VOLUME XVI SLICE I L to Lamellibranchia (continued 5)

On the 15th of August 1461, Louis was anointed at Reims, and Philip of Burgundy, as doyen of the peers of France, placed the crown on his head. For two months Philip acted as though the king were still his protégé. But in the midst of the festivities with which he was entertaining Paris, the duke found that Louis ventured to refuse his candidates for office, and on the 24th of September the new king left abruptly for Touraine. His first act was to strike at the faithful ministers of Charles VII. Pierre de Brézé and Antoine de Chabannes were captured and imprisoned, as well as men of sterling worth like Étienne Chevalier. But the king’s shrewdness triumphed before long over his vengeance, and the more serviceable of the officers of Charles VII. were for the most part soon reinstated, Louis’ advisers were mostly men of the middle class. He had a ready purse for men of talent, drawing them from England, Scotland, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Such a motley throng of competent men had never before been seen at the court of France. Their origin, their previous crimes or virtues, their avarice or brutality, were indifferent to him so long as they served him loyally. Torture and imprisonment awaited them, whether of high or low degree, if he fancied that they were betraying him. Among the most prominent of these men in addition to Brézé, Chevalier and Chabannes, were Tristan Lermite, Jean de Daillon, Olivier le Dain (the barber), and after 1472, Philippe de Commines, drawn from the service of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, who became his most intimate adviser and biographer. Surrounded by men like these Louis fought the last great battle of French royalty with feudalism.

Louis XI. began his reign with the same high-handed treatment of the nobles which had marked his rule in Dauphiné, going so far as to forbid them to hunt without his permission. He forced the clergy to pay long-neglected feudal dues, and intrigued against the great houses of Anjou and Orleans in Italy. The malcontent nobles soon began to plan revolt. Discharged officers of Charles VII. like Jean Dunois and John II. duke of Bourbon, stirred up hostility to the new men of the king, and Francis II. duke of Brittany was soon embroiled with Louis over an attempt to assert royal control over that practically independent duchy. The dissatisfied nobility found their greatest ally in Charles the Bold, afterwards duke of Burgundy, and in 1465 formed a “league of public welfare” and declared war on their king. The nominal head was the king’s brother Charles, duke of Berry, then eighteen years old, a weak character, the tool of the rebels as he was later the dupe of the king. Every great noble in France was in the league, except Gaston de Foix—who kept the south of France for the king,—and the counts of Vendôme and Eu. The whole country seemed on the verge of anarchy. It was saved by the refusal of the lesser gentry to rise, and by the alliance of the king with the citizen class, which was not led astray by the pretences of regard for the public weal which cloaked the designs of the leaguers. After a successful campaign in the Bourbonnais, Louis fought an indecisive battle with the Burgundians who had marched on Paris at Montlhéry, on the 16th of July 1465, and then stood a short siege in Paris. On the 28th of September he made a truce with Charles the Bold, and in October the treaties of Conflans and Saint Maur-les-Fossés, ended the war. The king yielded at all points; gave up the “Somme towns” in Picardy, for which he had paid 200,000 gold crowns, to Philip the Good, thus bringing the Burgundians close to Paris and to Normandy. Charles, the king’s brother, was given Normandy as an apanage, thus joining the territories of the rebellious duke of Brittany with those of Charles the Bold. The public weal was no longer talked about, while the kingdom was plundered both by royal tax gatherers and by unsubdued feudal lords to pay the cost of the war.

After this failure Louis set to work to repair his mistakes. The duke of Bourbon was won over by the gift of the government of the centre of France, and Dunois and Chabannes by restoring them their estates. Two months after he had granted Normandy to Charles, he took advantage of a quarrel between the duke of Brittany and his brother to take it again, sending the duke of Bourbon “to aid” Charles, while Dunois and Chabannes prepared for the struggle with Burgundy. The death of Duke Philip, on the 15th of June 1467, gave Charles the Bold a free hand. He gained over Edward IV. of England, whose sister Margaret he married; but while he was celebrating the wedding Louis invaded Brittany and detached Duke Francis from alliance with him. Normandy was completely reduced. The king had won a great triumph. It was followed by his greatest mistake. Eager as he always was to try diplomacy instead of war, Louis sent a gift of 60,000 golden crowns to Charles and secured a safe conduct from him for an interview. The interview took place on the 9th of October 1468 at Péronne. News came on the 11th that, instigated by the king of France, the people of Liége had massacred their bishop and the ducal governor. The news was false, but Charles, furious at such apparent duplicity, took Louis prisoner, only releasing him, three days later, on the king signing a treaty which granted Flanders freedom from interference from the parlement of Paris, and agreeing to accompany Charles to the siege of his own ally, Liége. Louis made light of the whole incident in his letters, but it marked the greatest humiliation of his life, and he was only too glad to find a scapegoat in Cardinal Jean Balue, who was accused of having plotted the treason of Péronne. Balue thereupon joined Guillaume de Harancourt, bishop of Verdun, in an intrigue to induce Charles of France to demand Champagne and Brie in accordance with the king’s promise to Charles the Bold, instead of distant Guienne where the king was determined to place him. The discovery of this conspiracy placed these two high dignitaries in prison (April 1469). Balue (q.v.) spent eleven years in prison quarters, comfortable enough, in spite of the legend to the contrary, while Harancourt was shut up in an iron cage until 1482. Then Louis, inducing his brother to accept Guienne,—where, surrounded by faithful royal officers, he was harmless for the time being,—undertook to play off the Lancastrians against Edward IV. who, as the ally of Charles the Bold, was menacing the coast of Normandy. Warwick, the king-maker, and Queen Margaret were aided in the expedition which in 1470 again placed Henry VI. upon the English throne. In the autumn Louis himself took the offensive, and royal troops overran Picardy and the Maconnais to Burgundy itself. But the tide turned against Louis in 1471. While Edward IV. won back England by the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury, Charles the Bold besieged Amiens, and Louis was glad to make a truce, availing himself of the double dealing of the constable, the count of Saint Pol, who, trying to win an independent position for himself in Picardy, refused his aid to Charles unless he would definitely join the French nobility in another rising against the king. This rising was to be aided by the invasion of France by John II. of Aragon, Yolande, duchess of Savoy, and Edward IV. of England, who was to be given the old Plantagenet inheritance. The country was saved a desperate civil war by the death of the king’s brother, Charles, the nominal head of the coalition, on the 24th of May 1472. Louis’ joy on receiving news of this death knew no bounds. Charles the Bold, who had again invaded France, failed to take Beauvais, and was obliged to make a lasting truce. His projects were henceforth to be directed towards Germany. Louis then forced the duke of Brittany to make peace, and turned against John V. count of Armagnac, whose death at the opening of March 1473 ended the power of one of the most dangerous houses of the south. The first period of Louis’ reign was closed, and with it closed for ever the danger of dismemberment of France. John of Aragon continued the war in Roussillon and Cerdagne, which Louis had seized ten years before, and a most desperate rising of the inhabitants protracted the struggle for two years. After the capture of Perpignan on the 10th of March 1475, the wise and temperate government of Imbert de Batarnay and Boffile de Juge slowly pacified the new provinces. The death of Gaston IV. count of Foix in 1472 opened up the long diplomatic struggle for Navarre, which was destined to pass to the loyal family of Albret shortly after the death of Louis. His policy had won the line of the Pyrenees for France.

The overthrow of Charles the Bold was the second great task of Louis XI. This he accomplished by a policy much like that of Pitt against Napoleon. Louis was the soul of all hostile coalitions, especially urging on the Swiss and Sigismund of Austria, who ruled Tirol and Alsace. Charles’s ally, Edward IV., invaded France in June 1475, but Louis bought him off on the 29th of August at Picquigny—where the two sovereigns met on a bridge over the Somme, with a strong grille between them, Edward receiving 75,000 crowns, and a promise of a pension of 50,000 crowns annually. The dauphin Charles was to marry Edward’s daughter. Bribery of the English ministers was not spared, and in September the invaders recrossed to England. The count of Saint Pol, who had continued to play his double part, was surrendered by Charles to Louis, and executed, as was also Jacques d’Armagnac, duke of Nemours. With his vassals terrorized and subdued, Louis continued to subsidize the Swiss and René II. of Lorraine in their war upon Charles. The defeat and death of the duke of Burgundy at Nancy on the 5th of January 1477 was the crowning triumph of Louis’ diplomacy. But in his eagerness to seize the whole inheritance of his rival, Louis drove his daughter and heiress, Mary of Burgundy, into marriage with Maximilian of Austria (afterwards the emperor Maximilian I.), who successfully defended Flanders after a savage raid by Antoine de Chabannes. The battle of Guinegate on the 7th of August 1479 was indecisive, and definite peace was not established until after the death of Mary, when by the treaty of Arras (1482) Louis received Picardy, Artois and the Boulonnais, as well as the duchy of Burgundy and Franche Comté. The Austrians were left in Flanders, a menace and a danger. Louis failed here and in Spain; this failure being an indirect cause of that vast family compact which surrounded France later with the empire of Charles V. His interference in Spain had made both John II. of Aragon and Henry IV. of Castile his enemies, and so he was unable to prevent the marriage of their heirs, Ferdinand and Isabella. But the results of these marriages could not be foreseen, and the unification of France proved of more value than the possession of so widespread an empire. This unification was completed (except for Brittany) and the frontiers enlarged by the acquisition, upon the death of René of Anjou in 1480, of the duchies of Anjou and Bar, and in 1481 of Maine and Provence upon the death of Charles II., count of Maine. Of the inheritance of the house of Anjou only Lorraine escaped the king.

Failure in Spain was compensated for in Italy. Without waging war Louis made himself virtual arbiter of the fate of the principalities in the north, and his court was always besieged by ambassadors from them. After the death of Charles the Bold, Yolande, duchess of Savoy, was obliged to accept the control of Louis, who was her brother. In Milan he helped to place Lodovico il Moro in power in 1479, but he reaped less from this supple tyrant than he had expected. Pope Sixtus IV. the enemy of the Medici, was also the enemy of the king of France. Louis, who at the opening of his reign had denounced the Pragmatic Sanction of 1438, had played fast and loose with the papacy. When Sixtus threatened Florence after the Pazzi conspiracy, 1478, Louis aided Lorenzo dei Medici to form an alliance with Naples, which forced the papacy to come to terms.

