The True History of the State Prisoner, commonly called the Iron Mask. Dover George Agar Ellis
the effect of a vindictive feeling against him in the breast of Lewis himself; for it is impossible to imagine that any minister would have ventured, of his own free-will, upon a step by which so much was to be hazarded, and nothing, in fact, was to be gained. The act is only to be explained in this manner; that the monarch insisted upon his revenge, which the ministers were obliged to gratify; and, at the same time, in order to prevent any ill consequences that might result from it, determined upon burying the whole transaction under the most impenetrable veil of mystery.
The confinement of Matthioli is decidedly one of the deadliest stains that blot the character of Lewis the Fourteenth: for, granting that Matthioli betrayed the trust reposed in him by that monarch, one single act of diplomatic treachery was surely not sufficient to warrant the infliction of the most horrible of all punishments, – of solitary confinement, for four and twenty years, in a dungeon! – It was, however, an act of cruel injustice that was to be expected from the man, who, when the unhappy Fouquet83 was condemned by the tribunals of his country to exile, himself changed his sentence to that of perpetual imprisonment; – who, to please his mistress, confined his former favourite, Lauzun,84 for nine years in the fortress of Pignerol, and only then released him in order, by that means, to swindle Mademoiselle de Montpensier85 out of her fortune, in favour of his bastard, the Duke du Maine; – who shut up so many other persons, guilty only of imaginary crimes, in various prisons, where they died of misery and ill-treatment; – who revoked the Edict of Nantes; – ordered the burning of the Palatinate; – persecuted the saints of Port Royal; – and gloried in the Dragonades, and the war of the Cevennes; – who, in short, whether we regard him as a man or a sovereign, was one of the most hardened, cruel, and tyrannical characters transmitted to us in history. Providence doubtless made use of him as a scourge befitting the crimes of the age he lived in; and, in this point of view, his existence was most useful. Nor is his memory less so; which has been left to us and to all posterity, as a mighty warning of the effects, even in this world, of overweening ambition; and as a melancholy example of the perversion of a proud heart, which “gave not God the glory,” and was therefore abandoned by the Almighty to the effects of its own natural and irretrievable wickedness.
After the arrest of Matthioli, he underwent several interrogatories,86 in which, in spite of his numerous prevarications, his treachery was still more amply discovered. The examinations were all sent to Louvois by Catinat, who, as soon as they were concluded, left Pignerol, and returned to the court.87
At first, Matthioli was, by the direction of Estrades,88 well-treated in his prison; but this was not by any means the intention of Lewis, and accordingly, we find Louvois writing thus to St. Mars. “It is not the intention of the King that the Sieur de Lestang should be well-treated; nor that, except the absolute necessaries of life, you should give him any thing that may make him pass his time agreeably.”89 Again, in the same strain: “I have nothing to add to what I have already commanded you respecting the severity with which the individual named Lestang must be treated.”90 And again; “You must keep the individual named Lestang, in the severe confinement I enjoined in my preceding letters, without allowing him to see a physician, unless you know he is in absolute want of one.”91 These repeated injunctions to the same effect are a proof, how much importance the rancorous Lewis attached to his victim’s being compelled to drink the bitter cup of captivity to the very dregs.
The harshness and hopelessness of his prison seem to have affected the intellects of Matthioli,92 for after he had been nearly a year confined, St. Mars acquaints Louvois, that “The Sieur de Lestang complains, he is not treated as a man of his quality, and the minister of a great prince ought to be; notwithstanding which, I continue to follow your commands most exactly upon this subject, as well as on all others. I think he is deranged by the way he talks to me, telling me he converses every day with God and his angels; – that they have told him of the death of the Duke of Mantua, and of the Duke of Lorrain;93 and as an additional proof of his madness, he says, that he has the honour of being the near relation of the King, to whom he wishes to write, to complain of the way in which I treat him. I have not thought it right to give him paper or ink for that purpose, perceiving him not to be in his right senses.”94
The unhappy prisoner, in his phrensy and despair, sometimes used very violent language to his keepers, and wrote abusive sentences with charcoal on the walls of his prison; on which account St. Mars ordered his lieutenant, Blainvilliers, to threaten him with punishment, and even to show him a cudgel, with which he was to be beaten, if he did not behave better.
