Chapter III: Appendix (2)

In the year 1681, St. Mars was offered the government of the citadel of Pignerol, which he declined accepting, for what reasons we are not told: Lewis, who was anxious to recompense his services as a gaoler of State prisoners, then gave him the government of Exiles,[105] a strong fortress and pass near Susa, on the frontier of Piedmont and the Briançonnois, which was vacant by the death of the Duke de Lesdiguières; at the same time augmenting the salary attached to that situation, so as to make it equal to that of the towns in Flanders.[106] Louvois, in a letter dated May 12th, 1681, acquaints St. Mars with his appointment; and informs him that “the two prisoners in the lower part of the tower” are the only ones of those under his care at Pignerol, whom the King wishes to accompany him to Exiles.[107] “The two prisoners in the lower part of the tower,” signify, as we have before seen, Matthioli and the monk.

An additional proof indeed, if any were wanted, that Matthioli was one of the two prisoners conveyed to Exiles, is given in the following extract from a letter of Louvois, dated June 9th, 1681:--“With regard to the effects belonging to the Sieur Matthioli which are in your possession, you will have them taken to Exiles, in order to be given back to him, if ever his Majesty should order him to be set at liberty.”[108]

It is to be remarked, that this is the last time Matthioli is mentioned by name in the correspondence between Louvois and St. Mars--in consequence, it appears, of what is said by the former in his letter before quoted of the 12th of May, where he desires a list of the names of all the prisoners then under the guard of St. Mars to be sent to him, and adds--“with regard to the two who are in the lower part of the tower, you need only designate them in that manner, without adding any thing else.”[109] This precaution was evidently enjoined lest the list should fall into other hands, while it also shows that the necessity for concealment was still considered as strong as ever.

This is also proved by the precautions ordered to be taken during the journey of the two prisoners, lest they should be seen or spoken to by any one; and by the repeated orders for their strict confinement.--“The intention of his Majesty is, that, as soon as the room at Exiles, which you shall judge the most proper for the secure keeping of the two prisoners in the lower part of the tower, shall be in a state to receive them, you should send them out of the citadel of Pignerol in a litter, and conduct them there under the escort of your troop.”[110] “His Majesty expects that you will guard the two before-mentioned prisoners, with the same exactitude you have made use of hitherto.”[111] To these instructions St. Mars returned an answer in the same strain, dated from Pignerol, as he was on the point of setting off for Exiles.--“In order that the prisoners may not be seen (at Exiles), they will not leave their chamber when they hear mass; and in order that they may be kept the more securely, one of my lieutenants will sleep above them, and there will be two sentinels night and day, who will watch the whole round of the tower, without its being possible for them and the prisoners to see and to speak to one another, or even to hear any thing of one another. They will be the soldiers of my company, who will be always the sentinels over the prisoners. There is only a confessor, about whom I have my doubts; but if you do not disapprove, I will give them the curate of Exiles instead, who is a good man, and very old; whom I will forbid, on the part of his Majesty, to inquire who these prisoners are, or their names, or what they have been, or to speak of them in any way, or to receive from them by word of mouth, or by writing, either communications or notes.”[112]

Before St. Mars removed finally to Exiles, he went there to inspect the fortress, leaving his prisoners under the guard of one of his lieutenants; which is here mentioned to show the falseness of the idea that he never quitted his mysterious prisoner. Louvois enjoined him before he left them, to arrange the guarding of his prisoners in such a manner, that no accident might happen to them during his short absence; and “that they might have no intercourse with any one, any more than they had had during the time they had been under his charge.”[113] Subsequently Louvois desired him not to be more than one night at a time absent from Pignerol.[114]

St. Mars found certain repairs to be necessary to that part of the fortress of Exiles, which he deemed the most proper residence for “the two prisoners in the lower part of the tower.” He demanded money for this purpose, and Louvois returned for answer that the King accorded him a thousand crowns, on condition he kept the grant a profound secret, and gave out that the repairs he was making, were at his own expense.[115] This again was evidently for the purpose of concealing from the neighbourhood, that any prisoners of importance were to be removed from Pignerol to Exiles.

The repairs of the tower at Exiles first delayed the removal of St. Mars, and afterwards he was ordered to stay some time longer at Pignerol, in order to receive Catinat, who was again sent there secretly, again under the assumed name of Richemont, and again for the purpose of taking possession of Casale.[116] This time the King of France was more fortunate than he had been in 1679, as Casale was actually sold to him by the Duke of Mantua, in the autumn of this year, 1681.

Finally, it appears that St. Mars and his prisoners did not move to Exiles till late in the autumn of 1681. About this time, St. Mars apparently requested permission to see and converse with Matthioli occasionally, for Louvois writes, “this word is only to acknowledge the receipt of your letter. The King does not disapprove of your visiting from time to time the last prisoner who has been placed in your charge, after he shall have been established in his new prison, and shall have left that where he is at present confined.”[117] It is rather curious to observe, from this document, that St. Mars was permitted to visit his prisoner at Exiles, but not while he continued at Pignerol.

