death of the duc d’orléans—m. de genlis—sillery—coming of the revolution—the bastille—anger of the duchesse d’orléans—dissensions.

capital letter t

the duke of orléans died 1785, and mme. de montesson, having been forbidden by louis xvi. to put her household into mourning or assume the position of a duchess dowager of orléans, retired for a few weeks into a convent and then returned to her usual life, having inherited a great fortune from the late duke.

philippe-égalité was now duc d’orléans, and his eldest son duc de chartres. that young prince was about seventeen, and like all the orléans family, except the duchess and the comte de beaujolais, was thoroughly indoctrinated with the detestable spirit that prevailed at the palais royal.

the maréchale d’etrée, daughter of m. de puisieux, died, and left all her large fortune, not to the spendthrift marquis de genlis, but to the count, who, finding himself now very rich, wished to retire from the palais royal and live on his estates, and tried to induce his wife to accompany him. he said with truth that her proper and natural place [412] was with him, and he tried by all means in his power to persuade her to do what one would suppose a person constantly talking of duty, virtue, self-sacrifice, and the happiness of retirement, would not have hesitated about.

that she persistently refused proves how much all these professions were worth, and this time she does in her memoirs blame herself for her conduct; in fact, she declares that she felt ever afterwards a remorse that never left her, and that would be eternal; as she considered herself the cause of the death of her husband. if she had gone with him as he entreated her to do and as she acknowledged that she ought to have done, she could have induced him to leave france with her, he had sufficient money to enable them to live comfortably abroad, and his life would have been saved.

however, she refused to leave belle chasse, influenced by affection for her pupils, jealous of any one who might succeed her with them, fear of losing the prestige of having educated them, as she says; and, of course, of being separated from the duc d’orléans, which she does not say. at any rate she took her own way, and after a journey to england where she was extremely well received, she resumed her usual occupations. the revolution was drawing nearer and nearer, though people did not realise its approach. a few more far-seeing persons foretold troubles and dangers in the future, but nobody except the well-known cazotte, had any notion of the fearful tempest about to break over the unhappy kingdom of france.

meanwhile, many who would have shrunk from [413] the crimes and horrors for which in their folly they were preparing the way as fast as possible, went on playing with fire, by encouraging the disloyalty that was in the air, sympathising with the outrageous demands put forward by the radical leaders, circulating libels and inventing lying stories against the queen and royal family, joining noisily in the abuse of everything that had hitherto been held sacred or respectable, and doing everything in their power to inflame the evil passions and excite the cupidity and violence of the mob.

one cannot help feeling intense satisfaction in reflecting that most of those who did all this mischief, at any rate, suffered for it, when the danger, ruin, and death they had prepared for others came upon themselves. one of the most abominable of the revolutionists, who had fallen under the displeasure of his friends and been condemned by them to be guillotined with his young son, begged to be allowed to embrace him on the scaffold; but the boy sullenly refused, saying, “no; it is you who have brought me to this.”

among the palais royal set, it was the fashion to find fault with everything done by the royalists, to go as seldom as possible to versailles and to pretend to find it a great bore when it was necessary to do so.

if a play was popular at versailles it was sure to be hissed at paris; a disgraced minister was the idol of the mob; the only liveries not insulted were those of orléans.

for the duc d’orléans was aiming at the crown, and it is impossible to believe mme. de genlis was [414] not aware of it. he suggested to the queen that madame royale should be married to his eldest son, which proposal marie antoinette decidedly refused, remarking afterwards that to marry her daughter to the duc de chartres would be to sign the death warrant of her son. [120]

mme. de genlis states that one evening while the states-general were sitting, the duc d’orléans, who was in her salon, declared that they would be of no use and do nothing; not even suppress the lettres de cachet. mme. de genlis and the duc de lauzun were of a different opinion, and they bet each other fifty louis on the subject. the bet was put into writing and mme. de genlis showed it to more than fifty people of her acquaintance, all of whom declared a revolution to be impossible. the abbé cesutti, one of the free-thinking school, was editor of a paper called la feuille villageoise, intended for the people. he asked mme. de genlis to write for it, and she sent some papers called “the letters of marie-anne,” in which she introduced doctrines and principles of religion. soon after the abbé came and asked her in future only to speak of morality and never to mention religion. knowing what that meant she declined to write any more for that paper.

however, she was so far identified with the revolutionary party as not only to rejoice at the infamous attack of the mob upon the bastille, but to consent to her pupils’ request to take them to [415] paris to see the mob finishing the destruction of that beautiful and historic monument.

in the “souvenirs,” written in after years, when her ideas and principles had been totally changed by her experience of the revolution, the beginning of which had so delighted her, she was evidently ashamed of the line she had taken, and anxious to explain it away as far as possible.