More than any other king of France, Louis XI. was a “bourgeois king.” The upper bourgeois, the aristocracy of his “good cities,” were his allies both against the nobles and against the artisan class, whenever they revolted, driven to desperation by the oppressive royal taxes which furnished the money for his wars or diplomacy. He ruled like a modern capitalist; placed his bribes like investments in the courts of his enemies; and, while draining the land of enormous sums, was pitiless toward the two productive portions of his realm, the country population and the artisans. His heartlessness toward the former provoked even an accomplice like Commines to protest. The latter were kept down by numerous edicts, tending to restrict to certain privileged families the rank of master workman in the gilds. There was the paternalism of a Frederick the Great in his encouragement of the silk industry,—“which all idle people ought to be made to work at,”—in his encouragement of commerce through the newly acquired port of Marseilles and the opening up of market placed. He even dreamed of a great trading company “of two hundred thousand livres or more,” to monopolize the trade of the Mediterranean, and planned to unify the various systems of weights and measures. In 1479 he called a meeting of two burgesses from each “good city” of his realm to consider means for preventing the influx of foreign coin. Impatient of all restraint upon his personal rule, he was continually in violent dispute with the parlement of Paris, and made “justice” another name for arbitrary government; yet he dreamed of a unification of the local customary laws (coûtumes) of France. He was the perfect model of a tyrant. The states-general met but once in his reign, in 1468, and then no talk of grievances was allowed; his object was only to get them to declare Normandy inalienable from the crown. They were informed that the king could raise his revenue without consulting them. Yet his budgets were enormously greater than ever before. In 1481 the taille alone brought in 4,600,000 livres, and even at the peaceful close of his reign his whole budget was 4,655,000 livres—as against 1,800,000 livres at the close of his father’s reign.

The king who did most for French royalty would have made a sorry figure at the court of a Louis XIV. He was ungainly, with rickety legs. His eyes were keen and piercing, but a long hooked nose lent grotesqueness to a face marked with cunning rather than with dignity. Its ugliness was emphasized by the old felt hat which he wore,—its sole ornament the leaden figure of a saint. Until the close of his life, when he tried to mislead ambassadors as to the state of his health by gorgeous robes, he wore the meanest clothes. Dressed in grey like a pilgrim, and accompanied by five or six trustworthy servants, he would set out on his interminable travels, “ambling along on a good mule.” Thus he traversed France, avoiding all ceremony, entering towns by back streets, receiving ambassadors in wayside huts, dining in public houses, enjoying the loose manners and language of his associates, and incidentally learning at first hand the condition of his people and the possibilities of using or taxing them—his needs of them rather than theirs of him. He loved to win men, especially those of the middle class, by affability and familiarity, employing all his arts to cajole and seduce those whom he needed. Yet his honied words easily turned to gall. He talked rapidly and much, sometimes for hours at a time, and most indiscreetly. He was not an agreeable companion, violent in his passions, nervous, restless, and in old age extremely irascible. Utterly unscrupulous, and without a trace of pity, he treated men like pawns, and was content only with absolute obedience.

But this Machiavellian prince was the genuine son of St Louis. His religiosity was genuine if degenerate. He lavished presents on influential saints, built shrines, sent gifts to churches, went on frequent pilgrimages and spent much time in prayer—employing his consummate diplomacy to win celestial allies, and rewarding them richly when their aid secured him any advantage. St Martin of Tours received 1200 crowns after the capture of Perpignan. He tried to bribe the saints of his enemies, as he did their ministers. An unfaltering faith taught him the value of religion—as a branch of politics. Finally, more in the spirit of orthodoxy, he used the same arts to make sure of heaven. When the ring of St Zanobius and the blood of Cape Verde turtles gave him no relief from his last illness, he showered gifts upon his patron saints, secured for his own benefit the masses of his clergy, and the most potent prayers in Christendom, those of the two most effective saints of his day, Bernardin of Doulins and Francis of Paolo.

During the last two or three years of his life Louis lived in great isolation, “seeing no one, speaking with no one, except such as he commanded,” in the château of Plessis-les-Tours, that “spider’s nest” bristling with watch towers, and guarded only by the most trusty servitors. A swarm of astrologers and physicians preyed upon his fears—and his purse. But, however foolish in his credulity, he still made his strong hand felt both in France and in Italy, remaining to the last “the terrible king.” His fervent prayers were interrupted by instructions for the regency which was to follow. He died on the 30th of August 1483, and was buried, according to his own wish, without royal state, in the church at Cléry, instead of at St Denis. He left a son, his successor, Charles VIII., and two daughters.

See the admirable résumé by Charles Petit-Dutaillis in Lavisse’s Histoire de France, tome iv. pt. ii. (1902), and bibliographical indications given there. Michelet’s wonderful depiction in his Histoire de France (livres 13 to 17) has never been surpassed for graphic word-painting, but it is inaccurate in details, and superseded in scholarship. Of the original sources for the reign the Lettres de Louis XI. (edited by Charavay and Vaesen, 8 vols., 1883-1902), the celebrated Mémoires of Philippe de Commines and the Journal of Jean de Royl naturally come first. The great mass of literature on the period is analysed in masterly fashion by A. Molinier, Sources de l’histoire de France (tome v. pp. 1-146), and to this exhaustive bibliography the reader is referred for further research. See also C. Hare, The Life of Louis XI. (London, 1907).

(J. T. S.*)

LOUIS XII. (1462-1515), king of France, was grandson of Louis of Orleans, the brother of Charles VI., and son of the poet prince, Charles of Orleans, who, after the battle of Agincourt, spent twenty-five years of captivity in England. Louis was duke of Orleans until his accession to the throne, and he was fourteen years old when Louis XI. gave him the hand of his second daughter, Joan the Lame. In the first years of the reign of Charles VIII., Louis made a determined stand against the government of the Beaujeus, stirred up coalitions of the feudal nobles against them, and was finally defeated and taken prisoner at St Aubin du Cormier in 1488. Charles VIII. set him at liberty in 1491. These successive checks tamed him a little. In the Italian expedition of 1494 he commanded the vanguard of the royal army, occupied Genoa, and remained in the north of Italy, menacing Milan, on which he was already dreaming of asserting his rights. The children of Charles VIII. having died in infancy, he became heir-presumptive to the throne, and succeeded Charles in 1499. Louis was then thirty-six years old, but he seems to have grown old prematurely. He was fragile, narrow-shouldered and of a sickly constitution. His intelligence was mediocre, his character weak, and he allowed himself to be dominated by his wife, Anne of Brittany, and his favourite the Cardinal d’Amboise. He was a good king, full of moderation and humanity, and bent upon maintaining order and improving the administration of justice. He enjoyed a genuine popularity, and in 1506 the estates of Tours conferred on him the surname of Père du Peuple. His foreign policy, which was directed wholly towards Italy, was for the most part unskilful; to his claims on Naples he added those on Milan, which he based on the marriage of his grandfather, Louis of Orleans, with Valentina Visconti. He led in person several armies into Italy, and proved as severe and pitiless towards his enemies as he was gentle and clement towards his subjects. Louis had two daughters. After his accession he had divorced his virtuous and ill-favoured queen, Joan, and had married, in 1499, Anne of Brittany, the widow of Charles VIII. On her death in January 1514, in order to detach England from the alliance against him, he married on the 9th of October 1514, Mary Tudor, sister of Henry VIII. of England (see Mary, queen of France). He died on the 1st of January 1515.

For a bibliography of the printed sources see Henri Hauser, Les Sources de l’histoire de France, XVIe siècle, vol. 1. (Paris, 1906). The principal secondary authorities are De Maulde, Histoire de Louis XII. (Paris, 1889-1893); Le Roux de Lincy, Vie de la reine Anne de Bretagne (Paris, 1860); H. Lemonnier, Les Guerres d’Italie (Paris, 1903) in the Histoire de France by E. Lavisse.

(J. I.)

LOUIS XIII. (1601-1643), king of France, was the son of Henry IV. and of Marie de’ Medici. He became king on his father’s assassination in 1610; but his mother at once seized the full powers of regent. She determined to reverse the policy of her husband and to bring France into alliance with Spain and the Austrian house, upon which power Henry had been meditating an attack at the time of his death. Two marriages were designed to cement this alliance. Louis was to marry Anne of Austria, daughter of the Spanish king, Philip III., and the Spanish prince, afterwards Philip IV., himself was to marry the Princess Elizabeth, the king’s sister. Notwithstanding the opposition of the Protestants and nobles of France, the queen carried through her purpose and the marriages were concluded in 1615. The next years were full of civil war and political intrigue, during which the queen relied upon the Marshal d’Ancre. Louis XIII. was a backward boy, and his education had been much neglected. We have the fullest details of his private life, and yet his character remains something of a mystery. He was fond of field sports and seemed to acquiesce in his mother’s occupation of power and in the rule of her favourites. But throughout his life he concealed his purposes even from his closest friends; sometimes it seems as if he were hardly conscious of them himself. In 1617 he was much attached to Charles d’Albert, sieur de Luynes; and with his help he arrested Marshal d’Ancre, and on his resistance had him assassinated. From this time to her death the relation between the king and his mother was one of concealed or open hostility. The article on France must be consulted for the intricate events of the following years.