These menaces so far intimidated Matthioli, that a few days afterwards, while Blainvilliers was serving him at dinner, he, in order to propitiate him, took a valuable ring from his finger and offered it to him. Blainvilliers told him he could accept nothing from a prisoner, but that he would deliver it to St. Mars; which he accordingly did.95 St. Mars estimates the ring at fifty or sixty pistoles: and M. Delort conjectures it to have been the one given to him by Lewis the Fourteenth, during his stay at Paris. St. Mars inquires from Louvois96 what he is to do in consequence; and the latter returns for answer, that he “must keep the ring, which the Sieur Matthioli has given to the Sieur de Blainvilliers, in order to restore it to him, if it should ever happen that the King ordered him to be set at liberty.”97
Matthioli apparently expressed a wish to confess to a priest; and Louvois desires that he may be only allowed to do so once in the year.98 It appears that St. Mars had at this time in his custody a Jacobin monk, with whose crime, as well as name, we are unacquainted; but in the correspondence of St. Mars and Louvois, he is designated as “the Jacobin in the lower part of the tower.” This man was mad; very possibly had been made so, like Matthioli, by solitary confinement and ill-usage. St. Mars advised the putting Matthioli with him, in order to avoid the necessity of sending for a priest for each prisoner.99 To this proposal Louvois returned the following answer: “I have been made acquainted, by your letter of the 7th of this month (August 1680), with the proposal you make, to put the Sieur de Lestang with the Jacobin, in order to avoid the necessity of having two priests. The King approves of your project, and you have only to execute it when you please.”100
St. Mars, in a letter of the 7th of September, 1680, thus details the results of the execution of his plan: —
“Since you permitted me to put Matthioli with the Jacobin in the lower part of the tower, the aforesaid Matthioli was, for four or five days, in the belief that the Jacobin was a man that I had placed with him to watch his actions. Matthioli, who is almost as mad as the Jacobin, walked about with long strides, with his cloak over his nose, crying out that he was not a dupe, but that he knew more than he would say. The Jacobin, who was always seated on his truckle bed, with his elbows resting upon his knees, looked at him gravely, without listening to him. The Signior Matthioli remained always persuaded that it was a spy that had been placed with him, till he was one day disabused, by the Jacobin’s getting down from his bed, stark naked, and setting himself to preach, without rhyme or reason, till he was tired. I and my lieutenants saw all their manœuvres through a hole over the door.”101
It appears to have been very entertaining to St. Mars and his lieutenants, to witness the ravings of these two unhappy maniacs; and there are probably many gaolers who would experience the same feelings upon a similar occasion: what cannot, however, but strike us with horror, is the fact that there was found a minister, nay, a king, and that king one who piqued himself upon professing the Christian
Nicholas Fouquet, “Surintendant des Finances,” in 1653. The most lavish, but the most amiable of financiers. – Disgraced in 1664, when he was condemned, by the commissioners appointed to inquire into his conduct, to banishment. The sentence was commuted by the King himself to perpetual imprisonment; and Fouquet died in the citadel of Pignerol, in 1680. On his trial he defended himself with great spirit and talent. See Madame de Sévigné’s interesting Letters to M. de Pomponne upon the subject.
Anthony Nompar de Caumont, Marquis of Peguilhem, and afterwards Duke of Lauzun: whose adventures and eccentricities are too well known to require relation here. It is in speaking of him that La Bruyère says, “Il n’est pas permis aux autres hommes de rêver, comme il a vécu.”
Anne Mary Louisa, of Orleans, Mademoiselle de Montpensier, commonly called the “Grande Mademoiselle.” – A woman of an unpleasant character, according to her own showing in her Memoirs; but who certainly did not deserve to be the victim, as she was, in different ways, of two such men as Lewis and Lauzun.
Ibid. No. 97.
Appendix, No. 90.
Ibid. No. 93.
Ibid. No. 96.
Ibid. No. 101.
Charles IV. or V., for he is sometimes called one and sometimes the other, was the son of Nicholas Francis, Cardinal, and afterwards Duke of Lorrain. On the death of his uncle, Charles IV., he took the barren titles of Duke of Lorrain and Bar, but never obtained possession of his territories, (which were usurped by France,) “though his military, political, and Christian virtues and talents, made him worthy to occupy the first throne in the universe.” He commanded the armies of the Emperor for some years with the greatest distinction, married the Archduchess Eleanor, widow of Michael Wiecnowiecki, King of Poland, and died in 1690. Lewis the Fourteenth, on hearing of his death, said of him, “that he was the greatest, wisest, and most generous of his enemies.”
Appendix, No. 102.
Appendix, No. 107.
Appendix, No. 106.
Appendix, No. 108.
Appendix, No. 103.
Appendix, No. 104.
Ibid.
Appendix, No. 105.