“i was of no party,” she writes, “but that of religion. i desired the reform of certain abuses, and i saw with joy the demolition of the bastille, the abolition of lettres de cachet, and droits de chasse. that was all i wanted, my politics did not go farther than that. at the same time no one saw with more grief and horror than i, the excesses committed from the first moments of the taking of the bastille.... the desire to let my pupils see everything led me on this occasion into imprudence, and caused me to spend some hours in paris to see from the jardin de beaumarchais the people of paris demolishing the bastille. i also had a curiosity to see the cordeliers club.... i went there and i saw the orators, cobblers, and porters with their wives and mistresses, mounting the tribune and shouting against nobles, priests, and rich people.... i remarked a fishwoman....” this pretty spectacle to which she was said to have taken her pupils, was, of course, approved of by the duke of orléans, who made the duc de chartres a member of the jacobin club, “by the wish of the duc d’orléans, assuredly not by mine; but, however, it must be remembered that that society was not then what it afterward became, [416] although its sentiments were already very exaggerated. however, it was a pretext employed to estrange the duchess of orléans from me.”

and small wonder! was the duchess of orléans—a woman of saintly character and the great grand-daughter [121] of louis xiv.—to tolerate the governess of her children being seen in a den of blasphemy and low, unspeakable vice and degradation like the cordeliers club, or their being themselves shown with rejoicing a scene of horror and murder, and join in the triumph of ruffians who were attacking their religion, and the king and queen, who were also their own cousins? was it possible that anybody in their senses would tolerate such a governess? added to which the duchess was now aware of the terms on which mme. de genlis and the duke stood to each other. it could no longer be said of her—

“the duchess sees nothing, or will not see anything, but even shows a strange predilection for mme. de genlis, which made mme. de barbantane say that it is a love [122] which would make one believe in witchcraft.”

the duc de penthièvre, who knew his son-in-law and distrusted mme. de genlis, foresaw what would happen and opposed her entrance into the palais royal; but the influence of mme. de montesson had prevailed, and she was soon not only all-powerful herself, but had placed the different members of her family in lucrative posts [417] there. and, though they did not follow their party to the extreme excesses to which they were already tending, they were, so far, all tarred with the same brush.

in the “memoirs of louis xviii,” he remarks, after the dismissal of necker: “a report was spread that the queen and the comte d’artois had given orders for a general massacre, to include the duke of orléans, m. necker, and most of the members of the national assembly. sillery, latouche, laclos, voidel, ducrest, [123] camille desmoulin, and all those who came from the duc d’orléans, were the first to spread these lies.” [124]

after her proceedings at the bastille and the cordeliers, and considering her connection with the revolutionary party, mme. de genlis (or sillery, as she was also called) need not have expressed the surprise and indignation she did at the arrival of a body of police to search her house for arms, reported to be stored there. they were sent by la fayette, who had done even more mischief than she had; but for some reason they did not like each other. the touchy, conceited republican poet, marie joseph chénier, who ranted against religion, royalty, and everything and everybody superior to himself, began to make love to mme. de genlis, and when she objected to his impertinent familiarity, said furiously: “you are right; i am [418] neither a grand seigneur nor a duke!”—which specimen of the manners of her party disgusted her extremely. in her “mémoires” she relates of this worthy that he was accused of having participated in the condemnation of his brother andré, also a poet, executed under the terror. this was, however, almost certainly untrue, but it was said that he could have saved him if he had made use of the influence he possessed with the terrorists, but that he either feared or did not care to do so. the celebrated actress, mlle. dumesnil, then old and infirm, received one day a visit from him, during which he tormented her to recite something for him. she was ill in bed, but nevertheless he went on begging that she would recite only one line that he might say he had heard her, when, turning towards him with a violent effort she said—

“approchez-vous, néron, et prenez votre place!”