The first communication of St. Mars to Louvois after his arrival at Exiles, which has been published, is dated December the 4th, 1681,[118] and relates to the sickness of his prisoners: and the next is a letter, dated March 11th, 1682, containing a similar detail to those already alluded to, of the precautions he took for the security and solitary confinement of his two prisoners. He begins, by intimating that he has again received a charge from Louvois to that effect, and that he continues to guard his two prisoners as severely and exactly as he has ever done, and as he did formerly “Messrs. Fouquet and Lauzun, who could not boast that they had either sent or received any news, while they were in confinement.” He adds, that the two prisoners can hear the people who pass along the road at the foot of their prison, but that they cannot be heard by any one; that, in the same way, they can see the people who are on the hill opposite their windows, but cannot themselves be seen, on account of the bars placed across their room; that there are two sentinels always watching them, and who have also orders to prevent the passengers stopping under their windows--and that his own room, being joined to the tower, and commanding a view of the sentinels, the latter are by this means always kept alert. That, in the inside of the tower, he has made a partition, which prevents the priest, who says mass, from seeing the prisoners, as well as the servants who bring their food--which is afterwards carried in to them by his lieutenant; who, together with himself, the confessor, and a physician from Pragelas, a town six leagues distant, are the only persons who speak to them; the physician only being allowed to do so in the presence of St. Mars himself. He adds, that equal precautions are taken with regard to their linen, and other necessaries.[119]

From this period, we hear no more of St. Mars and his prisoners in the published documents, for above three years; his next communication to Louvois being dated Dec. 23d, 1685; in which he informs him that his prisoners are still ill, and in a course of medicine. By the expression _still_ being here used, it would seem as if their malady had been of considerable duration. He continues, “they are, however, perfectly tranquil.”[120] The mention of their present tranquillity is certainly an indication that their insanity had continued, at least at intervals.

Shortly after this, the Jacobin[121] died. Matthioli continued ill; and St. Mars, also finding his own health failing him, he[122] became convinced that the air of Exiles was unwholesome, and petitioned in consequence for a change of government.[123] Lewis upon this appointed him, in 1687, to that of the Islands of St. Margaret and St. Honorat, on the coast of Provence, near Antibes, and ordered him, as before, to take Matthioli with him.

As in the case of his removal to Exiles, so, upon the present occasion, St. Mars went first to look at and prepare the prison at St. Margaret, before he conveyed his prisoner there.[124] Previously, however, to leaving him for that purpose, he writes to Louvois, to assure him once more of the secrecy and security with which he is confined--“I have given such good orders for the guarding of my prisoner, that I can answer for his entire security; as well as for his not now, nor ever, holding any intercourse with my Lieutenant, whom I have forbidden to speak to him, which is punctually obeyed.”[125]

He afterwards writes again to the same Minister, from the Island of St. Margaret, “I promise to conduct my prisoner here in all security, without any one’s seeing or speaking to him. He shall not hear mass after he leaves Exiles, till he is lodged in the prison which is preparing for him here, to which a chapel is attached. I pledge my honour to you for the entire security of my prisoner.”[126]

St. Mars accordingly returned for Matthioli, and conveyed him to his new abode, in the manner he had proposed doing, in his letter to Louvois, of January 20th, 1687--“In a chair, covered with oil-cloth, into which there would enter a sufficiency of air, without its being possible for any one to see or speak to him during the journey, not even the soldiers, whom I shall select to be near the chair.”[127]

In spite of the expectations of St. Mars that, in this mode of conveyance, his prisoner would have air enough, it appears that he complained of the want of it, and soon fell ill in consequence. This is mentioned in a letter of St. Mars, dated May 3d, 1687, giving an account of their arrival at the Island of St. Margaret, and is the last of the correspondence between Louvois and St. Mars respecting Matthioli: “I arrived here the 30th of last month. I was only twelve days on the journey, in consequence of the illness of my prisoner, occasioned, as he said, by not having as much air as he wished. I can assure you that no one has seen him, and that the manner in which I have guarded and conducted him during all the journey, makes every body try to conjecture who my prisoner is.”[128]

It was probably, during this journey, that St. Mars first made use of a mask to hide the features of Matthioli.[129] Not as has been erroneously supposed a mask made of iron, which it will be evident, upon the slightest reflection, could not have been borne upon the face for any long continuance of time, but one of black velvet,[130] strengthened with whalebone, and fastened behind the head with a padlock, which did not prevent the prisoner from eating and drinking, or impede his respiration.[131]

The identity of Matthioli with the prisoner known by the name of “the Iron Mask,” is here very satisfactorily confirmed by circumstantial evidence. We have seen that Matthioli and the Jacobin were placed together at Pignerol; we have seen that they were designated as “the two prisoners in the lower part of the tower;” we have seen that “the two prisoners in the lower part of the tower” were the only ones who accompanied St. Mars when his government was transferred to Exiles; we have seen the death of the Jacobin at the latter place; and now we find St. Mars conveying a single prisoner, designated as “_the prisoner_,” with him to St. Margaret, with a repetition of the same precautions and of the same secrecy as on former occasions, to which are added the celebrated Mask. Who could this prisoner be but Matthioli? It is also observable, that in all the various accounts of the Iron Mask, though the dates are made to vary, he is always said to have been originally confined at Pignerol, subsequently at the island of St. Margaret, and finally to have accompanied St. Mars to the Bastille.

