The king who never reigned; being memoirs upon Louis XVII

Front matter

o

^0

■>UnS

Preface

One of the characteristics of our time seems to be curiosity, and especially curiosity about matters of minor importance. Are newspapers responsible for this fact ? Or is curiosity answerable for the rage for interviews, tit-bits of information and articles upon topical subjects now so prevalent ? Honours are probably divided; at all events the origin is of little importance.

This curiosity concerning past events has helped to insure success to the numerous "Recollections" and " Memoirs " which have been, and are now being, published. The memorialist of old days was a reporter, though he knew it not, for did he not note down daily events and show us celebrities in their homes ? And if he was sometimes biassed in his opinions or only told half the truth, after all he was not unlike his confrere of to-day.

Another reason for this success is the fact that these memoirs are often quite as dramatic and as exciting as the modern novel ; they even possess one distinct advantage, because they are usually true or partly true. Now most readers, now-adays, love realistic details and what they are pleased to call " dramas in real life."

vi PKEFACE

And thus the taste for history, at least for the history of unimportant events and for amusing anecdotes, such popular subjects for conversation and discussion, became universal. But at the same time, we must confess that many errors and false reports were circulated from time to time by partymen and unscrupulous politicians.

How, then, can we satisfy this taste for the private history of past centuries while strictly keeping to the truth ? This question has been answered by those well-known scholars, MM. Maurice Vitrac and Arnould Galopin. Having chosen a celebrated event or personage, they consult some contemporary authority ; perhaps they ask the actor himself to make his confession, which confession they verify by other contemporary evidence and complete by numerous documents for which, during the last thirty years, critics have been searching our libraries and archives. And that is not all. Old engravings have been examined, the oldest and rarest have been taken from the portfolios in which they have lain for so many years. And thus, these contemporary drawings, by placing before our eyes the scenery, costumes and gestures of those days, give life and animation to the picture.

Such is the idea of MM. Maurice Vitrac and Arnould Galopin. They have already realized this scheme in a particularly happy manner in a series of volumes upon " Fouche,'' " La Famille Royale au

PREFACE vii

Temple,'' " La RegenceT " Sous la Terreur^ " 1814^' " Madame de Pompadour,'' " L' Imperatrice Josephine," " Le Due de Lauzun," etc. We wait impatiently for the continuation of this amusing representation of past events by " Memoirs," engravings and old secrets now revealed for the first time.

Jules Lemaitre

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

To face page

Frontispiece

LOUIS XVII {^from a German print)

LOUIS XVI ....

THE SEPARATION OF LOUIS XVI FROM HIS FAMILY

LOUIS XVII AT THE AGE OF EIGHT

MARIE-ANTOINETTE BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY TRIBUNAL .....

MADAME ELIZABETH AT THE AGE OF TEN

THE INVASION OF THE HOTEL DE VILLE

PELLETAN .

NAUNDORFF

THE TEMPLE PRISON

CHARLES X

MARIE-ANTOINETTE

ANTOINE SIMON .

LA DUCHESSE d'aNGOULEME

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE .

100 IIO

178 232 268 298

VUl

Introduction

The work which we now pubHsh contains two very distinct and, we might almost say, opposite parts.

The first part comprises Eckard's Memoirs upon the captivity and death of Louis XVII, while the second part is composed of NaundoriFs Recollections. It may be as well to explain why we chose these two works.

Although Eckard's book is no longer very new, it is extremely valuable. Historians who, from time to time, have written about Louis XVII, quote largely from this work ; we may say that these memoirs have formed the basis for all ulterior researches. And it could hardly be otherwise. For Eckard was not content with searching and consulting printed documents and manuscripts treating of this subject ; but he also interrogated numerous survivors of the revolutionary epoch, and thus he learnt, from those qualified to inform him, many details which, but for him, would never have been known. In order to be just, we must confess that, as time went on, several other historians added to the original foundation ; and