the first personal encounter of mme. de genlis with the revolution was one afternoon in 1790. she had driven with mademoiselle d’orléans, the comte de beaujolais, henriette de sercey, and pamela, to a village about twelve miles from paris, where, unluckily, a fair was going on and a great many people collected together. they took it into their heads that the party were the queen, madame royale, and the dauphin trying to escape, and, surrounding them with anger, forced them to get out of the carriage and refused to believe their explanations.

a young lieutenant of the garde-nationale hurried up, harangued them, and with difficulty persuaded [419] the savage crowd to allow him to take them into his own house, around which a drunken, furious crowd kept guard while cries of “a la lanterne!” were every now and then heard. they would not believe anything they said; they threatened to hang any one who should go to paris to make inquiries; they forced their way into the house and garden, but suddenly a friendly voice said in the ear of mme. de genlis: “i was a gamekeeper at sillery; don’t be afraid. i will go to paris.” at last the crowd of ruffians dispersed, leaving a dozen to guard their prisoners; the mayor of the village gravely demanded that all her papers should be delivered to him, upon which mme. de genlis gave him four or five letters, and when she begged him to read them he replied that he could not read, but took them away.

at five o’clock in the morning the gamekeeper came back from paris with an order of release from the municipality, and at half-past six they arrived at belle chasse.

this foretaste of the revolution mme. de genlis did not like at all, and she began to think she would rather not be in france now that the plans and friends so lately her admiration were succeeding so well.

just then her mother died after a short illness, which was a great shock to her; she had lived with or near her for many years since the death of her second husband, and had been the object of her devoted care.

but now at last an end had come to the palais royal life of prosperity and power.

[420]

the patience of the duchess of orléans, which had for many years been so extraordinary, and her blindness, which had been the wonder of everybody, had for more than a year been worn out, and now had come to a decided conclusion.

there is such a thing as being too angelic, and gentle, and unsuspicious. if those who have to live in the world go about acting as if other people were angels instead of men and women, believing all they are told, trusting every one, and knowing as little as they can of what is going on around them, no good ever comes of it.

how the duchess could ever consent to and approve of her children being entirely given up to the care of a woman whose principles were absolutely opposed to her own, is astonishing indeed; and perhaps it is still more so that for many years she did notice the infatuation of her husband, and the vast influence mme. de genlis had over him. but her eyes had at last been opened, mme. de genlis declares, by a mme. de chastellux, who was her enemy, and was jealous of her. however that might be with regard to the connection between mme. de genlis and the duc d’orléans, no enlightenment was necessary about the bastille, the cordeliers club, and other revolutionary proceedings. that was surely quite enough; besides which the duchess had long been awakened to the fact that the governess about whom she had been so infatuated had not only carried on an intrigue with and established an all-powerful influence over her husband, but had extended that influence also over her children to such an extent [421] that her daughter at any rate, if not her two elder sons, probably preferred her to their mother.

as to the comte de beaujolais, he was fond of her, as all her pupils were, for she was extremely kind to them, but he hated and abhorred the principles which his father and she had succeeded in instilling into his brothers and sister, longed to fight for the king and queen, and took the first opportunity when he met the comte de provence in exile to tell him so and make his submission; he had sent him messages of explanation and loyalty directly he could. for more than a year, then, there had been coldness and estrangement between the duchess and mme. de genlis, who, of course, as usual, posed as an injured saint. what had she done? why this cruel change in the affection and confidence of years? had she not sacrificed herself to her pupils? was she not the last person to alienate their affection from their illustrious and admirable mother? did not all the virtues of her whole life forbid her being suspected or distrusted in any way?

she wrote pages and pages to the duchess, who would not answer the letters except by a few short lines, and refused to enter into the matter at all, but declined to receive mme. de genlis at the palais royal to dine as usual. here is an example of what the duchesse d’abrantès and others have said about mme. de genlis having nothing of the dignity that she might have been expected to possess. her behaviour contrasts strongly with that of the duchesse d’orléans, who, however foolish and credulous she may have been, showed at any rate [422] that she was a princess of france. it was not for her to discuss or dispute with mme. de genlis about her influence with her husband and children; it was for her to give orders and for the governess of her children to obey them. but these late proceedings were different and tangible, and mme. de genlis herself owns in her “mémoires,” written long after, that the objections of the duchess, which she then thought so exaggerated and unjust, were right and well-founded. she declares that she had no idea how far the revolution would go, that she was strongly attached to the monarchy and to religion, which latter was certainly true, and there is no reason to suppose she contemplated a republic, while the horrors that took place were odious to her.

