pignerol were the objects, with the exception of Fouquet, Lauzun,
and Matthioly.[576] Is additional testimony required? “You can have
clothes made for your prisoners,” writes Louvois to Saint-Mars at
Exiles, December 14, 1681; “_but it is necessary that the clothes of
people like these should last three or four years_.”[577] As usual, the
Minister’s orders were punctually executed by his representative, and
when Saint-Mars left Exiles to proceed to the Isles Sainte-Marguerite,
he wrote to Versailles “that the prisoner’s bed was so old and worn
out” (we have previously seen that one of the prisoners was still alive
in 1687, the other having died in the early part of January of the same
year), “as well as everything he made use of, both table-linen and
furniture, that it was not worth while to bring them here; they only
sold for thirteen crowns.”[578] Assuredly if this is the Man with the
Iron Mask, and if he had that delicate taste for fine linen, of which
so much has been said, he must have found considerable difficulty in
gratifying it.
Saint-Mars arrives at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, which as yet had
not been used as a State Prison, as they are at present.[579] Obeying
Louvois’ orders he causes some new buildings to be erected,[580] in
which he receives in turns various prisoners, especially Protestant
ministers.[581] Does the gaoler’s behaviour change at this period?
Is it then that we find a trace of those peculiarities which are so
abundantly proved, and which form one of the characteristic features of
the story of the Man with the Iron Mask? The following despatch from
Barbézieux to Saint-Mars will furnish us with an answer:--
“At the Camp before Namur, June 29, 1692.[582]
“I have received your letter of the fourth of this month. When any of
the prisoners confided to your care will not do what you order them,
or cause a mutiny, you have only to[583] punish them as you may think
proper.”
It has been unceasingly repeated that Saint-Mars never quitted his
famous prisoner from the moment that he received him in charge. This is
again one of the features characterizing the mysterious captive, and
the two men are in some degree always represented as the prisoners of
one another. Do we find, either at Exiles or during the first years of
Saint-Mars’ residence at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, this significant
peculiarity? We are about to see:--
“December 14, 1681.
“Nothing prevents you from going to Casale from time to time, in order
to see Monsieur Catinat.”[584]
“December 22, 1681.
“His Majesty does not disapprove of your sleeping away from Exiles for
one night when you desire to pay a visit in the neighbourhood.”[585]
“Turin, January 9, 1682.
“Monsieur de Saint-Mars arrived at Turin yesterday. _Some time ago
when he passed through here_ he did me the honour to stop with me.
But this time M. de Masin has the preference.”[586]
“April 18, 1682.
“The King does not disapprove of your going to pay your respects to
the Duke of Savoy.”
“March 7, 1685.
“The King is willing that you should go for change of air to the place
you may think best for your health.”
“March 20, 1685.
“Madame de Saint-Mars having told me that you wished to go to the
baths of Aix in Savoy, I have informed the King, and his Majesty
has commanded me to acquaint you that he is pleased to grant you
permission to absent yourself from Exiles on this ground for the space
of a fortnight or three weeks.”
“July 5, 1688.[587]
“The King approves of your absenting yourself from the place where you
command, two days a month, and also of your returning the Governor of
Nice the visit he has paid you.”[588]
Thus, save the precautions taken to prevent an escape--and we have seen
that these were prescribed to Saint-Mars, in the same form and with the
same minute instructions, for all prisoners alike, whoever they might
be, even for that Eustache d’Auger, who was turned into a servant for
Fouquet--save, I say, these precautions, necessary but exaggerated
by Saint-Mars’ scruples, we do not find in these two captives any of
the essential characteristics of the Man with the Iron Mask. Not that
we accept all those with which romance has adorned him. But, however
insignificant exact history may represent him, is he to be recognized
in one of those two men,[589] termed “crows” by Saint-Mars, “these sort
of people” by Louvois, treated in the manner we have seen; the total
value of whose effects, linen, and furniture, was only thirteen crowns,
and whom their gaoler received permission to leave frequently and for
considerable periods of time?