The decisive incident for his private life as well as for his reign was the entrance of Cardinal Richelieu, hitherto the queen’s chief adviser, into the king’s council in 1624. Henceforth the policy of France was directed by Richelieu, who took up in its main features the system of Protestant alliances and opposition to the power of Austria and Spain, which had been begun by Henry IV. and had been interrupted by the queen-mother during the regency; while he asserted the power of the crown against all rivals at home. This policy had remarkable results for the king’s private life. It not only brought him into unremitting conflict with the Protestants and the nobles of France, but also made him the enemy of his mother, of his brother Gaston of Orleans, who made himself the champion of the cause of the nobles, and sometimes even of his wife. It is not easy to define his relations to Richelieu. He was convinced of his loyalty and of his genius, and in the end always supported his policy. But he disliked the friction with his family circle which this policy produced. In the difficulty with which he expressed himself and in a certain indecision of character the king was curiously unlike his father, the frank and impetuous Henry of Navarre, and his absolute son Louis XIV. He took a great interest in all the externals of war. He was present, and is said to have played an important part at the passage of Susa in 1629, and also eagerly participated in the siege of Rochelle, which surrendered in the same year. But for the most part his share in the great events of the reign was a passive one. The one all-important fact was that he supported his great minister. There were certain occasions when it seemed as if that support would be denied. The chief of these was what is known as the “Day of Dupes” (1630). Then the queen-mother and the king’s brother passionately attacked the minister, and for a moment it was believed that Richelieu was dismissed and that the queen-mother and a Spanish policy had triumphed. But the sequel only strengthened the power of the minister. He regained his ascendancy over the king, punished his enemies and forced Marie de’ Medici and Gaston of Orleans to sue for pardon. In 1631 Gaston fled to Lorraine and the queen-mother to Brussels. Gaston soon returned, to plot, to fail and to sue for pardon again and again; but Marie de’Medici ended her life in exile.

Richelieu’s position was much strengthened by these incidents, but to the end of life he had to struggle against conspiracies which were designed to deprive him of the king’s support, and usually Gaston of Orleans had some share in these movements. In 1632 the duke of Montmorency’s conspiracy brought its leader to the scaffold. But the last great effort to overthrow Richelieu was closely connected with the king. Louis XIII. had from the beginning of his reign had favourites—young men for the most part with whom he lived freely and intimately and spoke of public affairs lightly and unreservedly; and who in consequence often exaggerated their influence over him. Henri d’Effiat, marquis de Cinq-Mars, was the last of these favourites. The king is said to have allowed him to speak hostilely of Richelieu and even to recall the assassination of Marshal d’Ancre. Cinq-Mars believed himself secure of the king’s favour. He entered into negotiations with Spain and was secretly supported by Gaston of Orleans. But Richelieu discovered his treasonous relations with Spain and by this means defeated his plot. Louis was reconciled to his minister. “We have lived too long together to be separated” he is reported to have said (September 1642). Yet when Richelieu died in December of the same year he allowed himself to speak of him in a jealous and satirical tone. He died himself a few months later (May 1643).

His nature was timid, lethargic and melancholy, and his court was not marked by the scandals which had been seen under Henry IV. Yet Mademoiselle de la Fayette and Madame d’Hautefort and others are said to have been his mistresses. His brother Gaston survived him, but gave unexpectedly little trouble during the wars of the Fronde which ensued on the death of Louis XIII.

The chief source of information on Louis XIII.’s life is to be found in the contemporary memoirs, of which the chief are: Bassompierre, Fontenay-Mareuil, Gaston d’Orléans, Montrésor, Omer Talon. Richelieu’s own Memoirs are chiefly concerned with politics and diplomacy. Of modern works those most directly bearing on the king’s personal life are R. de Beauchamp, Louis XIII. d’après sa correspondance avec le cardinal de Richelieu; G. Hanotaux, Histoire du cardinal de Richelieu (1893-1896); Rossignol, Louis XIII. avant Richelieu; M. Topin, Louis XIII. et Richelieu (1876). See too Professor R. Lodge, Richelieu; J. B. H. R. Capefigue, Richelieu, Mazarin et la Fronde (1835-1836); and Dr J. H. Bridges, Richelieu, Mazarin and Colbert (1866).

For full bibliography see G. Monod, Bibliographie de l’histoire de France; Cambridge Modern History, vol. iv. (“The Thirty Years’ War”); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire générale, vol. v. (“Guerres de religion”).

(A. J. G.*)

LOUIS XIV. (1638-1715), king of France, was born at Saint-Germain-en-Laye on the 5th of September 1638. His father, Louis XIII., had married Anne of Austria, daughter of Philip III., king of Spain, in 1615, but for twenty years the marriage had remained without issue. The childlessness of the king was a constant threat to the policy of his great minister Richelieu; for the king’s brother and heir, Gaston of Orleans, was a determined opponent of that policy. The birth of the prince who was destined to reign as Louis XIV. was therefore hailed as a triumph, not less important than any of those won by diplomacy or arms. The death of his father made Louis XIV. king on the 14th of May 1643, but he had to wait sixteen years before he began to rule. Power lay for some time in the hands of the queen-mother and in those of her minister, Cardinal Mazarin, who found it difficult to maintain the power of the throne and the integrity of French territory during the domestic troubles of the Fronde and the last stages of the Thirty Year’s War. The minister was hated as a foreigner, and the childhood of the king weakened the royal authority. Twice the court had to flee from Paris; once when there was a rumour of intended flight the populace was admitted to see the king in his bed. The memory of these humiliations played their part in developing later the autocratic ideas of Louis. Mazarin, in spite of all disadvantages, triumphed alike over his domestic and his foreign opponents. The Fronde was at an end by 1653; the peace of Westphalia (1648) and the peace of the Pyrenees (1659) marked the success of the arms and of the diplomacy of France. Louis XIV. was now twenty-one years of age and was anxious to rule as well as to reign. The peace of the Pyrenees was a decisive event in his personal history as well as in that of France, for one of its most important stipulations referred to his marriage. He had already been strongly attracted to one of the nieces of Mazarin, but reasons of state triumphed over personal impulse; and it was agreed that the new friendship with Spain should be cemented by the marriage of Louis to his cousin, the Infanta Maria Theresa. A large dowry was stipulated for; and in consideration of this the king promised to forgo all claims that his wife might otherwise possess to the Spanish crown or any part of its territories. The dowry was never paid, and the king held himself free of his promise.

The marriage took place at once, and the king entered Paris in triumph in 1660. Mazarin died in the next year; but so strong was the feeling that the kings of France could only rule through a first minister that it was generally expected that Mazarin would soon have a successor. The king, however, at once announced his intention of being his own first minister; and from this resolution he never swerved. Whatever great qualities he may have lacked he certainly possessed industry and patience in the highest degree. He built up a thoroughly personal system of government, and presided constantly over the council and many of its committees. He was fond of gaiety and of sport; but neither ever turned him away from the punctual and laborious discharge of his royal duties. Even the greatest of his ministers found themselves controlled by the king. Fouquet, the finance minister, had accumulated enormous wealth during the late disturbances, and seemed to possess power and ambition too great for a subject. Louis XIV. found it necessary almost to conspire against him; he was overthrown and condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Those who had most of the king’s confidence afterwards were Colbert for home affairs; Lionne for diplomacy; Louvois for war; but as his reign proceeded he became more self-confident and more intolerant of independence of judgment in his ministers.

His court was from the first one of great brilliance. In art and in literature, the great period, which is usually called by the king’s name, had in some respects passed its zenith when he began to reign. But France was unquestionably the first state in Europe both in arms and arts, and within France the authority of the king was practically undisputed. The nation, proud of its pre-eminence and weary of civil war, saw in the king its true representative and the guarantee of its unity and success. Louis was singularly well fitted by his physical and intellectual gifts for the rôle of Grand Monarque and he played it to perfection. His wife Maria Theresa bore him children but there was no community of tastes between them, and the chief influence at court is to be found not in the queen but in the succession of avowed mistresses. Mademoiselle de la Vallière held the position from 1662 to 1670; she was then ousted by Madame de Montespan, who had fiercely intrigued for it, and whose proud and ambitious temper offered a great contrast to her rival. She held her position from 1670 to 1679 and then gave place to the still more famous Madame de Maintenon, who ruled, however, not as mistress but as wife. The events that brought about this incident form the strangest episode in the king’s private life. Madame de Maintenon was the widow of the dramatist Scarron, and first came into relationship with the king as governess to his illegitimate children. She was a woman of unstained life and strongly religious temperament; and it was by this that she gained so great an influence over the king. Through her influence the king was reconciled to his wife, and, when Maria Theresa died in 1683, Madame de Maintenon shortly afterwards (in 1684) became the king’s wife, though this was never officially declared. Under her influence the court lost most of its gaiety, and religion came to exercise much control over the life and the policy of the king.

The first years of the king’s rule were marked by the great schemes of Colbert for the financial, commercial, industrial and naval reorganization of France, and in these schemes Louis took a deep interest. But in 1667 began the long series of wars, which lasted with little real intermission to the end of the reign (see France). In the steps that led to these wars and in their conduct the egotistic ambition and the vanity of the king played an important part; though he never showed real military skill and took no share in any military operations except in certain sieges. The War of Devolution (or the Queen’s War) in 1667-68 to enforce the queen’s claim to certain districts in the Spanish Netherlands, led to the Dutch War (1672-78), and in both these wars the supremacy of the French armies was clearly apparent. The next decade (1678-1688) was the real turning-point in the history of the reign, and the strength of France was seriously diminished. The chief cause of this is to be found in the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. The church had always opposed this settlement and had succeeded in altering it in many points. Now the new religious zeal and the autocratic temper of Louis XIV. came to the support of the church. The French Huguenots found their privileges decreased, and then, in 1685, the edict was altogether withdrawn. The results were ruinous to France. It was not only that she lost many thousands of her best citizens, but this blow against Protestantism deprived her of those Protestant alliances in Europe which had been in the past her great diplomatic support. Then the English Revolution came in 1688 and changed England from a wavering ally into the most determined of the enemies of France.

The war with the Grand Alliance, of which King William III. was the heart and soul, lasted from 1688 to 1697; and the treaty of Ryswick, which brought it to an end, deprived France of certain territories on her frontier. But Louis saw in the Spanish question a chance of more than making up for this loss. The Spanish king Charles II. was dying, and the future of the possessions of Spain was doubtful. The astute diplomacy of Louis succeeded in winning the inheritance for his grandson Philip. But this involved France and Europe in an immense war (1700) and by the peace of Utrecht (1713), though the French prince retained the Spanish crown, France had again to make concessions of territory.

