Fatal folly! Had the Queen insisted on seeing Bohmer, all would have been cleared up, and her innocence established. Bohmer"s note spoke of the recent arrangements, of the jeweller"s joy that the greatest of queens possesses the handsomest of necklaces--and Marie Antoinette asked no questions!
Jeanne now (August 3) did a great stroke. She told Ba.s.senge that the Queen"s guarantee to the Cardinal was a forgery. She calculated that the Cardinal, to escape the scandal, would shield her, would sacrifice himself and pay the 60,000_l._
But the jewellers dared not carry the news to the Cardinal. They went to Madame Campan, who said that they had been gulled: the Queen had never received the jewels. Still, they did not tell the Cardinal.
Jeanne now sent Villette out of the way, to Geneva, and on August 4 Ba.s.senge asked the Cardinal whether he was sure that the man who was to carry the jewels to the Queen had been honest? A pleasant question!
The Cardinal kept up his courage; all was well, he could not be mistaken. Jeanne, with cunning audacity, did not fly: she went to her splendid home at Bar-sur-Aube.
Villette was already out of reach; d"Oliva, with her latest lover, was packed off to Brussels; there was no proof against Jeanne; her own flight would have been proof. The Cardinal could not denounce her; he had insulted the Queen by supposing that she gave him a lonely midnight tryst, a matter of high treason; the Cardinal could not speak. He consulted Cagliostro. "The guarantee is forged," said the sage; "the Queen could not sign "Marie Antoinette de France." Throw yourself at the King"s feet, and confess all." The wretched Rohan now compared the Queen"s forged notes to him with authentic letters of hers in the possession of his family. The forgery was conspicuous, but he did not follow the advice of Cagliostro. On August 12, the Queen extracted the whole facts, as far as known to them, from the jewellers. On August 15, the day of the a.s.sumption, when the Cardinal was to celebrate, the King asked him: "My cousin, what is this tale of a diamond necklace bought by you in the name of the Queen?"
The unhappy man, unable to speak coherently, was allowed to write the story, in fifteen lines.
"How could you believe," asked the Queen with angry eyes, "that I, who have not spoken to you for eight years, entrusted you with this commission?"
How indeed could he believe it?
He offered to pay for the jewels. The thing might still have been hushed up. The King is blamed, first for publicly arresting Rohan as he did, an enormous scandal; next for handing over the case, for public trial, to the Parlement, the hereditary foes of the Court.
Freteau de Saint-Just, one of the Bar, cried: "What a triumph for Liberal ideas! A Cardinal a thief! The Queen implicated! Mud on the crosier and the sceptre!"
He had his fill of Liberal ideas, for he was guillotined on June 14, 1794!
Kings and queens are human beings. They like a fair and open trial.
Mary Stuart prayed for it in vain, from the Estates of Scotland, and from Elizabeth. Charles I. asked for public trial in vain, from the Estates of Scotland, at the time of the unsolved puzzle of "The Incident." Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette had the publicity they wanted; to their undoing. The Parlement was to acquit Rohan of the theft of the necklace (a charge which Jeanne tried to support by a sub-plot of romantic complexity), and that acquittal was just. But nothing was said of the fatal insult which he had dealt to the Queen.
Villette, who had forged the royal name, was merely exiled, left free to publish fatal calumnies abroad, though high treason, as times went, was about the measure of his crime. Gay d"Oliva, whose personation of the Queen also verged on treason, was merely acquitted with a recommendation "not to do it again." Pretty, a young mother, and profoundly dissolute, she was the darling of Liberal and _sensible_ hearts.
Jeanne de Valois, indeed, was whipped and branded, but Jeanne, in public opinion, was the scapegoat of a cruel princess, and all the mud was thrown on the face of the guiltless Queen. The friends of Rohan were all the clergy, all the many n.o.bles of his ill.u.s.trious house, all the courtly foes of the Queen (they began by the basest calumnies, the ruin that the people achieved), all the friends of Liberal ideas, who soon, like Freteau de Saint-Just, had more of Liberalism than they liked.
These were the results which the King obtained by offering to the Cardinal his choice between the royal verdict and that of the public Court of Justice. Rohan said that, if the King would p.r.o.nounce him innocent, he would prefer to abide by the royal decision. He _was_ innocent of all but being a presumptuous fool; the King might, even now, have recognised the fact. Mud would have been thrown, but not all the poached filth of the streets of Paris. On the other hand, had Louis withheld the case from public trial, we might still be doubtful of the Queen"s innocence. Napoleon acknowledged it: "The Queen was innocent, and to make her innocence the more public, she wished the Parlement to be the judge. The result was that she was taken to be guilty." Napoleon thought that the King should have taken the case into his own hand. This might have been wisdom for the day, but not for securing the verdict of posterity. The pyramidal doc.u.ments of the process, still in existence, demonstrate the guilt of the La Mottes and their accomplices at every step, and prove the stainless character of the Queen.
