503 
M A S Q U E; 
and without the name of place or printer. It is therein 
laid, “ Louis XIV. was born at St. Germain en Laye, on 
the fth of September, 1638, about noon ; and the illuf- 
trious priToner, know by the appellation of the Iron Matk, 
■was born the fame day, while Louis XIII. was at fupper. 
The king and the cardinal, fearing that the pretentions of 
a twin-brother might one day be employed to renew thofe 
civil-wars with which France had been fo often afflifted, 
cautioufly concealed his birth, and lent him away to be 
brought up privately. Having but an imperfect know¬ 
ledge of the circumftances that followed, I (ball fay no¬ 
thing more, for fear of committing errors ; but I firmly 
believe the faff I have mentioned ; and time will proba¬ 
bly prove to my reader, that I have ground for what I have 
advanced.” 
This opinion became more noticed after the republi¬ 
cation of a work called Memoirts du Marechal Due de Riche¬ 
lieu, written by the abbe Soulavie ; concerning which it 
may be proper to premife, that the duke of Richelieu, foil 
of the marechal, difavowed this work, while the abbe Sou¬ 
lavie, who had been employed by the marechal, infilled on 
the authenticity of his papers. He informs us, that the 
duke of Richelieu was the lover of Mile, de Valois, daugh¬ 
ter of the regent duke of Orleans, and afterwards duchefs 
of Modena, who in return was pafiionately fond of him ; 
that the regent had fomething more than a paternal af¬ 
fection for his daughter; and that, though (he held his 
fentiments in abhorrence, the duke of Richelieu made 
life of her influence with her father to difeover the fe- 
cret of the prifoner with the mafic; that the regent, who 
had always oblerved the moll profound filence on this 
fubjeft, was at laft perfuaded to intrull her with a manu- 
feript, which file immediately fent to her lover, who took 
a copy of it. This inanufeript is fuppofed to have been 
written by a gentleman on his death-bed, who had been 
the governor of the prifoner. The following is an ex¬ 
tract of it, from what the abbe Soulavie has told us. 
The, birth of the prifoner happened in the evening of 
the 5th of September, 1638, in prefence of the chancellor, 
the bilhop of Meaux, the author of the manufeript, a mid¬ 
wife named Peronette, and a fieur Honorat. This cir- 
cumltance greatly difturbed the king’s mind : he obferved, 
that the Salique Law had made no provifion for fuch a 
cafe ; and that it was even the opinion of fome, that the 
laft born wasthefirft conceived, and therefore had a prior 
right to the other. By the advice of Richelieu, it was 
therefore refolved to conceal his birth, but to preferve his 
life, in cafe by the death of his brother it fiiould be ne- 
ceflary to avow him. A declaration was drawn up, and 
fignedand fworn to by all prefent, in which every circum- 
Itance was mentioned, and feveral marks on his body de¬ 
ferred. This document, being fealed by the chancellor 
with the royal feal, was delivered to the king ; and all were 
commanded and took an oath never to fpeak on the fub- 
jeCf,' not even in private and among themfelves. The 
child was delivered to the care of Peronette the mid¬ 
wife, to be under the direCiion of cardinal Richelieu, at 
whofe death the charge devolved to cardinal Mazarine. 
Mazarine appointed the author of the manufeript his go¬ 
vernor, and intruded to him the care of his education. 