But there is another result of our researches, quite as unknown as that
which we have just set forth.
Saint-Mars is at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, which he does not scruple
to leave from time to time. All at once, on February 26, 1694, the
Minister announces to him the approaching arrival at the islands of
three State prisoners who are then in the donjon of Pignerol. He
inquires of Saint-Mars “if there are secure places to confine them
in,” and orders him to make preparations, repairs, and the necessary
arrangements for their reception.[590] In another letter, on the
following 20th of March, Barbézieux adds these words, the great
importance of which it is unnecessary to point out: “You well know
that they are of more importance, _at least, one of them_, than those
who are now at the islands, and you ought to place them by preference
in the most secure prisons.”[591] Then he orders him “to prepare the
furniture and plate necessary for their use, and impresses upon him
that the works which he is compelled to have done should be ready on
their arrival.” By the same courier he forwards fifteen hundred livres
to meet the first expenses.
A few days afterwards, in fact, three prisoners arrived at the Isles
Sainte-Marguerite, surrounded by a very strong escort, in charge of
the commandant of Pignerol, who alone gave them their food,[592] and
guided by two sure men sent on in advance by the Governor; among these
prisoners, as we shall see hereafter, was the one whom Saint-Mars some
years later took to the Bastille.
FOOTNOTES:
[564] Thus named on account of a cross to which pilgrimages were
formerly made:--_Promenades de Nice_, by Émile Negrin, p. 273.
[565] _Visite aux Îles de Lérins_, by the Abbé Alliez, 1840.
[566] _Notice sur Cannes et les Îles des Lérins_, by M. Sardou. Cannes,
Robaudy, 1867.
[567] Besides Saint-Honorat, there were Saints Aigulph, Hilary,
Patrick, Capraise, Vincent, Venantius, and many others. See the very
remarkable thesis presented to the Faculty of Letters in Paris by the
Abbé Goux, professor at the Petit Séminaire of Toulouse, and entitled,
_Lérins au Cinquième Siècle_. Paris, Eugène Belin, 1856. Also the
charming volume of MM. Girard and Bareste, _Cannes et ses Environs_.
Paris, Garnier, 1859.
[568] M. Merimée, _Note d’un Voyage dans le Midi de la France_, p. 256,
_et seq._
[569] A flag of truce came from the Duke of Savoy to notify to M. la
Mothe-Guérin, governor of the islands, the order to cease firing. “The
first person,” replied La Mothe-Guérin, “who has the audacity to come
again to me as the bearer of such a message, I shall immediately have
hung:”--M. Sardou, work already cited, p. 111. “It was when under fire
from the Isles Sainte-Marguerite,” the Duke of Savoy said afterwards,
“that I knew better than anywhere else that I was in an enemy’s
country.”
[570] It is to be remarked that according to the first work which makes
mention of the Man with the Iron Mask, the prisoner was conducted to
the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, and there confided to Saint-Mars. This is
the _Mémoires Secrets pour servir à l’Histoire de Perse_, from which we
have reproduced the entire passage in Chapter VI. of the present work
(see p. 69, _ante_).
[571] The passages of this Journal relating to the prisoner are given
in Chapter XIII. of the present work (see pp. 164, 165, _ante_).
[572] M. Baudry, _Revue de l’Instruction Publique_, June 25, 1868.
[573] Archives of the Ministry of War.
[574] Given by Delort, p. 269.
