as we have seen in the preceding chapter, it was during the reign of francis i. that duels became multiplied, both in the french dominions, and in their armies employed upon foreign service. the influence of the monarch upon his court, and of that court upon the nation, has ever been all-powerful in that country, until the people knew that they were something. we have seen the potato, after being considered by the whole country as only food fit for swine, introduced into fashionable, and thence into general consumption, after louis xiv. had appeared in court with a nosegay of its flowers at his button-hole.
the gasconading challenge sent by francis to charles, although it must have been fully appreciated by reasoning people, acted with electric enthusiasm on the nation; and if a king thought it incumbent on his honour to seek satisfaction for having been accused of asserting a falsehood, 110 how much more urgent did it become for subjects to draw their swords upon the slightest contradiction that could give umbrage to the phantom of chivalric honour? moreover, it had been currently reported, and of course confirmed by the courtiers, that this monarch, having considered himself offended by the count of saxony, then on a visit at his court, had taken him aside in a hunting excursion, without any witness being present to compromise his future safety, and proposed a single combat, which the count very wisely declined.
francis, although he not only tolerated, but approved of duelling, was jealous of the right of giving it his sanction, and was much displeased if a challenge was sent without his knowledge. thus de cipsière was obliged to absent himself from the louvre for a considerable time, for having presumed to send his compliments to d’audoin by vicomte gourdon, and to inform him that he was going to hear mass at the church of st. paul, where if m. d’audoin would attend at the same time, they would afterwards take a walk into the country by the porte st. antoine. several duels during this reign may almost be considered as judicial combats, since they took place in the presence of the sovereign, who thus constituted himself an arbiter.
the reign of francis might have been one of gallantry and of pleasure; and there are not 111 wanting even ladies who, in the present day, look upon its profligacies and their ferocious results as noble deeds,12 the effects of chivalric devotion. i must confess that, in looking over its annals, i can find nothing remarkable, except an outrageous breach of all morality and decorum, and a wanton waste of human blood.
the miserable successor of this prince, henry ii, whose reign was ushered in by the disgraceful duel between jarnac and la chasteneraye, which i have already related, encouraged duelling by his want of energy; the princes of the blood followed the general example: and we find the prince charles, brother to the duke de bourbon montpensier, fighting with d’andelot, brother of the admiral coligny, at a hunting party.
it was during this reign that a singular duel 112 took place between a youth of the name of chateauneuf, and his guardian lachesnaye, an old man of eighty. the champions met at the isle louviers, the subject of the dispute being a lawsuit concerning the minor’s property. chateauneuf asked the old gentleman, if there was any truth in the reports circulated, that he had made use of disrespectful language concerning him; which the other positively denied on the word of a gentleman. this assertion satisfied the youth; but the old man would not let the matter rest. “you may be satisfied,” he replied, “but that is more than i am: and, since you have given me the trouble of coming here, we must fight. what would all those folks say, who have done us the honour of collecting to see us on both sides of the river, if they found that we came here to talk instead of acting? our honour is concerned; let us therefore begin.” both were armed with swords and daggers; when lachesnaye exclaimed, “ah! paillard! tu es cuirassé!” which we might translate into modern phraseology, “you varmint! you have a cuirass on. “ah! je t’aurai bien autrement!”—“you shall catch it in another manner!” and forthwith made his cut and thrust at the face and throat; an attack which by no means disconcerted the young combatant, who very quietly ran the old gentleman through the body.
the youth of those gallant times were not 113 very punctilious when they were less successful than chateauneuf, as appears in the following adventure:—
the king, being out at a stag-hunt in the wood of vincennes, accompanied by the nephew of marshal st. andré, this youth sought a quarrel with an elderly gentleman of the name of matas, and they repaired to a lonely part of the wood, where matas gave him a salutary lesson in fencing, by disarming him, whipping his sword out of his hand as soon as he was on guard; adding, “for the future, young man, learn to hold your sword, and do not seek to encounter a man like me! take up your sword; depart, and i forgive you.” so saying, he was mounting his horse, when his adversary having raised his sword from the ground, thought the best use he could make of it was to rid himself of so troublesome a witness of his shame; he therefore stabbed him in the back, and left the corpse on the ground. the chronicler adds, “no notice of this transaction took place, for the young man was nephew of marshal st. andré; whereas the other was only a relation of madame de valentinois (the famed diana de poitiers), who, after the death of henry ii, had lost all her influence at court.” nay, poor matas was even blamed for having rebuked a fiery and honourable youth! “it is wrong,” says the chronicler, “for old boasting 114 fencers to abuse their good fortune, and taunt a youth who is only in the bud,—car dieu s’en attriste!”—it grieves god!