The prison of Matthioli, at the Island of St. Margaret, was a room lighted by a single window to the north, pierced in a very thick wall, guarded by bars of iron, and looking upon the sea.[132] During his residence in this place, his valet, who, as may be remembered, had been arrested by Estrades, and who had served his master ever since his confinement, died, and was buried at midnight, and with great secrecy. To supply his place, a woman of the neighbourhood was asked if she would undertake to wait upon the prisoner. At first she consented to accept of the place, imagining it might be a means of benefiting her family; but afterwards declined it, upon learning that she was to be cut off from all further intercourse with the world, and never even to see her family again.[133] Whether any one was eventually found to undertake the office, does not appear.

Among the erroneous anecdotes that have obtained credence with regard to the Iron Mask, there are two, or rather apparently two versions of one event, which is said to have taken place while he was at the island of St. Margaret, but which is proved to be incorrect, by a letter published by M. Roux (Fazillac).

One version of the story states, that the mysterious prisoner wrote his name and qualities with the point of a knife upon a silver plate, and threw it out of his window; that it was picked up by a fisherman, who could not read, but brought it to St. Mars; and that the latter, having ascertained that the man could not read, released him.[134] The other version is, that the prisoner covered one of his shirts with writing, and then threw it out of window; a Monk found it, brought it to the Governor, and assured him he had not read it; but was himself found dead in his bed two days afterwards, and was supposed to have been assassinated.[135] The origin of these stories, is evidently to be found in a letter from St. Mars to the Minister,[136] dated June 4th, 1692; in which he informs him that he has been obliged to inflict corporal punishment upon a Protestant minister, named Salves, who was a prisoner under his care, because _he would write things upon his pewter vessels, and on his linen, in order to make known that he was imprisoned unjustly, on account of the purity of his faith_.[137] Thus we see that this anecdote, which has been twisted into the history of the Iron Mask, had, in fact, no relation to him. And this circumstance should put us on our guard with respect to the many other marvellous stories, which have probably been pressed in the same way into the service. It is also worthy of remark that the public having determined that the Iron Mask was a great Prince, every thing was related in a manner to favour this opinion--and thus the pewter of the obscure Salves was turned, in the anecdote, into silver plate.

After eleven years’ tedious confinement at the Island of St. Margaret, Matthioli accompanied St. Mars to the Bastille, to the government of which the latter was appointed, upon the death of M. de Bezemaux, which occurred in the last days of 1697.[138]

Before his departure from St. Margaret, St. Mars wrote to the Minister to request that secure lodgings might be provided for him and his prisoner during the journey; to which he received for answer, “It will be sufficient that you should lodge as conveniently and securely as you can, by means of payment.”[139]

St. Mars accordingly set forth on his journey to the Bastille, early in the autumn of 1698, and in the course of it lodged at his own estate of Palteau, which he probably considered a securer resting place for his prisoner than any inn could have been. An account of his visit to Palteau has been given by one of his descendants, of whose accuracy no reasonable doubt can be entertained.

It is there stated, that the masked prisoner arrived at Palteau in a litter, which preceded the one in which St. Mars himself travelled. They were accompanied by many men on horseback, and by the peasants who had gone to meet their landlord. St. Mars always ate with his prisoner, and the latter sat with his back to the windows of the dining-room, so that the peasants, who were in the court, could not see whether he kept his mask on while at meals; but they observed that St. Mars, who sat opposite to him, had two pistols placed by the side of his plate. They were served by a single servant, who brought all the dishes from the anti-room, where they were placed, and always when he came in or went out shut the door very carefully after him. When the prisoner crossed the court, he always had his black mask over his face. The peasants also observed, that his teeth and lips were seen, that he was tall of stature, and had grey hair. St. Mars slept in a bed, which had been put up close to that of his prisoner.[140]

St. Mars and Matthioli arrived at the Bastille on the 18th of September, 1698, and the former immediately went to the Minister to apprize him of their arrival.[141] This event is thus commemorated in the journal of M. Dujonca,[142] who was for many years the Lieutenant of the King, at the Bastille:--“Thursday, 18th September, 1698, at three o’clock in the afternoon, M. de St. Mars, Governor of the Bastille, arrived to take possession of his office, coming from the Islands of St. Margaret and St. Honorat, bringing with him in his litter an old prisoner, whom he had under his care at Pignerol, of whom the name is not mentioned; who is always kept masked, and who was first placed, till night, in the tower of the Basiniere,[143] and whom I conducted afterwards myself, at nine o’clock at night, to the third chamber of the tower of the Bertaudière;[143] which chamber I had taken care to furnish with all things necessary before his arrival, having received orders to that effect from M. de St. Mars. When I conducted him to the before-mentioned chamber, I was accompanied by the Sieur Rosarges,[144] whom M. de St. Mars also brought with him, and who is charged to wait upon and take care of the aforesaid prisoner, who is fed by the Governor.”[145]

Dujonca’s account is confirmed by the extracts of the Register of the Bastille, published in the work entitled “La Bastille dévoilée.”[146]

The placing of the prisoner, on his first arrival, temporarily in one part of the Bastille, and afterwards removing him by night to another, appears to have been done for the sake of greater secrecy; and we see by this, as well as by the account of his visit to Palteau, that the precautions against the possibility of discovery of his name and character were in no way diminished.