Louis XIV. had shown wonderful tenacity of purpose during this disastrous war, and sometimes a nobler and more national spirit than during the years of his triumphs. But the condition of France was terrible. She was burdened with debt; the reforms of Colbert were ruined; and opposition to the king’s régime began to make itself felt. Peace brought some relief to France, but the last years of the king’s life were gloomy in the extreme. His numerous descendants seemed at one time to place the succession beyond all difficulty. But his eldest son, the dauphin, died in April 1711; his eldest grandson the duke of Burgundy in February 1712; and his great-grandson the duke of Brittany in March 1712. The heir to the throne was now the duke of Burgundy’s son, the duke of Anjou, afterwards Louis XV. The king died on the 1st of September 1715, after the longest recorded reign in European history. The judgment of posterity has not repeated the flattering verdict of his contemporaries; but he remains the model of a great king in all that concerns the externals of kingship.

The reign of Louis XIV. is particularly rich in memoirs describing the life of the court. The chief are Madame de Motteville’s memoirs for the period of the Fronde, and the letters cf Madame de Sévigné and the memoirs of Saint-Simon for the later period. The king’s ideas are best seen in the Mémoires de Louis XIV. pour l’instruction du dauphin (edited by Dreyss, 2 vols.). His private life is revealed in the letters of Madame de Maintenon and in those of Madame, Duchesse d’Orléans. Of the ordinary historians of France Michelet is fullest on the private life of the king. Mention may also be made of Voltaire, Siècle de Louis XIV.; P. Clément, Histoire de la vie et de l’administration de Colbert; Sainte-Beuve, Causeries de lundi. Full bibliographies of the reign will be found in G. Monod’s Bibliographie de l’histoire de France; vol. v. (“The Age of Louis XIV.”) of the Cambridge Modern History; and vol. vi. (“Louis XIV.”) of the Histoire générale of Lavisse and Rambaud.

(A. J. G.*)

LOUIS XV. (1710-1774), king of France, was the great-grandson of Louis XIV. and the third son of Louis, duke of Burgundy, and Marie Adelaide, princess of Savoy. The first son had died in 1705, and in 1712 the second son, the duke of Brittany, as well as his father and mother, was carried off by a mysterious disease. Louis was thus unexpectedly brought into the line of the succession, and was only five years old when Louis XIV. died. The dead king had endeavoured by his will to control the administration even after his death by a carefully selected council of regency, in which the duke of Orleans should have only the nominal presidency; but with the help of the parlement of Paris the arrangement was at once set aside, and the duke was declared regent with full traditional powers. The duke had capacity, but his life was so licentious that what influence he had upon the king was for evil. Fleury, bishop of Fréjus, was appointed his tutor, and the little king was sincerely attached to him. The king attained his legal majority at the age of thirteen, shortly before the death of the duke of Orleans. His first minister was the incapable duke of Bourbon, who in 1725 procured the repudiation of the Spanish princess, to whom the king had been betrothed, and his marriage to Maria Leszczynska, daughter of the exiled king of Poland, then resident in Alsace. In 1726 the duke of Bourbon was displaced by the king’s tutor, Bishop (afterwards Cardinal) Fleury, who exercised almost absolute power, for the king took little interest in affairs of state. His administration was successful and peaceful until the year 1734, when a disputed succession in Poland brought about the interference of France on behalf of the queen’s father. France was unsuccessful in her immediate object, but at the peace of Vienna (1735) secured the possession of Lorraine. Up to this point the reign had been prosperous; but from this time on it is a record of declining national strength, which was not compensated by some days of military glory. Fleury’s great age (he died still in office at the age of ninety) prevented him from really controlling the policy of France and of Europe. In 1740 the war of the Austrian Succession broke out and France drifted into it as an ally of Frederick of Prussia and the enemy of England, and of Maria Theresa of Austria.

On Fleury’s death in 1743 no one took his place, and the king professed to adopt the example of Louis XIV. and to establish a personal autocracy. But he was not strong enough in will or intellect to give unity to the administration. The marquis d’Argenson writes that at the council table Louis “opened his mouth, said little and thought not at all,” and again that “under the appearance of personal monarchy it was really anarchy that reigned.” He had followed too in his domestic life the example of his predecessors. The queen for some time seems to have secured his affections, and she bore him seven children. But soon we hear of the royal mistresses. The first to acquire notoriety was the duchess of Châteauroux, the third sister of one family who held this position. She was at least in part the cause of the only moment of popularity which the king enjoyed. She urged him to take part personally in the war. France had just received a humiliating check at Dettingen, and the invasion of the north-eastern frontier was feared. The king went to Metz in 1744, and his presence there did something to ward off the danger. While the nation felt genuine gratitude for his energy and its success, he was reported to have fallen dangerously ill. The king, of whom it was said that the fear of hell was the only part of religion which had any reality for him, now dismissed the duchess of Châteauroux and promised amendment. Prayers were offered everywhere for his recovery, and the country was swept by a delirium of loyal enthusiasm, which conferred on him the title of Louis le bien aimé. But his future life disappointed all these hopes. The duchess of Châteauroux died in the same year, but her place was taken in 1745 by Madame de Pompadour. This woman had philanthropic impulses and some real interest in art and letters; but her influence on public affairs was a fatal one. She had many rivals during her lifetime and on her death in 1764 she was succeeded by Madame du Barry (q.v.). But the mention of these three women gives no idea of the degradation of the king’s life. There has doubtless been exaggeration as to certain details, and the story of his seraglio at the Parc aux cerfs is largely apocryphal. But it would be difficult to mention the name of any European king whose private life shows such a record of vulgar vice unredeemed by higher aims of any kind. He was not without ambition, but without sufficient tenacity of purpose to come near to realizing it. To the last he maintained the pretence of personal rule, but the machinery of government fell out of gear, and the disorder of the finances was never remedied before the revolution of 1789.

The peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), which ended the war of the Austrian Succession, brought no gains to France in spite of her victories at Fontenoy and Raucoux; and the king was blamed for the diplomatic failure. The interval between this war and the Seven Years’ War (1756) saw that great reversal of alliances which is sometimes called the “Diplomatic Revolution”; whereby France repudiated the alliance of Frederick the Great and joined hands with her old enemy Austria. The intrigues of Madame de Pompadour played in this change an important though not a decisive part. It was the cause of immense disasters to France; for after a promising beginning, both by land and sea, France suffered reverses which lost her both India and Canada and deprived her of the leading position which she had so long held in Europe. Her humiliation was declared by the peace of Paris (1763).

The article on the history of France (q.v.) shows how there arose during the last years of Louis XV.’s reign a strong reaction against the monarchy and its methods. Military success had given it its strength; and its prestige was ruined by military failure. In the parlements, provincial and Parisian; in religion and in literature, a note of opposition is struck which was never to die until the monarchy was overthrown. France annexed Corsica in 1768, but this was felt to be the work of the minister Chauvelin, and reflected no credit on the king. He died in 1774 of smallpox. If the reign of his predecessor shows us almost the ideal of personal monarchy we may see in that of Louis XV. all the vices and errors exemplified which lie in wait for absolute hereditary rule which has survived the period of its usefulness.

For the king’s life generally see the memoirs of Saint-Simon, d’Argenson, Villars and Barbier, and for the details of his private life E. Boutaric, Correspondance secrète de Louis XV.; Madame de Pompadour’s Correspondance published by P. Malassi; Dietric, Les Maîtresses de Louis XV.; and Fleury, Louis XV. intimes et les petites maîtresses (1909).

For the system of secret diplomacy and organized espionage, known as the Secret du roi, carried on under the auspices of Louis XV., see Albert duc de Broglie, Le Secret du roi. Correspondance secrète de Louis XV. avec ses agents diplomatiques 1752-1774 (Paris, 1878); and for a general account of the reign, H. Carré, La France sous Louis XV. (Paris, 1891). For other works, general and special, see G. Monod, Bibliographie de la France, and the bibliography in the Histoire générale of Lavisse and Rambaud, vol. vii., and the Cambridge Modern History, vol. vi.

(A. J. G.*)

LOUIS XVI. (1754-1793), king of France, was the son of Louis, dauphin of France, the son of Louis XV., and of Marie Joseph of Saxony, and was born at Versailles on the 23rd of August 1754, being baptized as Louis Augustus. His father’s death in 1765 made him heir to the throne, and in 1770 he was married to Marie Antoinette, daughter of the empress Maria Theresa. He was just twenty years old when the death of Louis XV. on the 10th of May 1774 placed him on the throne. He began his reign under good auspices, with Turgot, the greatest living French statesman, in charge of the disorganized finances; but in less than two years he had yielded to the demand of the vested interests attacked by Turgot’s reforms, and dismissed him. Turgot’s successor, Necker, however, continued the régime of reform until 1781, and it was only with Necker’s dismissal that the period of reaction began. Marie Antoinette then obtained that ascendancy over her husband which was partly responsible for the extravagance of the ministry of Calonne, and brought on the Revolution by the resulting financial embarrassment.1 The third part of his reign began with the meeting of the states-general on the 4th of May 1789, which marked the opening of the Revolution. The revolt of Paris and the taking of the Bastille on the 14th of July were its results. The suspicion, not without justification, of a second attempt at a coup d’état led on the 6th of October to the “capture” of the king and royal family at Versailles by a mob from Paris, and their transference to the Tuileries. In spite of the growing radicalism of the clubs, however, loyalty to the king remained surprisingly strong. When he swore to maintain the constitution, then in progress of construction, at the festival of the federation on the 14th of July 1790, he was at the height of his popularity. Even his attempted flight on the 20th of June 1791 did not entirely turn the nation against him, although he left documents which proved his opposition to the whole Revolution. Arrested at Varennes, and brought back to Paris, he was maintained as a constitutional king, and took his oath on the 13th of September 1791. But already a party was forming in Paris which demanded his deposition. This first became noticeable in connexion with the affair of the Champ de Mars on the 17th of July 1791. Crushed for a time the party gained strength through the winter of 1791-1792. The declaration of war against the emperor Francis II., nephew of Marie Antoinette, was forced upon the king by those who wished to discredit him by failure, or to compel him to declare himself openly an enemy to the Revolution. Their policy proved effective. The failure of the war, which intensified popular hatred of the Austrian queen, involved the king; and the invasion of the Tuileries on the 20th of June 1792 was but the prelude to the conspiracy which resulted, on the 10th of August, in the capture of the palace and the “suspension” of royalty by the Legislative Assembly until the convocation of a national convention in September. On the 21st of September 1792 the Convention declared royalty abolished, and in January it tried the king for his treason against the nation, and condemned him to death. He was executed on the 21st of January 1793.