nothing could exceed the sang froid that these desperate men exhibited on such occasions. brant?me relates the case of a duel between a norman gentleman and a little chevalier named de refuge. they had taken a boat to go over to the isle du palais, to fight without witnesses; when, perceiving that several other boats were in pursuit of them, they jumped on shore, one of them exclaiming, “pray, let us make haste, for they are coming to separate us!” and, so saying, they attacked each other. after four lounges, they were both dead. the same writer mentions a seigneur de gensac, who was eager to encounter two champions at once; and, when the absurdity of the attempt was alleged, merely replied, “why, history is full of such deeds! and, mon dieu! i am determined to have my name recorded.”
the following adventure of an illustrious murderer, called by brant?me the paragon of france, may give an idea of those glorious times:—
duprat, baron de vitaux, was son of the chancellor duprat, and from early life had displayed symptoms of undaunted “courage.” he commenced his career in arms by killing the young baron de soupez, with whom he had quarrelled at dinner, when soupez threw a candlestick 115 at him and broke his head: he waylaid him on the road to toulouse; and, having despatched him, effected his escape in female attire. his next exploit was murdering a gentleman of the name of gounelieu, to avenge the death of one of his brothers, a lad of fifteen, whom gounelieu had killed; on this expedition he was accompanied by a young nobleman named boucicaut; their victim was travelling post near st. denis, when they met with him: after this achievement, he fled to italy, gounelieu being a favourite of the king. vitaux, however, could not remain long in exile and inactivity, but returned to france for the express purpose of revenging the death of another brother, killed by a near relation of his own, the baron de mittaud.
this baron was a seigneur from auvergne, and had been summoned to court by charles ix. to act as an interpreter to the ambassadors from poland, who came to offer the crown of that kingdom to the king’s brother, the duc d’anjou. mittaud, little suspecting that vitaux was in paris, was not upon his guard; while vitaux, who had allowed his beard to grow to a considerable length, and was disguised as a lawyer, was watching every opportunity to surprise him,—having taken an obscure lodging on the quai des augustins, in company with his old companion boucicaut, and a brother of his, both of them brave and valiant men, and called the lions of 116 the baron de vitaux. these worthies, having met the baron de mittaud, immediately despatched him; but it so happened, that, in defending himself, he had wounded one of the boucicauts, who, not being able to keep pace with the two other assassins in their flight, was obliged to stop at a barber’s shop to get his wound dressed: he had been tracked by the traces of the blood he had lost in his flight, and was taken up by the archers of the provost twelve leagues from paris; and, being confined in fort l’evêque, expected to have been executed, since both the king and his brother decided that he should forfeit his life.
it so happened, that the polish ambassadors lodged in the house of the prisoner’s brother, who was provost of paris, and who earnestly supplicated them to apply to the king and his brother for the culprit’s pardon. the polish envoys, backed by president de thou, made a long harangue in latin; which, whether the monarch understood them or not, succeeded in ultimately attaining their demand, and boucicaut shortly after appeared at court as gay and as unconcerned as ever.
this event only encouraged our hero, who shortly after returned to paris, and killed with “incredible audacity,” says the chronicler, louis de guart, the king’s favourite, who had presumed to oppose the grant of his pardon. vitaux, 117 with seven or eight companions, entered guart’s house, and killed him in his bed; using for the purpose “a sword very short and very keen, which, upon such occasions, is considered preferable to a long one.” “this act,” adds the historian, “was considered one of great resolution and assurance.” one might have expected that such a ruffian would have died on the gallows; but he sought the protection of the duc d’alen?on, being under the patronage of queen marguerite, of whom he was a special favourite.
at last, the baron de mittaud, brother of the one he had assassinated eight years previously, called him out: both parties were duly examined, although it was maintained that mittaud wore a thin cuirass, painted flesh-colour, under his garments. howbeit, the point of vitaux’s sword was bent either upon this protection, or one of his ribs; finding that all his lounges and thrusts were of no avail, he had recourse to hacking and hewing, when in four well-applied cuts his adversary despatched him, without having had the “courtesy of offering him his life.” “thus,” further says the historian, “died this brave baron, the paragon of france, where he was as much esteemed as in spain, germany, poland, and england; and every foreigner who came to court was most anxious to behold him: he was small in stature, 118 but lofty in courage: his enemies pretended that he did not kill people ‘properly’ (il ne tuait pas bien ses gens), but had recourse to various stratagems; wherein,” says brant?me, “it is the opinion of great captains, even italians, who were always the best avengers in the world,—that stratagem might be encountered by stratagem, without any breach of honour.” brant?me adds, “i have spoken enough of him; although i should immortalize him were it in my power, as much for his merits, as for the sincere friendship that existed between us!”