He certainly continued, from all accounts, to wear his mask from the time of his arrival at the Bastille till his death. We learn from the persons who saw him at Palteau that he was tall of stature; and an old physician, who had attended him at the Bastille when he was ill, described him (if we may credit Voltaire) as well made, of a brown complexion, and possessing an agreeable voice. He attended mass occasionally, and was forbid in his way there to speak to any one. The invalids were ordered to fire upon him if he disobeyed.[147] He is also said to have occupied himself a good deal during his confinement with playing on the guitar.[148]

These are all the particulars, worthy of credit, to be collected respecting Matthioli during his confinement at the Bastille, which lasted rather more than five years. He died there after a few hours’ illness, November 19th, 1703. Dujonca’s journal gives the following account of his decease and interment.

“Monday, 19th November, 1708. The unknown prisoner, who was always masked with a mask of black velvet, whom M. de St. Mars brought with him, when he came from the Islands of St Margaret, and whom he had had the care of for a long time, having found himself rather more unwell when he came out from mass, died to-day, about ten o’clock in the evening, without having had any considerable illness. M. Girault, our chaplain, confessed him yesterday. Death having come suddenly on, he was not able to receive his sacraments, and our chaplain only had time to exhort him for a moment before he died. He was interred on Tuesday the 20th November, at four in the afternoon, in the church-yard of St. Paul, which is our parish. His interment cost forty livres.”

This extract is confirmed in its facts by the register of the Bastille,[149] as well as by the register of burials of the church of St. Paul, at Paris. The former document also informs us that he was wrapped in “a winding-sheet of new linen,”[150]--and the latter, that he was buried in the presence of Rosarges, Major of the Bastille, and of Reilh, Surgeon-Major of the same prison.

In the register of the church he is designated by the name of Marchialy, and his age is entered as forty-five; assertions which are both of them evidently incorrect, and probably only made in order to mislead the curious. At the time of his death, Matthioli was sixty-three years of age, as appears from the date of his birth before given. Shortly before he died, he told the Apothecary of the Bastille that he believed he was sixty years[151] old--a degree of inaccuracy as to his own age, which is easily to be conceived in a man who had been so long and so rigorously imprisoned. His confinement had lasted above twenty-four years.

After the decease of Matthioli, every thing was done to endeavour to destroy all trace even of his former existence. His clothes were burnt, as was all the furniture of his room; the silver plate, the copper, and the pewter, which had been used by him, were melted down; the walls of his chamber were first scraped, and then fresh white-washed; the floor was new paved; the old ceiling was taken away and renewed; the doors and windows were burnt; and every corner was searched in which it was thought any paper, linen, or other memorial of him might be concealed.[152]

Thus were continued, to the very last, the same extraordinary precautions against discovery, which marked the whole imprisonment of the mysterious prisoner: a circumstance, which of itself certainly affords a strong confirmation of the fact, that the _Iron Mask of the Bastille_, was one and the same person with the _Count Matthioli_, who had been so secretly introduced into Pignerol, and so mysteriously conveyed from place to place by St. Mars. But the actual proof of this is only to be found in the documents which form the groundwork of the preceding narrative; and which, undoubtedly, do present a most convincing and satisfactory chain of evidence upon the subject.

An important corroboration of this evidence is also derived from the well-attested fact, that Lewis the Fifteenth, who is allowed, on all hands, to have known the history of the Iron Mask, affirmed, more than once, that _he was the minister of an Italian sovereign_. He told the Duke de Choiseul,[153] on one occasion, that he knew who the Iron Mask was; and, upon the Duke’s questioning him further, would only add, _that all the conjectures hitherto made upon the subject were erroneous_.[154] The Duke then begged Madame de Pompadour[156] to ask the King who it was; she did so, and his reply was, “_The minister of an Italian prince_!”[157] The Duke de Choiseul, unsatisfied by this reply, which he considered to be only an evasion, took another opportunity of again applying to the King upon the subject, who again answered, “_He believed that the prisoner was a minister of one of the courts of Italy_!”[158]

Thus has the ill-fated Matthioli been identified with the Iron Mask, and traced through his long and dreary prison to his grave. It is probable that much of the illusion and interest, which accompanied the mysterious appellation of _the Iron Mask_, will be destroyed by the certainty of who he really was; as well as by the comparative insignificance of the personage who has successfully laid claim to the title. Still it is surely satisfactory that truth, after being so long overwhelmed by error, should be at length triumphant.