Louis XVI. was weak in character and mentally dull. His courage and dignity during his trial and on the scaffold has left him a better reputation than he deserves. His diary shows how little he understood, or cared for, the business of a king. Days on which he had not shot anything at the hunt were blank days for him. The entry on the 14th of July 1789 was “nothing”! The greater part of his time was spent hunting. He also amused himself making locks, and a little at masonry. Awkward and uncourtly, at heart shy, he was but a poor figurehead for the stately court of France. At first he did not care for Marie Antoinette, but after he came under her influence, her thoughtless conduct compromised him, and it was largely she who encouraged him in underhand opposition to the Revolution while he pretended to accept it. The only point on which he had of his own initiative shown a strong objection to revolutionary measures was in the matter of the civil constitution of the clergy. A devoted and sincere Roman Catholic, he refused at first to sanction a constitution for the church in France without the pope’s approval, and after he had been compelled to allow the constitution to become law he resolved to oppose the Revolution definitely by intrigues. His policy was both feeble and false. He was singularly unfortunate even when he gave in, delaying his acquiescence until it had the air of a surrender. It is often said that Louis XVI. was the victim of the faults of his predecessors. He was also the victim of his own.

Having lost his elder son in 1789 Louis left two children, Louis Charles, usually known as Louis XVII., and Marie Thérèse Charlotte (1778-1851), who married her cousin, Louis, duke of Angoulême, son of Charles X., in 1799. The “orphan of the Temple,” as the princess was called, was in prison for three years, during which time she remained ignorant of the fate which had befallen her parents. She died on the 19th of October 1851. Her life by G. Lenôtre has been translated into English by J. L. May (1908).

See the articles French Revolution and Marie Antoinette. F. X. J. Droz, Histoire du règne de Louis XVI. (3 vols., Paris, 1860), a sane and good history of the period; and Arsène Houssaye, Louis XVI. (Paris, 1891). See also the numerous memoirs of the time, and the marquis de Ségur’s Au couchant de la monarchie, Louis XVI. et Turgot (1910).

For bibliographies see G. Monod, Bibl. de la France; Lavisse et Rambaud, Hist. Univ., vols. vii. and viii.; and the Cambridge Modem History, vol. viii.

(R. A.*)

1 The responsibility of Marie Antoinette for the policy of the king before and during the Revolution has been the subject of much controversy. In general it may be said that her influence on politics has been much exaggerated. (See Marie Antoinette.) [Ed.]

LOUIS XVII. (1785-1795?), titular king of France, second son of Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette, was born at Versailles on the 27th of March 1785, was christened the same day Louis Charles, and given the title of duke of Normandy. Louis Charles became dauphin on the death of his elder brother on the 4th of June 1789. It is only with his incarceration in the Temple on the 13th of August 1792, that his history, apart from that of his parents, becomes of interest. The royal party included, beside the king and queen, their daughter Marie Thérèse Charlotte (Madame Royale), the king’s sister Madame Élisabeth, the valet Cléry and others. The prisoners were lodged at first in the smaller Tower, but were removed to the larger Tower on the 27th of October. Louis Charles was then separated from his mother and aunt to be put in his father’s charge, except for a few hours daily, but was restored to the women when Louis was isolated from his family at the beginning of his trial in December.

On the 21st of January 1793 Louis became, for the royalists, king of France, and a week later the comte de Provence arrogated to himself the title of regent. From that moment began new plots for the escape of the prisoners from the Temple, the chief of which were engineered by the Chevalier de Jarjayes,1 the baron de Batz,2 and the faithful Lady Atkyns.3 On the 3rd of July the little dauphin was again separated from his mother, this time to be given into the keeping of the cobbler Antoine Simon4 who had been named his guardian by the Committee of General Security. The tales told by the royalist writers of the barbarous cruelty inflicted by Simon and his wife on the child are not proven. Marie Jeanne, in fact, took great care of the child’s person, and there is documentary evidence to prove that he had air and food. But the Simons were obviously grotesquely unfit guardians for a prince, and they doubtless caused much suffering to the impressionable child, who was made on occasion to eat and drink to excess, and learnt the language of the gutter. But the scenes related by A. de Beauchesne of the physical martyrdom of the child are not supported by any other testimony, though he was at this time seen by a great number of people. On the 6th of October Pache, Chaumette, Hébert and others visited him and secured from him admissions of infamous accusations against his mother, with his signature to a list of her alleged crimes since her entry in the Temple, and next day he was confronted with his sister Marie Thérèse for the last time.

Simon’s wife now fell ill, and on the 19th of January 1794 the Simons left the Temple, after securing a receipt for the safe transfer of their prisoner, who was declared to be in good health. A large part of the Temple records from that time onwards were destroyed under the Restoration, so that exact knowledge of the facts is practically impossible. Two days after the departure of the Simons the prisoner is said by the Restoration historians to have been put in a dark room which was barricaded like the cage of a wild animal. The story runs that food was passed through the bars to the child, who survived in spite of the accumulated filth of his surroundings. Robespierre5 visited Marie Thérèse on the 11th of May, but no one, according to the legend, entered the dauphin’s room for six months until Barras visited the prison after the 9th Thermidor (July 27, 1794). Barras’s account of the visit describes the child as suffering from extreme neglect, but conveys no idea of the alleged walling in. It is nevertheless certain that during the first half of 1794 he was very strictly secluded; he had no special guardian, but was under the charge of guards changed from day to day. The child made no complaint to Barras of his treatment, probably because he feared to do so. He was then cleansed and re-clothed, his room cleaned, and during the day he was visited by his new attendant, a creole and a compatriot of Joséphine de Beauharnais, named Jean Jacques Christophe Laurent (1770-1807), who had from the 8th of November onwards assistance for his charge from a man named Gomin. The child was now taken out to walk on the roof of the Tower. From about the time of Gomin’s entrance the prisoner was inspected, not by delegates of the Commune, but by representatives of the civil committee of the 48 sections of Paris. The rare recurrence of the same inspectors would obviously facilitate fraud, if any such were intended. From the end of October onwards the child maintained an obstinate silence, explained by Laurent as a determination taken on the day he made his deposition against his mother. On the 19th of December 1794 he was visited by three commissioners from the Committee of General Security—J. B. Harmand de la Meuse, J. B. C. Mathieu and J. Reverchon—who extracted no word from him. On Laurent’s retirement Étienne Lasne was appointed on the 31st of March 1795 to be the child’s guardian. In May 1795 the prisoner was seriously ill, and a doctor, P. J. Desault, well acquainted with the dauphin, having visited him seven months earlier, was summoned. Desault died suddenly, not without suspicion of poison, on the 1st of June, and it was some days before doctors Pelletan and Dumangin were called. Then it was announced that on the 8th Louis Charles died. Next day an autopsy was held at which it was stated that a child apparently about ten years of age, “which the commissioners told us was the late Louis Capet’s son,” had died of a scrofulous affection of long standing. He was buried on the 10th in the cemetery of Ste Marguerite, but no stone was erected to mark the spot.

The weak parts of this story are the sudden and unexplained departure of the Simons; the subsequent useless cruelty of treating the child like a wild beast and keeping him in a dark room practically out of sight (unless any doubt of his identity was possible), while his sister was in comparative comfort; the cause of death, declared to be of long standing, but in fact developed with such rapidity; the insufficient excuse provided for the child’s muteness under Gomin’s régime (he had answered Barras) and the irregularities in the formalities in attending the death and the funeral, when a simple identification of the body by Marie Thérèse would have prevented any question of resuscitated dauphins. Both Barras and Harmand de la Meuse are said to have given leave for the brother and sister to see each other, but the meeting was never permitted. The argument from the sudden disappearance of persons in a position to know something of the truth is of a less convincing character. It may be noted that the more famous of the persons alleged by partisans of subsequent pretenders to have been hustled out of the world for their connexion with the secret are the empress Joséphine, the due d’Enghien and the duc de Berri.

Immediately on the announcement of the dauphin’s death there arose a rumour that he had escaped. Simien-Despréaux, one of Louis XVIII.’s own authors, stated at a later period (1814) that Louis XVII. was living and that among the signatories of the treaty of April 13th were some who possessed proofs of his existence; and Eckard, one of the mainstays of the official account, left among his unpublished papers a statement that many members of “an assembly of our wise men” obstinately named Louis XVII. as the prince whom their wishes demanded. Unfortunately the removal of the child suited the plans of the comte de Provence (now Louis XVIII. for the émigrés) as well as it suited the revolutionary government, and no serious attempt was made by the royal family to ascertain the truth, though they paid none of the tributes to the memory of the dead king which might reasonably have been expected, had they been convinced of his death. Even his sister wore no mourning for him until she arrived at Vienna and saw that this was expected of her. In spite of the massive literature which has accumulated on the subject, neither his death in the Temple nor his escape therefrom has been definitely established, though a very strong presumption is established in favour of the latter.

Some forty candidates for his honours were forthcoming under the Restoration. The most important of these pretenders were Karl Wilhelm Naundorff and the comte de Richemont. Naundorff’s story rested on a series of complicated intrigues. According to him Barras determined to save the dauphin in order to please Joséphine Beauharnais, the future empress, having conceived the idea of using the dauphin’s existence as a means of dominating the comte de Provence in the event of a restoration. The dauphin was concealed in the fourth storey of the Tower, a wooden figure being substituted for him. Laurent, to protect himself from the consequences of the substitution, replaced the wooden figure by a deaf mute, who was presently exchanged for the scrofulous child of the death certificate. The deaf mute was also concealed in the Temple. It was not the dead child, but the dauphin who left the prison in the coffin, whence he was extracted by his friends on the way to the cemetery. Richemont’s tale that the woman Simon, who was genuinely attached to him, smuggled him out in a basket, is simple and more credible, and does not necessarily invalidate the story of the subsequent operations with the deaf mute and the scrofulous patient, Laurent in that case being deceived from the beginning, but it renders them extremely unlikely. A third pretender, Eleazar Williams, did not affect to know anything of his escape. He possessed, he said, no consciousness of his early years, only emerging from idiocy at the age of thirteen, when he was living with an Indian family in New York State. He was a missionary to the Indians when the prince de Joinville, son of Louis Philippe, met him, and after some conversation asked him to sign a document abdicating his rights in favour of Louis Philippe, in return for which he, the dauphin (alias Eleazar Williams), was to receive the private inheritance which was his. This Eleazar refused to do. The wildness of this tale refutes itself.