[575] This is now placed beyond doubt, and moreover we shall find
Matthioly’s name occurring later in the despatches from Louvois to the
commandant of the donjon of Pignerol. With respect to the testimony of
the Sieur Souchon, which, following M. Loiseleur, we have given in the
preceding chapter, it is rather confused in the _Mémoires d’un Voyageur
qui se repose_ (vol. ii. pp. 204-210 of Bossange’s edition), and very
clear in the work of Father Papon, but with the signification of _the
death of the servant_ and not of Matthioly himself. The following is
the passage from the _Voyage Littéraire de Provence_ (pp. 148, 149,
edition 1780), integrally reproduced: “The person who waited on the
prisoner died at the Isle Sainte-Marguerite. The father of the officer
of whom I have just spoken (Souchon, seventy-nine years old), who was
in certain matters the man of confidence of M. de Saint-Mars, had
always told his son that he had taken the dead man from his prison
at the hour of midnight, and had carried him on his shoulders to the
burial-ground.”
[576] We shall refer hereafter to the treatment of Matthioly.
[577] Archives of the Ministry of War.
[578] Letter given by Delort, p. 284.
[579] In 1633, Richelieu had the Fort Royal built on the northern shore
of the Isle Sainte-Marguerite, but it was on the arrival of Saint-Mars
that the buildings were erected which were to serve for prisoners of
very various classes. The following unpublished letter, written by M.
de Grignan, Lieutenant-General of Provence, September 29, 1691, proves
that previous to this date the Isle Sainte-Marguerite was a State
Prison:--
“The guard which I had placed at Cannes have arrested a sailor,
supposed to belong to Oneglia, who was coming from the direction of
Genoa, and who, from his replies, in which he has varied a great deal,
has given grounds for belief that he has been put ashore by the Spanish
galleys and is a spy, who, under pretence of carrying to Toulon a
letter from a captain of Genoa, was going there to obtain information.
He has been taken to the Isles of Sainte-Marguerite.
“L. DE GRIGNAN, L. G. of Provence.
“September 29, 1691, to M. de Pontchartrain.”--Archives
of the Ministry of Marine, Correspondence.
Another letter, dated July 21, 1681, from Count de Grignan to M. de
Pontchartrain, shows that the island was beginning to be armed for the
defence of the coast:--
“M. de Saint-Mars, governor of the islands of Sainte-Marguerite and
Saint-Honorat de Lérins, speaks to me of provisions which he is obliged
to fetch from the mainland, and of the twenty-five pieces of cannon
which require carriages.”--_Ibid._
[580] In a despatch dated January 8, 1688, Saint-Mars hastens to
apprise Louvois that his new prisons are quite ready and waiting to be
occupied:--
“Monseigneur,--I will do myself the honour to tell you that I have
placed my prisoner, who is generally in bad health, in one of the new
prisons which I have had built according to your instructions. They are
large, lofty, and light, and considering their excellence, I do not
think that there are any stronger or more secure in Europe, and in like
manner for everything that can concern the giving of intelligence by
word of mouth from near and far, which was not the case in the places
where I have had the care of the late Monsieur Fouquet from the moment
that he was arrested. With a little precaution one might even allow
the prisoners to walk about the whole of the island, without any fear
of their escaping or of their giving or receiving news. I take the
liberty, monseigneur, to point out to you in detail the excellence of
this place in case you may at any time have prisoners whom you wish to
put in perfect security with a fair amount of liberty.
“Throughout this province people say that mine is Monsieur de Beaufort
and others the son of the late Cromwell.”
[581] The greater portion of the despatches relating to the
Protestants confined in the islands have been given by Depping in his
_Correspondance Administrative sous Louis XIV._.
[582] Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, June 29,
1692:--Archives of the Ministry of War.
[583] The following words are here erased:--“beat them severely, and.”
[584] Unpublished despatch from Louvois to Saint-Mars:--Archives of the
Ministry of War.
[585] _Ibid._:--_Ibid._
[586] Manuscripts of the Imperial Library, _Papiers d’Estrades_. This
letter and several others in the same collection are a proof of the
friendship which subsisted between Saint-Mars and the Abbé d’Estrades.
