Less than a twelvemonth afterwards King Francis followed his whilom
mistress to the tomb. She left by Peter Perdrier a son named John, Lord
of Baubigny, who in 1558 married Anne de St. Simon, grand-aunt of the
author of the Memoirs. John Perdrier was possibly the Baubigny who
killed Marshal de St. André at the battle of Dreux in 1562.
Such is Baron Pichon’s account of Jane Lecoq and her husbands. We have
now to turn to an often-quoted passage of the _Diverses Leçons_ of Louis
Guyon, sieur de la Nauthe, a physician of some repute in his time, but
whose book it should be observed was not issued till 1610, or more than
half-a-century subsequent to King Francis I.’s death. La Nauthe writes
as follows:--
“Francis I. became enamoured of a woman of great beauty and grace, the
wife of an advocate of Paris, whom I will not name, for he has left
children in possession of high estate and good repute; and this lady
would not yield to the King, but on the contrary repulsed him with many
harsh words, whereat the King was sorely vexed. And certain courtiers
and royal princes who knew of the matter told the King that he might
take her authoritatively and by virtue of his royalty, and one of them
even went and told this to the lady, who repeated it to her husband.
The advocate clearly perceived that he and his wife must needs quit
the kingdom, and that he would indeed find it hard to escape without
obeying. Finally the husband gave his wife leave to comply with the
King’s desire, and in order that he might be no hindrance in the matter,
he pretended to have business in the country for eight or ten days;
during which time, however, he remained concealed in Paris, frequenting
the brothels and trying to contract a venereal disease in order to
give it to his wife, so that the King might catch it from her; and he
speedily found what he sought, and infected his wife and she the King,
who gave it to several other women, whom he kept, and could never get
thoroughly cured, for all the rest of his life he remained unhealthy,
sad, peevish and inaccessible.”
Brantôme, it may be mentioned, also speaks of the King contracting a
complaint through his gallantries, and declares that it shortened his
life, but he mentions no woman by name, and does not tell the story of
the advocate’s wife. It will have been observed in the extract we have
quoted that Guyon de la Nauthe says that the advocate had left children
“in possession of high estate and good repute.” Disome, however, had no
children either by his first or his second wife. The question therefore
arises whether La Nauthe is not referring to another advocate, for
instance Le Féron, husband of La belle Féronnière. These would appear to
have left posterity (see _Catalogue de tous les Conseillers du Parlement
de Paris_, pp. 120-2-3, and Blanchard’s _les Présidents à mortier du
Parlement de Paris, etc_., 1647, 8vo). But it should be borne in mind
that the Féronnière intrigue is purely traditional. The modern writers
who speak of it content themselves with referring to Mézeray, a very
doubtful authority at most times, and who did not write, it should be
remembered, till the middle of the seventeenth century, his _Abrégé
Chronologique_ being first published in 1667. Moreover, when we come
to consult him we find that he merely makes a passing allusion to La
Féronnière, and even this is of the most dubious kind. Here are his
words: “In 1538 the King had a long illness at Compiègne, caused by an
ulcer.... He was cured at the time, but died [of it?] nine years later.
_I have sometimes heard say_(!) that he caught this disease from La
belle Féronnière.”
Against this we have to set the express statement of Louise of Savoy,
who writes in her journal, under date 1512, that her son (born in 1494)
had already and at an early age had a complaint _en secrete nature_. Now
this was long before the belle Féronnière was ever heard of, and further
it was prior to the intrigue with Jane Disome, who, by Queen Margaret’s
showing, did not meet with “the young prince” until she had been married
some time and was in despair of having children by her husband. The
latter had lost his first wife late in 1511, and it is unlikely that he
married Jane Lecoq until after some months of widowhood. To our thinking
Prince Francis would have appeared upon the scene in or about 1514,
his intrigue culminating in the scandal of the following year, in
which Mons. Cruche played so conspicuous a part. With reference to the
complaint from which King Francis is alleged to have suffered, one must
not overlook the statement of a contemporary, Cardinal d’Armagnac, who,
writing less than a year before the King’s death, declares that Francis
enjoys as good health as any man in his kingdom (Genin’s _Lettres de
Marguerite_, 1841, p. 473). Cardinal d’Armagnac’s intimacy with the
King enabled him to speak authoritatively, and his statement refutes the
assertions of Brantôme, Guyon de la Nauthe and Mézeray, besides tending
to the conclusion that the youthful complaint mentioned by Louise of
Savoy was merely a passing disorder.--Ed.