Richemont (Henri Ethelbert Louis Victor Hébert) was in prison in Milan for seven years and began to put forward his claims in Paris in 1828. In 1833 he was again arrested, was brought to trial in the following year and was condemned to twelve years’ imprisonment. He escaped after a few months and left the country, to return in 1840. He died at Gleize on the 10th of August 1853, the name of Louis Charles de France being inscribed on his tomb until the government ordered its removal.

Naundorff, or Naündorff, who had arrived from nowhere in Berlin in 1810, with papers giving the name Karl Wilhelm Naundorff, in order to escape the persecutions of which he declared himself the object, settled at Spandau in 1812 as a clockmaker, and married in 1818 Johanna Einert. In 1822 he removed to Brandenburg, and in 1828 to Crossen, near Frankfort. He was imprisoned from 1825 to 1828 for coining, though apparently on insufficient evidence, and in 1833 came to push his claims in Paris, where he was recognized as the dauphin by many persons formerly connected with the court of Louis XVI. Expelled from France in 1836, the day after bringing a suit against the duchess of Angoulême for the restitution of the dauphin’s private property, he lived in exile till his death at Delft on the 10th of August 1845, and his tomb was inscribed “Louis XVII., roi de France et de Navarre (Charles Louis, duc de Normandie).” The Dutch authorities who had inscribed on his death certificate the name of Charles Louis de Bourbon, duc de Normandie (Louis XVII.) permitted his son to bear the name de Bourbon, and when the family appealed in 1850-1851, and again in 1874, for the restitution of their civil rights as heirs of Louis XVI. no less an advocate than Jules Favre pleaded their cause. Of all the pretenders Naundorff has the best case. He was certainly not the Jew of Prussian Poland which his enemies declared him to be, and he has to this day a circle of devoted adherents. Since he was sincerely convinced of his own rights, it is surprising that he put forward no claim in 1814.

If the dauphin did escape, it seems probable that he perished shortly afterwards or lived in a safe obscurity. The account of the substitution in the Temple is well substantiated, even to the names of the substitutes. The curious imbroglio deceived royalists and republicans alike. Lady Atkyns was trying by every possible means to get the dauphin out of his prison when he was apparently already in safe hands, if not outside the Temple walls. A child was in fact delivered to her agents, but he was a deaf mute. That there was fraud, and complicated fraud, in the guardians of the dauphin may be taken as proved by a succession of writers from 1850 onwards, and more recently by Frédéric Barbey, who wisely attempts no ultimate solution. When the partisans of Richemont or Naundorff come to the post-Temple careers of their heroes, they become in most cases so uncritical as to be unconvincing.

The official version of the dauphin’s history as accepted under the Restoration was drawn up by Simien Despréaux in his uncritical Louis XVII. (1817), and is found, fortified by documents, in M. Eckard’s Mémoires historiques sur Louis XVII. (1817) and in A. de Beauchesne’s Louis XVII., sa vie, son agonie, sa mort. Captivité de la famille royale au Temple (2 vols., 1852, and many subsequent editions), containing copies of original documents, and essential to the study of the question, although its sentimental pictures of the boy martyr can no longer be accepted. L. de la Sicotière, “Les faux Louis XVII.,” in Revue des questions historiques (vol. xxxii., 1882), deals with the pretenders Jean Marie Hervagault, Mathurin Bruneau and the rest; see also Dr Cabanes, Les Morts mystérieuses de l’histoire (1901), and revised catalogue of the J. Sanford Saltus collection of Louis XVII. books (New York, 1908). Catherine Welch, in The Little Dauphin (1908) gives a résumé of the various sides of the question.

Madame Royale’s own account of the captivity of the Temple was first printed with additions and suppressions in 1817, and often subsequently, the best edition being that from her autograph text by G. Lenôtre, La Fille de Louis XVI., Marie Thérèse Charlotte de France, duchesse d’Angoulême, le Temple, l’échange, l’exil (1907). There are two collections of writings on the subject: Marie Thérèse de France, compiled (1852) by the marquis de Pastoret, and comprising beside the memoir written by Marie Thérèse herself, articles by M. de Montbel, Sainte-Beuve, J. Lemoine, La Guéronnière and extracts from Joseph Weber’s memoirs; and Mémoires de Marie Thérèse duchesse d’Angoulême, comprising extracts from the narratives of Charles Goret (Mon Témoignage, 1852), of C. F. Beaulieu (Mémoire adressée à la nation, 1795), of L. G. Michaud (Opinion d’un Français, 1795) and of Mme de Tourzel (Mémoires 1883). Cf. A. Lanne, La Sœur de Louis XVII., and the articles on “Madame Royale,” on the “Captivité de la famille royale au Temple” and on the “Mise en liberté de Madame” in M. Tourneux’s Bibliographie de l’histoire de Paris pendant la révolution française (vol. iv., 1906, and vol. i., 1890).

Naündorff.—For the case of Naündorff see his own narrative, Abrégé de l’histoire des infortunes du Dauphin (London, 1836; Eng. trans., 1838); also Modeste Gruau de la Barre, Intrigues dévoilées ou Louis XVII. ... (3 vols., Rotterdam, 1846-1848); O. Friedrichs, Correspondance intime et inédite de Louis XVII. (Naündorff) 1834-1838 (2 vols., 1904); Plaidoirie de Jules Favre devant la cour d’appel de Paris pour les héritiers de feu Charles-Guillaume Naündorff (1874); H. Provins, Le Dernier roi légitime de France (2 vols., the first of which consists of destructive criticism of Beauchesne and his followers, 1889); A. Lanne, “Louis XVII. et le secret de la Révolution,” Bulletin mensuel (1893 et seq.) of the Société des études sur la question Louis XVII., also La Légitimité (Bordeaux, Toulouse, 1883-1898). See further the article “Naündorff” in M. Tourneux, Bibl. de la ville de Paris pendant la Révolution, vol. iv. (1906).

Williams.—J. H. Hanson, The Lost Prince: Facts tending to prove the Identity of Louis XVII. of France and the Rev. Eleazer Williams (London and New York, 1854).

De Richemont.—Mémoires du duc de Normandie, fils de Louis XVI., écrits et publiés par lui-même (Paris, 1831), compiled, according to Quérard, by E. T. Bourg, called Saint Edme; Morin de Guérivière, Quelques souvenirs ... (Paris, 1832); and J. Suvigny, La Restauration convaincue ... ou preuves de l’existence du fils de Louis XVI. (Paris, 1851).

The widespread interest taken in Louis XVII. is shown by the fact that since 1905 a monthly periodical has appeared in Paris on this subject, entitled Revue historique de la question Louis XVII., also by the promised examination of the subject by the Société d’Histoire contemporaine.

(M. Br.)

1 F. A. Regnier de Jarjayes (1745-1822). See P. Gaulot, Un Complot sous la Terreur.

2 Jean, baron de Batz (1761-1822), attempted to carry off the dauphin in 1794. See G. Lenôtre, Un Conspirateur royaliste pendant la Terreur, le baron de Batz (1896).

3 Charlotte Walpole (c. 1785-1836), an English actress who married in 1779 Sir Edward Atkyns, and spent most of her life in France. She expended large sums in trying to secure the escape of the prisoners of the Temple. See F. Barbey, A Friend of Marie Antoinette (Eng. ed. 1906).

4 Antoine Simon (1736-1794) married Marie Jeanne Aladame, and belonged to the section of the Cordeliers. They owed their position to Anaxagoras Chaumette, procureur of the Commune, and to the fact that Simon had prevented one of the attempts of the baron de Batz. Simon was sent to the guillotine with Robespierre in 1794, and two years later Marie Jeanne entered a hospital for incurables in the rue de Sèvres, where she constantly affirmed the dauphin’s escape. She was secretly visited after the Restoration by the duchess of Angoulême. On the 16th of November 1816, she was interrogated by the police, who frightened her into silence about the supposed substitution of another child for the dauphin. She died in 1819. See G. Lenôtre, Vieilles maisons, vieux papiers (2nd series, 1903).

5 In a bulletin dated May 17-24, Paris, and enclosed by Francis Drake (June 17, 1794) at Milan to Lord Grenville, it is stated (Hist. MSS. Comm. Fortescue Papers at Dropmore, vol. ii. 576-577) that Robespierre in the night of 23-24 May fetched the king (the dauphin) from the Temple and took him to Meudon. “The fact is certain, although only known to the Committee of Public Safety. It is said to be ascertained that he was brought back to the Temple the night of 24-25th, and that this was a test to assure the ease of seizing him.” This police report at least serves to show the kind of rumour then current.