X INTRODUCTION

the works of De Beauchesne, Chantelauze and La Sicotiere contributed in no small measure to the history of the Dauphin, Louis XVII. We are enabled by numerous notes to complete, as much as is necessary, Eckard's text. Thus completed, a new edition of Eckard's Memoirs worthily represents the monument erected by eminent historians to the memory of the child in the Temple. These historians, and De Beauchesne in especial, have shown marvellous ingenuity in their researches, and have made use of first-class material. We can see that they had but one object in view, and that object was to search patiently for the truth ; and they were aided in this sometimes ungrateful task by their deep affection and pity for this fair-haired child whose last years were so cruelly embittered, and who, familiar with sorrow and already weary of life, sank into the grave at the early age of ten years.

The first portion of our work comprises the life of the Dauphin written by historians who only relate established facts and admit of nothing which has not been proved by reliable documents. This history is scornfully termed " official " by those authors who declare that the little prisoner escaped and survived the cruel treatment to which he had been subjected. If, by this, they mean that the most eminent historians of all nationalities, holding the most opposite opinions, have always declared such an escape impossible, and

INTRODUCTION xi

that Naundorff and the Dauphin were not the same person, they are right. But we must be just towards the partisans of the theory of escape and survival. Some of these authors have expended an enormous amount of labour, and, in order to sustain their thesis, have tried to rewrite the history of France since the Revolution. Their efforts, however, have not met with all the success expected by them ; after nearly half-a-century of labour they have been unable to produce one single historical proof to support their assertions. Even in a land where " veiled ladies " ^ still find people sufficiently credulous to believe their statements, these historians have met with few supporters. They have failed in their task. Why ? Because, even if truth had been on their side, their method of writing history was too faulty. Their judgment was doubly erroneous. They thought that, in order to discover the truth, they need only collect second or third hand evidence : volumes of valueless evidence gain nothing by being placed in juxtaposition, thus : + = 0. They finally agreed to consider the theory of escape as hypothetical, and endeavoured to prove that history could furnish many examples of such escapes. Now, it is a scientific principle that a hypothesis only becomes unconfutable when it is confirmed by facts. However, this method of reasoning,

^ An allusion to the celebrated " veiled lady " of the Dreyfus case. — Translator's note.

xii INTRODUCTION

applicable in natural science, is inapplicable in historical matters ; for on one hand historical facts do not lend themselves to experiments, and on the other hand they lack the rigidity of physical realities. And so, although we acknowledge the efforts of the naundorffistes^ many of whom are thoroughly sincere and disinterested, we think it best to republish NaundorfFs Memoirs. These memoirs form the second portion of our volume. We shall read, as related by himself, the life of the false Dauphin from 1795 to 1830. We consider that these memoirs prove the fallacy of NaundorfF's cause.

Besides the material impossibility of escape as related by him, we shall read the account of NaundoriFs life from 1795, date of the pretended escape, until 18 10, when he appeared in Berlin. No novelist could be so utterly wanting in imagination as to write such a ludicrous tale. No one could be credulous enough to believe this grotesque narration of peregrinations, maladies and imprisonment in mysterious and unknown places. It is inadmissible that a man can forget his own history from his tenth until his twentyfifth year. Naundorjff evidently wished to say nothing concerning this period of his existence. And again, we can and we do notice in his improbable narrative several gaps, incongruities and contradictions. If Naundorff invented these childish tales, if he voluntarily left in the shade

INTRODUCTION xiii

that period of his life dating from his escape until his reappearance, it was because he did not knowenough of the history and the current events of that period to be able to concoct his romance ; he knew nothing of La Vendee, although he declared that he had been there, and he knew a great deal about Italy, where he had probably lived for some time. We find that, when forced to rely upon his own imaginative faculties, he can only invent ridiculous falsehoods. This fact alone would condemn the whole affair, even if we could persuade ourselves to believe in the story of his escape, notoriously false and less ingenious than many of the tales invented by the twenty-five false Dauphins who, from time to time, endeavoured to usurp this same role.

Maurice Vitrac and Arnould Galopin