the duel that most grieved the heart of henry iii. was that which occurred between his favourite mignons, caylus and d’entragues, who had fallen out about some fair ladies of the court. riberac and schomberg, a young german, were seconds to d’entragues; maugerin and livaret were the seconds of caylus. the parties met near the ramparts of the porte st. antoine, no one being present but three or four “poor persons, wretched witnesses of the valour of these worthy men.”
the moment the principals had commenced, riberac addressed maugerin, saying, “methinks that we had better endeavour to reconcile these gentlemen, rather than allow them to kill each other.” to which unworthy proposal the other replied, “sir, i did not come here to string beads; i came here to fight!” “and with 119 whom?” innocently asked riberac; “since you are not concerned in this quarrel,—with whom?” “with you, to be sure,” was the laconic reply of maugerin. “if that be the case,” added riberac, “let us pray;” and, so saying, he drew his sword and dagger, and placing the hilts cross-ways, fell upon his knees to put up proper orisons: but maugerin thought his doxology too prolix; and, swearing most irreligiously, told him “that he had prayed long enough.” upon which they furiously attacked each other, until both fell dead.
schomberg, the other second, beholding this episode, addressed livaret very politely, saying, “these gentlemen are fighting; what shall we do?” to which the other replied, “we cannot do better than fight, to maintain our honour.” schomberg, who was a german, forthwith cut open the cheek of his adversary; a compliment which livaret politely returned by a thrust in the breast, which stretched him a corpse, to keep company with the body of maugerin. riberac was borne from the field, and died of his wounds the next day. d’entragues, though severely wounded, effected his escape; while caylus was carried to his death-bed, where he bitterly complained that his adversary had a dagger in addition to his sword. in consequence of being obliged to parry the thrusts of the former with his hand, he had been stabbed in several places. 120 he further stated, that he had said to d’entragues, “you have a dagger, and i have none!” to which the other replied, “so much the worse for you; you ought not to have been such a fool as to have left it at home.” brant?me observes, that he does not exactly know whether, from a sense of gentillesse chivalaresque, he ought not to have laid aside his dagger. livaret, two years after, was killed in a duel; when his servant, on seeing him fall, picked up his sword, and killed his adversary, the son of the marquis de pienne. the king was so afflicted at the death of caylus, that he gave orders to have him buried by the side of another of his mignons, sainct megrin, who was assassinated by the duke de guise at the louvre gate.
the custom of the seconds fighting with each other appears to have been introduced by the royal mignons, who, no doubt, vied with each other for the monarch’s favour. in these murderous contests, one of the most celebrated bravoes was bussy d’amboise, one of the principal actors in the massacre of st. barthelemi, during which he assassinated his own near relation, antoine de clermont, with whom he was at law. this was undoubtedly a more expedient motive than the one that induced him to call out a gentleman of the name of st. phal, who having an x embroidered on some part of his apparel, bussy maintained that it was a y. a combat forthwith 121 took place, of six against six. one could scarcely believe that the brave crillon should have risked his life with such a pernicious cut-throat. yet it is recorded that, having met him one day in the rue st. honoré, bussy asked him the hour; when crillon, drawing his sword, replied, “it is the hour of thy death!” fortunately the combatants were separated. the intrigues of bussy with marguerite de valois are well known; and at the same period he boasted of the favour of the countess de montsoreau, whose husband was master of the hunt of the duke d’alen?on; and having written to that prince, that he had caught a deer of the count’s in his snares, the letter was shown to henry iii, who kindly put it into the husband’s hand. the master of the hunt did not deem it advisable to risk his life in seeking revenge, but compelled his faithless spouse to give a rendez-vous to her paramour; when, instead of his mistress’s embraces, he was received by the daggers of hired bravoes.
the assassination of this monarch himself (henry iii.) afforded a singular instance of the manners of the time, and the reckless character of the courtiers. a young man in the royal household, of the name of isle marivaux, determined not to survive his royal master; and begged to know if any one would do him the favour of fighting with him, to give him a fair 122 chance of being killed. fortunately for him, another courtier, of the name of marolles, took him at his word; and, after a few lounges, gratified his best wishes.
such were what historians called “the good old times,” when, as a late writer asserts, the lasciviousness of messalina was combined with the ferocity of nero and the gluttony of heliogabalus; and when wit and ribaldry were the associates of assassination. thus, when catherine de medicis was informed upon her death-bed of the murder of the duke and cardinal de guise, she replied, “’tis well cut out, my son; but now your work must be stitched!”