The lovers of romance, who still wish to know more of the magnificent conjectures of former days; or who desire to be made acquainted with the reasons that induced a belief, that the Iron Mask was either the Duke de Beaufort; or the Count de Vermandois; or the Duke of Monmouth; or an elder or a twin-brother of Lewis the Fourteenth; or a son of Oliver Cromwell; or Arwediks, the Armenian Patriarch; are referred to Voltaire, Dutens, St. Foix, La Grange Chancel, Gibbon, the Père Papon, the Père Griffet, the Chevalier de Taulés, and Mr. Quintin Craufurd. Of these accounts, perhaps Voltaire’s is the least curious, find Mr. Craufurd’s the most so; because the first did not seek for truth, but only wished to invent a moving tale; while the latter was most anxious to arrive at the truth, and had all the advantage in his researches of the former writers upon the same subject.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] “L’homme au masque de fer.”

[2] M. Roux (Fazillac) published several of the documents,
since republished by M. Delort, but he does not appear to have
seen the whole series; and therefore his reasoning upon the
subject is inconclusive. M. Delort has, however, copied a great
deal from him in his narrative--whole sentences sometimes, word
for word, without any acknowledgment of the plagiarism.

[3] Delort.

[4] The Abbé d’Estrades, Ambassador for a considerable time
from Lewis the Fourteenth, to the Republic of Venice, was son
of Godfrey, Count d’Estrades, so long employed in negociations
and embassies in Holland, and who was one of the eight Marshals
of France made upon the death of Turenne. Madame Cornuel called
them, “La Monnoie de M. de Turenne.”

[5] Ferdinand Charles IV., Duke of Mantua, a weak and
unfortunate Prince. Died July the 5th, 1708, as it is said of
poison, administered by a lady he was in love with.

[6] Casale did not come into the possession of the French till
1681. In 1695, it was taken by the Allies, and its
fortifications demolished. It was, however, retaken by the
French, and fortified again. The King of Sardinia, (Victor
Amadeus,) made himself master of it in 1706. His successor,
Charles Emmanuel, lost it again to the French in 1745, but
regained it the following year.

[7] The strong fort of Pignerol, acquired to the Crown of
France by the negociations of Richelieu, continued in their
possession for 68 years. In 1696, it was restored by treaty to
Victor Amadeus II., Duke of Savoy; its fortifications having
been previously dismantled.

[8] Victor Amadeus I., Duke of Savoy, a prince of great bravery
and considerable talent. He married Christina, daughter of
Henry IV., King of France, by whom he had two sons, Francis
Hyacinth and Charles Emmanuel II., successively Dukes of Savoy.
Died October 7th, 1637. He was the first Duke of Savoy, who
appropriated to himself the title of _Royal Highness_.

[9] Isabella Clara, of Austria, daughter of the Archduke
Leopold, who was grandson of the Emperor Ferdinand III. Married
June 13th, 1649, to Charles III., Duke of Mantua.

[10] Appendix, No. 1.

[11] Appendix, No. 1.

[12] The Empress Eleanor was daughter of Charles, Duke of
Rhetelois, who died in the life-time of his father, Charles I.
Duke of Mantua, in spite of which he is generally denominated
by historians, Charles II., Duke of Mantua. She became, on the
30th of April, 1651, the third wife of Ferdinand III., Emperor
of Germany, whom she survived many years, and died December
5th, 1686. She was the aunt of Ferdinand Charles IV., Duke of
Mantua.

[13] Thomas de la Cerda, Marquis of Laguna, in Spain, married
April 22, 1672, to Maria Louisa, only daughter of Vespasian
Gonzaga, only brother of Ferdinand III., the reigning Duke of
Guastalla.

[14] The Monk Bulgarini appears to have been the confessor and
favourite of the Duchess-mother of Mantua; and to have been
entirely devoted to the Spanish interests.

[15] The profession of Giuliani was, that of an editor of
newspapers, in which capacity he was in the habit of travelling
from town to town, to collect and convey news. See Appendix,
No. 98.

[16] Alphonso IV., Duke of Modena, succeeded his father Francis
I. in his territories, and in the command in chief of the
French army in Italy, in 1658. Died in the 29th year of his
age, July 16, 1662, having married, May 27, 1655, Laura
Martinozzi, niece of Cardinal Mazarin.

[17] Charles III., Duke of Mantua, father of Ferdinand Charles
IV., the reigning Duke, had the command of the Imperial Army
in Italy, and took upon himself the office of Vicar General
of the Empire in Italy, during the interregnum which followed
the death of the Emperor Ferdinand III. in 1657, in virtue of
a diploma, lately granted to him by that Prince. His right was
contested by the Duke of Savoy, who, upon the ground of old
usage, claimed the office for himself. The Electors of the
Empire annulled the appointment of the Duke of Mantua.

[18] Appendix, No. 1.

[19] Appendix, No. 1.

[20] Appendix, No. 1.

[21] Cæsar Bishop of Laon and Cardinal d’Estrées, son of
the first Marshal of France of that name, was employed in
various negociations with the Princes of Italy; but is now
more remembered for his courtier-like reply to Lewis XIV. That
Monarch one day at dinner complained of having lost all his
teeth. “And who is there, Sire, that has any teeth?” said the
Cardinal (Sire, et qui est-ce qui a des dents?) What made the
flattery the more ludicrously gross was, that the Cardinal,
though an old man, had remarkably fine teeth, and showed them
very much whenever he opened his mouth.