LOUIS XVIII. (Louis le Désiré) (1755-1824). Louis-Stanislas-Xavier, comte de Provence, third son of the dauphin Louis, son of Louis XV., and of Maria Josepha of Saxony, was born at Versailles on the 17th of November 1755. His education was supervised by the devout duc de la Vauguyon, but his own taste was for the writings of Voltaire and the encyclopaedists. On the 14th of May 1771 took place his marriage with Louise-Marie-Joséphine of Savoy, by whom he had no children. His position at court was uncomfortable, for though ambitious and conscious of possessing greater abilities than his brother (Louis XVI.), his scope for action was restricted; he consequently devoted his energies largely to intrigue, especially against Marie Antoinette, whom he hated.1 During the long absence of heirs to Louis XVI., “Monsieur,” as heir to the throne, courted popularity and took an active part in politics, but the birth of a dauphin (1781) was a blow to his ambitions.2 He opposed the revival of the parlements, wrote a number of political pamphlets,3 and at the Assembly of Notables presided, like the other princes of the blood, over a bureau, to which was given the name of the Comité des sages; he also advocated the double representation of the tiers. At the same time he cultivated literature, entertaining poets and writers both at the Luxembourg and at his château of Brunoy (see Dubois-Corneau, Le Comte de Provence à Brunoy, 1909), and gaining a reputation for wit by his verses and mots in the salon of the charming and witty comtesse de Balbi, one of Madame’s ladies, who had become his mistress,4 and till 1793 exerted considerable influence over him. He did not emigrate after the taking of the Bastille, but, possibly from motives of ambition, remained in Paris. Mirabeau thought at one time of making him chief minister in his projected constitutional government (see Corr. de Mirabeau et La Marck, ed. Bacourt, i. 434, 436, 442), but was disappointed by his caution and timidity. The affaire Favras (Dec. 1789) aroused great feeling against Monsieur, who was believed by many to have conspired with Favras, only to abandon him (see Lafayette’s Mems. and Corr. of Mirabeau). In June 1791, at the time of the flight to Varennes, Monsieur also fled by a different route, and, in company with the comte d’Avaray5—who subsequently replaced Mme de Balbi as his confidant, and largely influenced his policy during the emigration—succeeded in reaching Brussels, where he joined the comte d’Artois and proceeded to Coblenz, which now became the headquarters of the emigration.

Here, living in royal state, he put himself at the head of the counter-revolutionary movement, appointing ambassadors, soliciting the aid of the European sovereigns, and especially of Catherine II. of Russia. Out of touch with affairs in France and surrounded by violent anti-revolutionists, headed by Calonne and the comte d’Artois, he followed an entirely selfish policy, flouting the National Assembly (see his reply to the summons of the National Assembly, in Daudet, op. cit. i. 96), issuing uncompromising manifestoes (Sept. 1791, Aug. 1792, &c.), and obstructing in every way the representatives of the king and queen.6 After Valmy he had to retire to Hamm in Westphalia, where, on the death of Louis XVI., he proclaimed himself regent; from here he went south, with the idea of encouraging the royalist feeling in the south of France, and settled at Verona, where on the death of Louis XVII. (8th of June 1795) he took the title of Louis XVIII. At this time ended his liaison with Mme de Balbi, and the influence of d’Avaray reached its height. From this time onward his life is a record of constant wanderings, negotiations and conspiracies. In April 1796 he joined Condé’s army on the German frontier, but was shortly requested to leave the country, and accepted the hospitality of the duke of Brunswick at Blanckenberg till 1797, when, this refuge being no longer open to him, the emperor Paul I. permitted him to settle at Mittau in Courland, where he stayed till 1801. All this time he was in close communication with the royalists in France, but was much embarrassed by the conflicting policy pursued by the comte d’Artois from England, and was largely at the mercy of corrupt and dishonest agents.7 At Mittau was realized his cherished plan of marrying Madame Royale, daughter of Louis XVI., to the duc d’Angoulême, elder son of the comte d’Artois. From Mittau, too, was sent his well-known letter to Bonaparte (1799) calling upon him to play the part of Monk, a proposal contemptuously refused (E. Daudet, Hist. de l’émigration, ii. 371, 436), though Louis in turn declined to accept a pension from Bonaparte, and later, in 1803, though his fortunes were at their lowest ebb, refused to abdicate at his suggestion and accept an indemnity.

Suddenly expelled from Mittau in 1801 by the capricious Paul I., Louis made his way, in the depth of winter, to Warsaw, where he stayed for three years. All this time he was trying to convert France to the royalist cause, and had a “conseil royal” in Paris, founded at the end of 1799 by Royer-Collard, Montesquiou and Clermont-Gallerande, the actions of which were much impeded by the activity of the rival committee of the comte d’Artois (see E. Daudet, op. cit. ii., and Remâcle, Bonaparte et les Bourbons, Paris, 1899), but after 1800, and still more after the failure of the royalist conspiracy of Cadoudal, Pichegru and Moreau, followed by the execution of the duc d’Enghien (March 1804), and the assumption by Napoleon of the title of emperor (May 1804), the royalist cause appeared quite hopeless. In September 1804 Louis met the comte d’Artois at Calmar in Sweden, and they issued a protest against Napoleon’s action, but being warned that he must not return to Poland, he gained permission from Alexander I. again to retire to Mittau. After Tilsit, however (1807), he was again forced to depart, and took refuge in England, where he stayed first at Gosfield in Essex, and afterwards (1809 onwards) at Hartwell in Buckinghamshire. In 1810 his wife died, and in 1811 d’Avaray died, his place as favourite being taken by the comte de Blacas.8 After Napoleon’s defeats in 1813 the hopes of the royalists revived, and Louis issued a fresh manifesto, in which he promised to recognize the results of the Revolution. Negotiations were also opened with Bernadotte, who seemed willing to support his cause, but was really playing for his own hand.

In March 1814 the Allies entered Paris, and thanks to Talleyrand’s negotiations the restoration of the Bourbons was effected, Louis XVIII. entering Paris on the 2nd of May 1814, after issuing the declaration of St Ouen, in which he promised to grant the nation a constitution (octroyer une charte). He was now nearly sixty, wearied by adversity, and a sufferer from gout and obesity. But though clear-sighted, widely read and a good diplomatist, his impressionable and sentimental nature made him too subject to personal and family influences. His concessions to the reactionary and clerical party of the émigrés, headed by the comte d’Artois and the duchesse d’Angoulême, aroused suspicions of his loyalty to the constitution, the creation of his Maison militaire alienated the army, and the constant presence of Blacas made the formation of a united ministry impossible. After the Hundred Days, during which the king was forced to flee to Ghent, the dismissal of Blacas was made one of the conditions of his second restoration. On the 8th of July he again entered Paris, “in the baggage train of the allied armies,” as his enemies said, but in spite of this was received with the greatest enthusiasm9 by a people weary of wars and looking for constitutional government. He was forced to retain Talleyrand and Fouché in his first ministry, but took the first opportunity of ridding himself of them when the elections of 1815 assured him of a strong royalist majority in the chamber (the chambre introuvable, a name given it by Louis himself). At this time he came into contact with the young comte (afterwards duc) Decazes, prefect of the police under Fouché, and minister of police in Richelieu’s ministry, who now became his favourite and gained his entire confidence (see E. Daudet, Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes). Having obtained a ministry in which he could trust, having as members the duc de Richelieu and Decazes, the king now gave it his loyal support and did his best to shield his ministers from the attacks of the royal family. In September 1816, alarmed at the violence of the chambre introuvable, he was persuaded to dissolve it. An attempt on the part of the Ultras to regain their ascendancy over the king, by conniving at the sudden return of Blacas from Rome to Paris,10 ended in failure.

The events and ministerial changes of Louis XVIII.’s reign are described under the article France: History, but it may be said here that the king’s policy throughout was one of prudence and common sense. His position was more passive than active, and consisted in giving his support as far as possible to the ministry of the day. While Decazes was still in power, the king’s policy to a large extent followed his, and was rather liberal and moderate, but after the assassination of the duc de Berry (1820), when he saw that Decazes could no longer carry on the government, he sorrowfully acquiesced in his departure, showered honours upon him, and transferred his support to Richelieu, the head of the new ministry. In the absence of Decazes a new favourite was found to amuse the king’s old age, Madame du Cayla (Zoé Talon, comtesse du Cayla), a protégée of the vicomte Sosthène de la Rochefoucauld and consequently a creature of the Ultras. As the king became more and more infirm, his power of resistance to the intrigues of the Ultras became weaker. The birth of a posthumous son to the duc de Berry (Sept. 1820), the death of Napoleon (5th of May 1821) and the resignation of Richelieu left him entirely in their hands, and after Villèle had formed a ministry of a royalist character the comte d’Artois was associated with the government, which passed more and more out of the king’s hands. He died on the 16th of September 1824, worn out in body, but still retaining flashes of his former clear insight and scepticism. The character of Louis XVIII. may be summed up in the words of Bonaparte, quoted by Sorel (L’Europe et la Rév. fr. viii. 416 footnote), “C’est Louis XVI. avec moins de franchise et plus d’esprit.” He had all the Bourbon characteristics, especially their love of power, combined with a certain nobility of demeanour, and a consciousness of his dignity as king. But his nature was cold, unsympathetic and calculating, combined with a talent for intrigue, to which was added an excellent memory and a ready wit. An interesting judgment of him is contained in Queen Victoria’s Letters, vol. i., in a letter of Leopold I., king of the Belgians, to the queen before her accession, dated the 18th of November 1836, “Poor Charles X. is dead.... History will state that Louis XVIII. was a most liberal monarch, reigning with great mildness and justice to his end, but that his brother, from his despotic and harsh disposition, upset all the other had done and lost the throne. Louis XVIII. was a clever, hard-hearted man, shackled by no principle, very proud and false. Charles X. an honest man, a kind friend,” &c. &c. This seems fairly just as a personal estimate, though it does not do justice to their respective political rôles.

