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the official account, left among his unpublished papers a statement that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.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account