[22] Appendix, No. 2.

[23] Appendix, No. 8.

[24] 1677.

[25] Simon Arnaud de Pomponne, Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs from 1671 to 1679, when he was dismissed from his
office, but retained the title of Minister of State, with
permission to attend the Council. A man, like so many of his
race, who united considerable talents to great excellence of
character. Madame de Sévigné says, in speaking of the eminent
station he had filled, that “Fortune had wished to make use of
his virtues for the happiness of others.”

[26] Ferdinand III., Duke of Guastalla, descended from a
younger branch of the House of Gonzaga; and the heir to the
Duchy of Mantua, if he survived Ferdinand Charles; which
however was not the case. He died of dropsy, January 11th,
1678.

[27] Anne Isabella, eldest daughter of Ferdinand III., Duke of
Guastalla, married August 13th, 1671, to Ferdinand Charles IV.,
Duke of Mantua, by whom she had no offspring.

[28] This is evidently a mistake, and should be read _niece_
instead of _second daughter_. It alludes to Maria Louisa,
only daughter of Vespasian Gonzaga, only brother of Ferdinand
III., Duke of Guastalla, married to a Spanish nobleman, Thomas
de la Cerda, Marquis of Laguna. At this time neither of the
daughters of Ferdinand had children, and _she_, consequently,
after them, was the heiress of their claims upon the Duchies of
Guastalla and Mantua. The second daughter of Ferdinand III.,
Maria Victoria, married June 30th, 1769, Vincent Gonzaga Count
of St. Paul--the person who is here erroneously described as
having been the means of marrying her to another person.

[29] Vincent Gonzaga, Count of St. Paul, afterwards Duke of
Guastalla, was descended from a younger son of Ferrant II.,
first Duke of Guastalla. After contesting for many years his
right to that Duchy with Ferdinand Charles IV., Duke of Mantua;
during which they were both merely made use of, by turns, as
the instruments of the French and Austrian domination; he
was finally successful in establishing himself at Guastalla
in 1706, where he died April 28th, 1714. By his wife, Maria
Victoria, second daughter of Ferdinand III., Duke of Guastalla,
he left two sons, who successively succeeded him in the
sovereignty of that Duchy.

[30] Appendix, No. 9.

[31] Appendix, No. 10.

[32] Appendix, No. 17.

[33] Appendix, No. 18.

[34] Appendix, Nos. 24, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40.

[35] Appendix, No. 47.

[36] Delort, quoting from an Italian manuscript, in the records
of the office of the French Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, which appears to have been written by Giuliani.

[37] Delort, quoting from the same authority.

[38] M. Delort says the sum actually given to Matthioli, was
400 Doubles, and the sum promised him 400,000 Doubles, which,
from its largeness, he conceives must be a mistake; but he adds
that it is so written in the Italian manuscripts before
referred to.

[39] Delort.

[40] Francis Michael Le Tellier, Marquis de Louvois, son of
the Chancellor Le Tellier, Secretary of State for the War
department, from 1666, to the time of his death, in 1691, which
occurring suddenly, and just as he was on the point of being
disgraced, gave occasion to a report that he was poisoned: for
which, however, it appears there was no foundation. He was of a
haughty and cruel disposition, and was the minister who planned
and ordered the inhuman ravages of the Palatinate, which have
so indelibly disgraced the reign of his master.

[41] Delort.

[42] Lewis Francis, Marquis and afterwards Duc de Boufflers,
Marshal of France in 1693. Died in 1711. One of the best of
Lewis the Fourteenth’s generals.

[43] Nicholas de Catinat, Marshal of France in 1698. “He
united,” says Voltaire, “philosophy to great military talents.
The last day he commanded in Italy, he gave for the watch-word,
‘Paris and St. Gratien,’ the name of his country house. He died
there in the retirement of a real sage, (having refused the
blue ribbon) in 1712.”

[44] Upon reference to the Mémoires de Catinat, published in
1819, this event is found to be thus adverted to:--“In 1679,
Catinat was charged with some negociations with the Duke of
Mantua; but the affair failed of success, in consequence of the
treachery of the Secretary of that prince. Catinat, according
to the King’s orders, was anxious to punish the traitor. He
remained at Pignerol some days, and having engaged him in a
hunting party, had him arrested.” It also appears from these
Memoirs, that both Catinat and Boufflers were again despatched
to Italy on the same errand, in 1681, when Casale was really
given up to Lewis; and on this occasion, Louvois, in his
instruction to Boufflers, mentions Matthioli by name, as the
person whose treachery had prevented the success of the former
negociation.

[45] Appendix, Nos. 52, 62, 64, 73, 76, 77, 78.

[46] I am not sure whether I am correct in imagining that this
was the Marshal d’Asfeld, who distinguished himself at the
battle of Almanza, and died at great old age, in 1743.

[47] Appendix, Nos. 52, 54, 55.