Bibliography.—There is no trustworthy or complete edition of the writings and correspondence of Louis XVIII. The Mémoires de Louis XVIII. recueillis et mis en ordre par M. le duc de D. ... (12 vols., Paris, 1832-1833) are compiled by Lamothe-Langon, a well-known compiler of more or less apocryphal memoirs. From the hand of Louis XVIII. are: Relation d’un voyage à Bruxelles et à Coblentz, 1791 (Paris, 1823, with dedication to d’Avaray); and Journal de Marie-Thérèse de France, duchesse d’Angoulême, corrigé et annoté par Louis XVIII., ed. Imbert de St Amand (Paris, 1896). Some of his letters are contained in collections, such as Lettres d’Artwell; correspondance politique et privée de Louis XVIII., roi de France (Paris, 1830; letters addressed to d’Avaray); Lettres et instructions de Louis XVIII. au comte de Saint-Priest, ed. Barante (Paris, 1845); Talleyrand et Louis XVIII., corr. pendant le congrès de Vienne, 1814-1815, ed. Pallain (1881; trans., 2 vols., 1881); see also the corr. of Castlereagh, Metternich, J. de Maistre, the Wellington Dispatches, &c., and such collections as Corr. diplomatique de Pozzo di Borgo avec le comte de Nesselrode (2 vols., 1890-1897), the correspondence of C. de Rémusat, Villèle, &c. The works of E. Daudet are of the greatest importance, and based on original documents; the chief are: La Terreur Blanche (Paris, 1878); Hist. de la restauration 1814-1830 (1882); Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes (1899); Hist. de l’émigration, in three studies: (i.) Les Bourbons et la Russie (1886), (ii.) Les Émigrés et la seconde coalition (1886), (iii.) Coblenz, 1789-1793 (1890). Developed from these with the addition of much further material is his Hist. de l’émigration (3 vols., 1904-1907). Also based on original documents is E. Romberg and A. Malet, Louis XVIII. et les cent-jours à Gand (1898). See also G. Stenger, Le Retour des Bourbons (1908); Cte. L. de Remâcle, Bonaparte et les Bourbons. Relations secrèts des agents du cte. de Provence sous le consulat (Paris, 1899). For various episodes, see Vicomte de Reiset, La Comtesse de Balbi (Paris, 1908; contains a long bibliography, chiefly of memoirs concerning the emigration, and is based on documents); J. B. H. R. Capefigue, La Comtesse du Cayla (Paris, 1866); J. Turquan, Les Favorites de Louis XVIII. (Paris, 1900); see also the chief memoirs of the period, such as those of Talleyrand, Chateaubriand, Guizot, duc de Broglie, Villèle, Vitrolles, Pasquier, the comtesse de Boigne (ed. Nicoullaud, Paris, 1907), the Vicomte L. F. Sosthène de la Rochefoucauld (15 vols., Paris, 1861-1864); and the writings of Benjamin Constant, Chateaubriand, &c.

General Works.—See the histories of France, the Emigration, the Restoration and especially the very full bibliographies to chapters i., ii. and iii. of Cambridge Modern History, and Lavisse and Rambaud, Hist. générale, vol. x.

(C. B. P.)

1 See Arneth and Geffroy, Corr. de Marie-Thérèse avec le comte de Mercy-Argenteau, vol. i., “Mercy to Maria Theresa, June 22nd, 1771,” also i. 261, ii. 186, 352, 393. Marie Antoinette says (ii. 393): “... à un caractère très faible, il joint une marche souterraine, et quelquefois très basse.”

2 See his letters to Gustavus III. of Sweden in A. Geffroy, Gustave III et la cour de France, vol. ii. appendix.

3 Two pamphlets at least are ascribed to him: “Les Mannequins, conte ou histoire, comme l’on voudra” (against Turgot; anon., Paris, 1776) and “Description historique d’un monstre symbolique pris vivant sur les bords du lac Fagua, près de Santa-Fé, par les soins de Francisco Xaveiro de Neunris” (against Calonne; Paris, 1784) (A. Debidour in La Grande Encyclopédie).

4 It has frequently been alleged that his relations with Mme de Balbi, and indeed with women generally, were of a platonic nature. De Reiset (La Comtesse de Balbi, pp. 152-161) produces evidence to disprove this assertion.

5 Antoine-Louis-François de Bésiade, comte, afterwards duc, d’Avaray. In spite of his loyalty and devotion, the effect of his influence on Louis XVIII. may be gathered from a letter of J. de Maistre to Blacas, quoted by E. Daudet, Hist. de l’émigration, ii. 11: “celui qui n’a pu dans aucun pays aborder aucun homme politique sans l’aliéner n’est pas fait pour les affaires.”

6 See Klinckowström, Le Comte de Fersen et la cour de France. Fersen says (i. 7), “Monsieur ferait mieux seul, mais il est entièrement subjugué par l’autre” (i.e. the comte d’Artois, who was in turn under the influence of Calonne). See Daudet, op. cit. vol. i.

7 See E. Daudet, La Conjuration de Pichegru (Paris, 1901).

8 Pierre-Louis-Casimir, comte (afterwards duc) de Blacas d’Aulps, was as rigidly royalist as d’Avaray, but more able. E. Daudet, Hist. de l’émigration, i. 458, quotes a judgment of him by J. de Maistre: “Il est né homme d état et ambassadeur.”

9 See account by Decazes in E. Daudet, Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes, pp. 48-49, and an interesting “secret and confidential” letter of Castlereagh to Liverpool (July 8, 1815) in the unpublished Foreign Office records: “The king sent for the duke and me this evening to the Thuilleries.... We found him in a state of great emotion and exaltation at the reception he had met with from his subjects, which appears to have been even more animated than on his former entrance. Indeed, during the long audience to which we were admitted, it was almost impossible to converse, so loud were the shouts of the people in the Thuilleries Gardens, which were full, though it was then dark. Previous to the king’s dismissing us, he carried the duke and me to the open window. Candles were then brought, which enabled the people to see the king with the duke by his side. They ran from all parts of the Gardens, and formed a solid mass of an immense extent, rending the air with acclamations. The town is very generally illuminated, and I understand from men who have traversed the principal streets that every demonstration of joy was manifested by the inhabitants.”

10 It is as yet not proved that Blacas returned from his embassy in response to a summons from the Ultras. But whether it was on his own initiative or not, there can be no doubt as to the hopes which they built on his arrival (see Daudet, Louis XVIII. et le duc Decazes).

LOUIS I. (1326-1382), called “the great,” king of Hungary and Poland, was the third son of Charles Robert, king of Hungary, and Elizabeth, daughter of the Polish king, Ladislaus Lokietek. In 1342 he succeeded his father as king of Hungary and was crowned at Székesfehérvár on the 21st of July with great enthusiasm. Though only sixteen he understood Latin, German and Italian as well as his mother tongue. He owed his relatively excellent education to the care of his mother, a woman of profound political sagacity, who was his chief counsellor in diplomatic affairs during the greater part of his long reign. Italian politics first occupied his attention. As a ruler of a rising great power in search of a seaboard he was the natural adversary of the Venetian republic, which already aimed at making the Adriatic a purely Venetian sea and resented the proximity of the Magyars in Dalmatia. The first trial of strength began in 1345, when the city of Zara placed herself under the protection of Hungary and was thereupon invested by the Venetians. Louis fought a battle beneath the walls of Zara (July 1st, 1346), which has been immortalized by Tintoretto, but was defeated and compelled to abandon the city to the republic. The struggle was renewed eleven years later when Louis, having formed, with infinite trouble, a league of all the enemies of Venice, including the emperor, the Habsburgs, Genoa and other Italian towns, attacked his maritime rival with such vigour that she sued for peace, and by the treaty of Zara (February 18th, 1358) ceded most of the Dalmatian towns and renounced the title of duke of Dalmatia and Croatia, hitherto borne by the doge. Far more important than the treaty itself was the consequent voluntary submission of the independent republic of Ragusa to the suzerainty of the crown of St Stephen the same year, Louis, in return for an annual tribute of 500 ducats and a fleet, undertaking to defend Ragusa against all her enemies. Still more glorious for Hungary was Louis’s third war with Venice (1378-1381), when he was again aided by the Genoese. At an early stage of the contest Venice was so hardly pressed that she offered to do homage to Hungary for all her possessions. But her immense resources enabled her to rally her forces, and peace was finally concluded between all the powers concerned at the congress of Turin (1381), Venice virtually surrendering Dalmatia to Louis and undertaking to pay him an annual tribute of 7000 ducats. The persistent hostility of Venice is partially attributable to her constant fear lest Louis should inherit the crown of Naples and thus threaten her trade and her sea-power from two sides simultaneously. Louis’s younger brother Andrew had wedded Joanna, granddaughter and heiress of old King Robert of Naples, on whose death, in 1343, she reigned in her own right, refused her consort any share in the government, and is very strongly suspected of having secured his removal by assassination on the night of the 19th of September 1345. She then married Prince Louis of Taranto, and strong in the double support of the papal court at Avignon and of the Venetian republic (both of whom were opposed to Magyar aggrandisement in Italy) questioned the right of Louis to the two Sicilies, which he claimed as the next heir of his murdered brother. In 1347, and again in 1350, Louis occupied Naples and craved permission to be crowned king, but the papal see was inexorable and he was compelled to withdraw. The matter was not decided till 1378 when Joanna, having made the mistake of recognizing the antipope Clement VII., was promptly deposed and excommunicated in favour of Prince Charles of Durazzo, who had been brought up at the Hungarian court. Louis, always inexhaustible in expedients, determined to indemnify himself in the north for his disappointments in the south. With the Habsburgs, Hungary’s natural rivals in the west, Louis generally maintained friendly relations. From 1358 to 1368, however, the restless ambition of Rudolph, duke of Austria, who acquired Tirol and raised Vienna to the first rank among the cities of Europe, caused Louis great uneasiness. But Louis always preferred arbitration to war, and the peace congresses of Nagyszombat (1360) and of Pressburg (1360) summoned by him adjusted all the outstanding differences between the central European powers. Louis’s diplomacy, moreover, was materially assisted by his lifelong alliance with his uncle, the childless Casimir the Great of Poland, who had appointed him his successor; and on Casimir’s death Louis was solemnly crowned king of Poland at Cracow (Nov. 17, 1370). This personal union of the two countries was more glorious than profitable. Louis could give little attention to his unruly Polish subjects and was never very happy among them. Immovably entrenched behind their privileges, they rendered him only the minimum of service; but he compelled their representatives, assembled at Kassa, to recognize his daughter Maria and her affianced husband, Count Sigismund of Brandenburg, as their future king and queen by locking the gates of the city and allowing none to leave it till they had consented to his wishes (1374). Louis is the first European monarch who came into collision with the Turks. He seems to have arrested their triumphant career (c. 1372), and the fine church erected by him at Maria-Zell is a lasting memorial of his victories. From the first he took a just view of the Turkish peril, but the peculiar local and religious difficulties of the whole situation in the Balkans prevented him from dealing with it effectually (see Hungary, History). Louis died suddenly at Nagyszombat on the 10th of September 1382. He left two daughters Maria and Jadwiga (the latter he destined for the throne of Hungary) under the guardianship of his widow, the daughter of the valiant ban of Bosnia, Stephen Kotromaníc, whom he married in 1353, and who was in every way worthy of him.