but that she should have been and still be accused, especially with regard to the duke of orléans, she had no right to complain. after all, those who wish to play the world’s game must play by the world’s rules. certain ways of acting always cause certain conclusions to be drawn, and what else was likely between a man like philippe-égalité and a fascinating woman he admired, and with whom he was thrown into constant and intimate association, but the liaison every one might expect, and which it is impossible not to believe in.

she declared that she would have resigned before had it not been for the calumnies, injustice, and persecution (!) carried on against the duc d’orléans; she hoped his return would dispel the clouds; she pictured the grief her pupils would feel, &c., &c.

the duke was at his wits’ end, there were [423] scenes and interviews and negotiations without end, but he and mme. de genlis were forced to give way.

the duchess threatened a separation, the position was impossible; mme. de genlis withdrew, at any rate for a time, intending to go to england. but mademoiselle d’orléans, who was then thirteen, and devoted to her governess, when she found she was gone, cried and fretted till she became so ill that every one was alarmed; she was sent for to come back again, and did so on condition that they should go to england together as soon as it could be arranged.

she was herself most anxious to get out of france, but in spite of her representations the journey kept being put off on various excuses until the autumn, when one day m. de valence, who had also a post in the palais royal, told her that the duke was going to england that night, which he did, leaving her a note saying he would be back in a month.

however, he stayed a year, much to the surprise of mme. de genlis, in the first place that he should have kept her in ignorance of his plans, and in the second that he should break his promise to her. his flight had also the result of preventing their journey, for it had irritated the mob, who were now, under their brutal and ferocious leaders, the rulers of france, and they watched with suspicion all the rest of the orléans family; it would not have been safe for them to attempt to travel. such was the freedom already achieved by the efforts of their father and his friends.

[424]

it was naturally impossible that mme. de genlis should be a conspicuous member of the orléans household and yet not mix herself up with intimacies and friendships amongst the revolutionists, especially as some of them at that time had not shown themselves in their true colours. she corresponded with barèze, who wrote to her about her books, and whose letters were full of the simple life of the peasants and the beauties of nature in the pyrenees, but who soon developed into one of the monsters of the terror. she could not be blamed for that, as she did not know his real character; but the same cannot be said with regard to her friendship with pétion, whom she received in her salon and for whom she declared that up to the time of the king’s murder she had “a true esteem.” now pétion was a vulgar, brutal ruffian, as any one knows who has read the account of his behaviour during the miserable affair of the return of the royal family from varennes; and yet after that she accepted his escort to england, and said that she “remained persuaded that he had a most honest, upright soul, and the most virtuous principles.” there are some people who make the very names of virtue and duty obnoxious to one, and of this number was certainly mme. de genlis. in spite of her outcries about the injustice and falsehood of the suspicions and odium attached to her concerning her conduct at this time, and causing her afterwards considerable annoyance and difficulties, her friendships with and praises of such characters as philippe-égalité, pétion, and others, added to the way in [425] which she displayed her rejoicing in the earlier excesses of the revolutionary party, and her constant association with the authors of the disgraceful libels and attacks upon the queen and royal family, amply justified whatever might be said against her.

there can be no doubt that, as always happens in these cases, a great deal was said that was neither true nor possible. it was inevitable that it should be so; but her way of going on, both politically and in other ways, was decidedly suspicious.

at length the duke of orléans came back, and in consequence of the persuasions of mme. de genlis he arranged that his daughter should be ordered by the doctors to take the waters at bath, and they set off; mademoiselle d’orléans, mme. de genlis, pamela, and henriette de sercey, with their attendants, furnished with a passport permitting them to stay in england as long as the health of mademoiselle d’orléans required. they started october 11, 1791, slept at calais, and remained a few days in london in the house the duc d’orléans had bought there; they went to bath, where they stayed for two months.

they next made a tour about england, including portsmouth, the isle of wight, derbyshire, cambridge, several visits to different country houses, and to the ladies of llangollen.