[48] Victor Amadeus II., at this time a minor, and under the
Regency of his mother, Mary Jane de Nemours. In 1713, he became
King of Sicily, which kingdom he was compelled to exchange for
that of Sardinia, in 1720; abdicated the throne in favour of
his son, in 1730; and died in 1732. This prince possessed in an
eminent degree, the attributes of his race--valour and skill in
military matters, and faithlessness in his treaties and
engagements with his brother sovereigns.

[49] Leopold I. succeeded Ferdinand III. in 1657, died in 1705.

[50] Charles II. the last King of Spain of the House of
Austria.--Died in 1700.

[51] Appendix, Nos. 68, 69, 89.

[52] See ante, note, page 18.

[53] Appendix, No. 66.

[54] Appendix, No. 68.

[55] Appendix, No. 67.

[56] Namely, of the delivery of Casale.

[57] Appendix, No. 72.

[58] Appendix, Nos. 75, 79, 81, 83, 88.

[59] Mary Jane Baptista of Savoy, daughter of Charles Amadeus,
Duke of Nemours and Aumale, (who was killed in a duel by his
brother-in-law, the Duke of Beaufort). Married May 11th, 1665,
to Charles Emmanuel II., Duke of Savoy; Regent of the
territories of her son during his minority. Died March 15th,
1724.

[60] Delort. Appendix, Nos. 87, 92, 95.

[61] Appendix, No. 92.

[62] Appendix, No. 70.

[63] Delort.

[64] Appendix, No. 75.

[65] Appendix, No. 71.

[66] Benigne d’Auvergne de Saint-Mars, Seigneur of Dimon and
Palteau; Bailli and Governor of Sens; successively Governor of
Exiles, the Island of St. Marguerite, and the Bastille. At
Pignerol he had only the command of the state prisoners, the
Marquis d’Herleville being governor of the fortress. St. Mars
came to Pignerol a short time before the arrival there of
Fouquet, who was the first prisoner confided to his care.

[67] Roux (Fazillac.)

[68] Appendix, Nos. 79, 81.

[69] Delort.

[70] Appendix, No. 88.

[71] Appendix, No. 82.

[72] Delort.

[73] M. Roux (Fazillac) gives these particulars, upon the
authority of a letter from Estrades to Pomponne, of May 7th,
1679; and of one from Catinat to Louvois of the same date;
neither of which are published.

[74] Roux (Fazillac.)

[75] Appendix, No. 84.

[76] Ibid.

[77] Delort.

[78] Appendix, No. 85.

[79] Appendix, No. 84.

[80] Ibid. No. 85.

[81] Appendix, Nos. 96, 103, 104.

[82] Ibid. No. 48.

[83] 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.

[84] 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.”

[85] 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.

[86] Appendix, Nos. 85, 87, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97.

[87] Ibid. No. 97.

[88] Ibid. Nos. 84, 85.

[89] Appendix, No. 90.

[90] Ibid. No. 93.

[91] Ibid. No. 96.

[92] Ibid. No. 101.

[93] 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.”

[94] Appendix, No. 102.

[95] Appendix, No. 107.

[96] Appendix, No. 106.

[97] Appendix, No. 108.

[98] Appendix, No. 103.

[99] Appendix, No. 104.

[100] Ibid.

[101] Appendix, No. 105.

[102] If we were to judge of the Christian religion by the
manner in which it was professed by Lewis the Fourteenth, we
should indeed have a most perverted idea of its precepts. It
seems as if the pseudo-christianity of that monarch, only
incited him to acts of narrow-minded bigotry and cruelty,
allowing, at the same time, full latitude to every kind of
licentious excess; while it debarred him from the exercise of
humanity and toleration. A good measure of the nature and
extent of his religious knowledge and feelings is acquired, by
the anecdote respecting Fontpertuis and the Duke of Orleans.
When the latter was going into Spain, Lewis objected to his
taking the former with him, because he was a Jansenist; but
withdrew the objection when assured by the duke that he was
only an atheist!

[103] M. Roux (Fazillac), quoting from an unpublished letter of
Louvois to St. Mars, dated December 14th, 1681.

[104] About 1_l._ 12_s._ 0_d._ Appendix, No. 126.

[105] Exiles was taken from the French in 1708, by the Duke of
Savoy, but restored to them by the treaty of Utrecht.

[106] Appendix, No. 111.

[107] Appendix, No. 111.

[108] Appendix, No. 112.

[109] Appendix, No. 111.

[110] Appendix, No. 112.

[111] Ibid.

[112] Appendix, No. 115.

[113] Appendix, No. 111.

[114] Appendix, No. 117.

[115] Appendix, No. 113.

[116] Appendix, Nos. 114, 115.

[117] Appendix, No. 120.

[118] Appendix, No. 121.

[119] Appendix, No. 121.

[120] Appendix, No. 123.

[121] Roux (Fazillac).

[122] Ibid.

[123] Ibid.

[124] Appendix, Nos. 124, 125.

[125] Appendix, No. 124.

[126] Appendix, No. 125.

[127] Appendix, No. 124.

[128] Appendix, No. 126.

[129] Delort.