But, as the prifoner was extremely attached to madame 
Peronette, and Ihe equally fo to him, the remained with 
him till her death. His governor carried him to his houfe 
in Burgundy, where he paid the greateft attention to his 
education. As the prifoner grew tip, he became impa¬ 
tient to difeover his birth, and often importuned his go¬ 
vernor on that fubject. His curiofity had been roufed by 
obferying that meifengers from the court frequently ar¬ 
rived at the houfe; and a box, containing letters from 
the queen and the cardinal, having one day been inad¬ 
vertently left out, he opened it, and faw enough to guefs 
at the fecret. From that time he became thoughtful and 
melancholy ; which (fays the author) I could not then 
account for. He Ihortly after aficed me to get him a por¬ 
trait of the late and prefent king ; but I put him off by 
faying that I could not procure any that were good. He 
then defired me to let him go to Dijon; which I have 
known fince was with an intention of feeing a portrait of 
the king there, and of going fecretly to St. John de Luz y 
where the court then was on occafion of the marriage with 
the infanta. He was beautiful ; and love helped him to 
accomplifti his withes. Hehad captivated the afteflions of 
a young houfekeeper, who procured him a portrait of the- 
king. It might have ferved for either of the brothers; and 
the difeovery put him into fo violent a patlion, that be im¬ 
mediately came to me with the portrait in his hand, fay¬ 
ing, Voila man frere, et voila qui je fuis , fliowing me at the 1 
fame time a letter of cardinal Mazarine that he had taken 
out of the box. Upon this dilcovery, his governor inw 
mediately fent an exprefs to court to communicate what 
had happened, and to defire new inllruftions ; the confe- 
quence of which was, that the governor and the young' 
prince under his care were arrefted and confined.” This* 
memoir, real or fiffitious, concludes with faying, “I have; 
luft’ered with him in our common prifon : I am now fum- 
moived to appear before my Judge on high ; and for the 
peace of my foul I cannot but make this declaration, 
which may point out to him the means of freeing himfelf 
from his prelent ignominious fituation, in cafe the king 1 
his brother fiiould die without children. Can an extorted 
oath compel me to obferve fecrecy on a thing fo incredible, 
but which ought to be left on record to polterity ?” 
3. The third opinion is, that he was a ion of the queerv 
by cardinal Mazarine, born about a year after the death of 
her hufband LouisXIII. that he was brought up fecretly? 
and that loon after the death of the cardinal, which hap- 
pened on the 9th of March, 1661, he was fent toPignerol. To 
this account father Grift’et (Traite de la Verite de l’Hiftoire) 
objeffs, “ that it was needlefs to mafk a face that was tin* 
kn own ; and therefore that this opinion does not merit 
difeuflion.” But in anfwer it has been oblerved, That 
the prifoner might ftrongly refemble Louis XIV. which 
would be a fufficient realon to have him mafked. This 
opinion is fuppofed to have been that entertained by Vol- 
taire, who afierts his thorough knowledge of the fecret, 
though he declined being altogether explicit. Tile abbe 
Soulavie, author of Memoirs ot the Marechal de Richelieu, 
fpeaking on this fubjtcl, lays, “That-he once obferved' 
to the marechal, that he certainly had the means of being; 
informed who the prifoner was ; that it even feemed that 
he had told Voltaire, who durlt not venture to publifh; 
the fecret; and that he at lalt aficed him, whether he was 
not the elder brother of Louis XIV. bom without' the 
knowledge of Louis XIII ? That the marechal feemed 
embarralied ; but afterwards faid, that lie was neither the 
baltard-brother of Louis XIV. nor the duke of Monmouth, 
nor the count of Vermandois, nor the duke of Beaufort, 
as different authors had advanced ; that their conjectures- 
were nothing but reveries ; but added, that they however 
had related many circumftances that were true; that in. 
fact an order was given to put the prifoner to death if he 
difeovered himlelf; and that he finifhed the con verfation 
by faying, All I can tell you on the fubjefl is, that the; 
prifoner was not of fuch confequence when he died at the 
beginning of the prefent century as lie had been at the 
beginning of the reign of Louis XIV. and that he was- 
Unit up lor important reafons of ltate.” 1 he abbe Sou¬ 
lavie tells us, that lie wrote dow n what had been faid, and 
gave it to the marechal to read, who corrected lome ex-' 
prefilons. The abbe having propofed lome further quel- 
tions, he anfwered; “ Read what Voltaire publifhed laft. 
on the fubjeft of the pnloner w ith the malk, efpeciaily at 
the end, and refleft on it.” The palfage of Voltaire al¬ 
luded to is as follows : “ The man with the mafic (fays he) 
is an enigma of which every one would guels the meaning.. 
Some have faid that it was the duke ot Beaufort; , but the' 
duke of Beaufort was killed by the Turks in the defence of 
Candy in 1669, and the prifoner with the mafic was at Pig- 
nerol in 1661. Befides, how could the duke of Beaufort 
have been arrefted in the midft of his army,.and brought; 
to 