“On the first of next month, Monsieur de Catinat,” we read in a letter
from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, “will be
the governor of the citadel which you have brought into the King’s
possession.” He refers to Casale, and these words would suffice to
prove, what is already attested by the active part played by Saint-Mars
with Catinat in 1679, viz., that Saint-Mars had been kept informed
of all the details of the two negotiations. Consequently, as we have
already shown in the preceding chapter, the famous sentence of Louvois’
despatch to Saint-Mars, August 13, 1681--“The King having ordered
Monsieur de Catinat to proceed as soon as possible to Pignerol _on the
same business which took him there at the commencement of the year
1679_”--has and can have only one meaning, that is to say, the taking
possession of Casale, and not the arrest of a new prisoner.
But M. Loiseleur brings forward another argument in order to attempt to
prove that an obscure spy was arrested by Catinat in 1681. This is the
following letter from Louvois to Saint-Mars, September 20, 1681:--“The
King does not disapprove of your going from time to time to see the
last prisoner whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new
prison, and has left that in which you are keeping him. His Majesty
desires that you shall execute the order which he has sent you,” &c.
And the same critic concludes, from a despatch from Saint-Mars to
Louvois, March 11, 1682, which again mentions two prisoners, that,
between September 20, 1681, and March 11, 1682, a new prisoner was
confided to Saint-Mars.
Let us remark, firstly, that the space of time in question is much
more limited still. M. Loiseleur only made use of documents already
published. But, November 18, 1681, Louvois, in a despatch as yet
unprinted, says to Saint-Mars, with reference to his prisoners: “The
King approves of your choosing a doctor to visit your prisoners, and of
your employing the Sieur Vignon to confess them once a year.” From this
it would appear that a new prisoner was confided to Saint-Mars, between
September 20 and November 18, 1681; but, as we have already said in
the last chapter, there is nowhere any trace of this prisoner, this
so-called spy. On the other hand, for the despatch of September 20,
1681, to have the meaning which M. Loiseleur attributes to it, one of
the two prisoners of the lower Tower must have died some days previous
to September 20, since at this date only one prisoner is spoken of. Of
this death or disappearance we have no proof or even trace. Thus the
whole argument rests upon this single despatch, of which M. Loiseleur
not only makes use in order to prove that a new prisoner had been
confided to Saint-Mars, but from which he also deduces that one of the
prisoners previously confined had disappeared.
This single despatch thus standing alone, and completely unsupported,
would be far from being sufficient to establish this theory.
Nevertheless, it is essential to discover its true meaning, so as
to leave no doubt in the reader’s mind, and to make every part
of our demonstration clear and plain. I acknowledge having spent
a considerable time in thinking over this despatch, which was
contradicted by all the others, which suited no theory, and which
was nevertheless authentic and very exactly reproduced, since I
went several times to read the draft of it, at the Archives of the
Ministry of War. Even if it had possessed the meaning that M. Loiseleur
attributed to it, it would not have destroyed my conclusions at
all, since the proofs which I had furnished of the obscurity of the
Exiles prisoners were also applicable to this new prisoner brought
between November and September, 1681, and because the superior
importance of the prisoners afterwards taken from Pignerol to the
Isles Sainte-Marguerite, would not have been demonstrated any the
less clearly by the despatches which I am about to quote. But it
was repugnant to me to leave a single point obscure; and after much
reflection, and after having been for a long while of M. Loiseleur’s
opinion, although nothing outside of this despatch justifies his
interpretation, I believe that I have discovered its true meaning.