[130] Extract of Dujonca’s journal, in Mr. Craufurd’s article
upon “L’Homme au Masque de fer.”

[131] Delort.

[132] Papon in his “Histoire générale de Provence” informs us
that he went to see the room.

[133] “Histoire générale de Provence, du Père Papon.”

[134] See “Mélanges d’Histoire et de Littérature,” by Mr.
Quintin Craufurd.

[135] See the same work of Mr. Quintin Craufurd.

[136] This must have been Lewis Francis Le Tellier, Marquis de
Barbezieux, who, in the preceding year, had succeeded his
father, Louvois, in the post of Secretary of State for the War
Department. He was an indolent but intelligent Minister.--Died
in 1701, aged 33.

[137] Appendix, No. 127.

[138] Delort.

[139] Delort, quoting from an unpublished letter (probably from
Barbezieux), dated August 4th, 1698.--It may be as well to
mention here that M. Delort frequently quotes portions of
letters from the French Archives, but does not publish them in
his appendix. When in the course of this narrative the name of
M. Delort is given as an authority, it is, for the most part,
under these circumstances.

[140] Such is the account given by M. de Palteau, the direct
descendant of St. Mars, in a letter to Freron, dated Palteau,
June 19th, 1768. It was published in the “Année Littéraire” for
that year, and has since been republished by Mr. Craufurd, in
his paper on the Iron Mask.

[141] Delort.

[142] The place of “Lieutenant de Roi,” at the Bastille, was
created by Lewis the Fourteenth, for M. Dujonca, who had been
“Exempt” of one of the regiments of the King’s Body-guards. He
acquired great credit by his endeavours to procure the release
of the prisoners under his care, whom, upon inquiry, he found
to be unjustly detained. Some one represented to him that he
would deprive himself of a great portion of his profits by thus
diminishing the number of prisoners--to which he replied, “_I
can only lose my money, but these unhappy people are deprived
of what is more valuable to them than even life itself._”

[143] These towers are supposed to have been so called from the
names of the architects who built them.

[144] Rosarges was made Major of the Bastille by St. Mars.

[145] Extract from the Journal of Dujonca, first published by
Griffet, then by St. Foix, and subsequently by Mr. Craufurd.

[146] Appendix, No. 128.

[147] Mr. Craufurd, on the authority of Linguet.

[148] Delort and Craufurd.

[149] Appendix, No. 129.

[150] Appendix, No. 129.

[151] Delort.

[152] Mr. Craufurd, on the authority of M. Delaunay, Governor
of the Bastille. Also Register of the Bastille; for which see
Appendix, No. 129.

[153] Stephen Francis, Duke de Choiseul, Prime Minister under
Lewis the Fifteenth, for above twelve years. A man of some
talent, but an unskilful and extravagant minister; in spite of
which, on his disgrace, (through the means of Madame du Barri,
in 1770) he was turned into a martyr, by the influence of the
ladies of the court, who were angry with the King for choosing
his mistresses from the lower orders, instead of among them. To
do him honour snuff-boxes were made, bearing the head of Sully
on one side, and that of the Duke de Choiseul on the other. One
of them being shown to _Sophie Arnoud_, the actress, celebrated
for her repartees, she looked at the two sides, and said,
“_C’est la recette--et la dépense_.”

[154] This first answer of the king ought not to be entirely
overlooked; as, it will be remembered, that at the time it was
made, the minister of the Duke of Mantua had not been mentioned
by any one as the Iron Mask. He was first suggested to have
been that prisoner, by the Baron de Heiss, in a letter to the
authors of the “Journal Encyclopédique,” dated Phalsbourg, June
28th, 1770; in which he grounded his opinion upon a letter,
published in a work entitled “L’Histoire Abregée de l’Europe;”
published at Leyden in 1687; giving a detailed account of
the arrest, by French agents, of a secretary of the Duke of
Mantua.[155] M. Dutens, in his “Correspondance Interceptée,”
published in 1789, held the same opinion, grounded upon the
same authority. He afterwards repeated the same opinion in his
“Mémoires d’un Voyageur, qui se repose.” Finally, M. Roux,
(Fazillac) in 1801, published his work upon the Iron Mask;
in which he supported the same opinion; and attached to the
Secretary the name of Matthioli.

[155] See Appendix, No. 133.

[156] Jane Antoinette Poisson, married to a financier named Le
Normand d’Etioles; created Marquise de Pompadour by Lewis the
Fifteenth, of whom she was first the mistress, and afterwards
the minister of his disgraceful debauches. At her death, in
1765, the King showed no signs of grief; and on seeing her
funeral go by his windows on a rainy day, his only remark was,
“La Marquise aura aujourd’hui un mauvais temps pour son
voyage!”

[157] Appendix, No. 131.

[158] Appendix, Nos. 131, 132. Madame Campan mentions having
heard Lewis the Sixteenth tell his wife, that the Count de
Maurepas (who, both from his age and situation, was very likely
to know the truth,) had informed him that the _Iron Mask_ was
“a prisoner dangerous from his intriguing disposition, and a
subject of the Duke of Mantua.”

APPENDIX.