“The King does not disapprove,” says the despatch which we are
discussing, “of your going from time to time to see the last prisoner
whom you have in charge, when he is settled in his new prison and
has left that in which you are keeping him.” At first I thought it
very strange that one of Saint-Mars’ prisoners should “settle” in his
prison without his gaoler, and connecting this fact with the numerous
despatches which show that at this period, or at least at one not very
remote from it, Saint-Mars still had two prisoners, I have ended by
concluding that the word “prisoner” is not used here by Louvois in its
ordinary sense, but figuratively. I then recollected that in 1681, as
in 1679, Catinat was at Pignerol, and treated in appearance at least as
a prisoner. The following despatch from Catinat to Louvois, September
6, 1681, leaves no doubt on the subject: “I have called myself Guibert,
(we have seen that in 1679, he had taken the name of Richemont), and
I am supposed to be an engineer _who has been arrested_ by the King’s
orders for having deserted with a number of plans of places on the
frontiers of Flanders. M. de Saint-Mars _keeps me here with every
appearance of my being a prisoner_,” &c. On the other hand, during
Catinat’s two stays at Pignerol, with two years’ interval between them,
a profound friendship had sprung up between him and Saint-Mars. The
despatch which we are discussing was dated September 20, 1681. Now, on
the 28th, Catinat was to leave, and indeed did leave Pignerol, and on
October 1, he was installed at Casale as governor. In an unpublished
letter from Saint-Mars to the Abbé d’Estrades, September 27, 1681, is
an expression which explains everything: “I have given your letter to
M. de Catinat, and he will have the honour to communicate with you when
he is _settled_. He leaves to-morrow, Sunday, with the infantry, and no
one is more your servant than he is. The first of next month he will
be received as governor of the citadel which you have brought into the
King’s possession (Casale).”--Imperial Library, Manuscripts, _Papiers
d’Estrades_. Now this very expression, “when he is settled,” occurs in
Louvois’ despatch, September 20, which Saint-Mars had just received
when he was writing to d’Estrades.
But, it will be said, why does Louvois make use of the words “in his
new prison” to describe Casale? Because, no doubt, Catinat had not left
Louvois ignorant that a monotonous residence at Casale was disagreeable
to him, and that he would very much prefer to return to the army of
Flanders. Lastly, December 14, 1681, Louvois writes to Saint-Mars, who,
from his excessive scruples, had probably renewed his request for an
authorisation: “Nothing need prevent your going to Casale from time to
time, in order to visit M. Catinat.”
It is therefore to Catinat that reference is made in the despatch
of September 20, 1681, to Catinat, the last of the prisoners whom
Saint-Mars still had in his care, for, since the month of June,
Matthioly had been confided to Villebois, and the two prisoners left
to Saint-Mars were two “crows,” whom no doubt he had already taken to
Exiles.
It is to Catinat that he refers, and this despatch can no longer be
made to serve as a pretext for the theory according to which a new
prisoner was arrested by Catinat in 1681.
[587] Saint-Mars was now at the Isles Sainte-Marguerite.
[588] This and the three preceding despatches are from Louvois to
Saint-Mars, and are to be found in the Archives of the Ministry of War.
[589] The “crow” taken by Saint-Mars to the Islands was undoubtedly the
Jacobin monk, as is proved by the following despatch from Barbézieux to
Saint-Mars: “Versailles, August 13, 1691--Your letter of the 26th of
last month has been handed to me. When you have anything to inform me
concerning the prisoner who has been in your charge for the last twenty
years, I beg you to adopt the same precautions as you made use of when
communicating with M. de Louvois.” Twenty years is undoubtedly a round
number, and the Jacobin monk, imprisoned since 1674, had then suffered
seventeen years of captivity. A great deal of importance has been
ascribed to this despatch, because it was one of the very few belonging
to this period which were known to exist. We have just seen, however,
that its value is very much diminished by comparison with the other
letters which we have transcribed. The recommendation that Barbézieux
gives in it is purely a matter of form, and similar injunctions were
transmitted to Villebois and afterwards to Laprade, when charged with
the care of Matthioly.
[590] Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, February 26,
1694:--Archives of the Ministry of War.
[591] Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Saint-Mars, March 20,
1694:--_Ibid._
[592] “The King charges you that no one but yourself shall give
them to eat, as you have done since they were confided to your
care;”--Unpublished despatch from Barbézieux to Laprade, who, on the
death of Villebois, succeeded to the governorship of the donjon of
Pignerol.