La Motte could not be caught. He had fled to Edinburgh, where he lived with an aged Italian teacher of languages. This worthy man offered to sell him for 10,000_l._, and a pretty plot was arranged by the French amba.s.sador to drug La Motte, put him on board a collier at South Shields and carry him to France. But the old Italian lost heart, and, after getting 1,000_l._ out of the French Government in advance, deemed it more prudent to share the money with the Count. Perhaps the Count invented the whole stratagem; it was worthy of the husband and pupil of Jeanne de Valois. That poor lady"s cause was lost when Villette and Gay d"Oliva were brought back across the frontier, confessed, and corroborated each other"s stories. Yet she made a wonderfully good fight, changing her whole defence into another as plausible and futile, before the very eyes of the Court, and doing her best to ruin Rohan as a thief, and Cagliostro as the forger of the Queen"s guarantee. The bold Neapolitan was acquitted, but compelled to leave the country, and attempt England, where the phlegmatic islanders trusted him no more than they trusted Madame Humbert. We expended our main capital of credulity on t.i.tus Oates and Bedloe, and the warming-pan lie--our imaginative innocence being most accessible in the region of religion. The French are more open to the appeal of romance, and to dissolute honesty in the person of Miss Gay d"Oliva, to injured innocence as represented by Jeanne de Valois. That cla.s.s of rogues suits a gay people, while we are well mated with such a seductive divine as Dr. Oates.
VI
_THE MYSTERY OF KASPAR HAUSER: THE CHILD OF EUROPE_
The story of Kaspar Hauser, a boy, apparently idiotic, who appeared, as if from the clouds, in Nuremberg (1828), divided Germany into hostile parties, and caused legal proceedings as late as 1883. Whence this lad came, and what his previous adventures had been, has never been ascertained. His death by a dagger-wound, in 1833--whether inflicted by his own hand or that of another--deepened the mystery.
According to one view, the boy was only a waif and an impostor, who had strayed from some peasant home, where n.o.body desired his return.
According to the other theory, he was the Crown Prince of Baden, stolen as an infant in the interests of a junior branch of the House, reduced to imbecility by systematic ill-treatment, turned loose on the world at the age of sixteen, and finally murdered, lest his secret origin might be discovered.
I state first the theory of the second party in the dispute, which believed that Kaspar was some great one: I employ language as romantic as my vocabulary affords.
Darkness in Karlsruhe! "Tis the high noon of night: October 15, 1812.
Hark to the tread of the Twelve Hours as they pa.s.s on the palace clock, and join their comrades that have been! The vast corridors are still; in the shadows lurk two burly minions of ambitious crime, Burkard and Sauerbeck. Is that a white moving shadow which approaches through the gloom? There arises a shriek, a heavy body falls, "tis a lacquey who has seen and recognised _The White Lady of the Grand Ducal House_, that walks before the deaths of Princes. Burkard and Sauerbeck spurn the inanimate body of the menial witness. The white figure, bearing in her arms a sleeping child, glides to the tapestried wall, and vanishes through it, into the Chamber of the Crown Prince, a babe of fourteen days. She returns carrying _another_ unconscious infant form, she places it in the hands of the ruffian Sauerbeck, she disappears. The miscreant speeds with the child through a postern into the park, you hear the trample of four horses, and the roll of the carriage on the road. Next day there is silence in the palace, broken but by the shrieks of a bereaved though Royal (or at least Grand Ducal) mother. Her babe lies a corpse! The Crown Prince has died in the night! The path to the throne lies open to the offspring of the Countess von Hochberg, morganatic wife of the reigning Prince, Karl Friedrich, and mother of the children of Ludwig Wilhelm August, his youngest son.
Sixteen years fleet by; years rich in Royal crimes. "Tis four of a golden Whit Monday afternoon, in old Nuremberg, May 26, 1828. The town lies empty, dusty, silent; her merry people are rejoicing in the green wood, and among the suburban beer-gardens. One man alone, a shoemaker, stands by the door of his house in the Unschlitt Plas: around him lie the vacant streets of the sleeping city. His eyes rest on the form, risen as it were out of the earth or fallen from the skies, of a boy, strangely clad, speechless, incapable either of standing erect or of moving his limbs. That boy is the Royal infant placed of yore by the White Shadow in the hands of the cloaked ruffian. Thus does the Crown Prince of Baden return from the darkness to the daylight! He names himself KASPAR HAUSER. He is to die by the dagger of a cruel courtier, or of a hireling English Earl.
Thus briefly, and, I trust, impressively, have I sketched the history of Kaspar Hauser, "the Child of Europe," as it was presented by various foreign pamphleteers, and, in 1892, by Miss Elizabeth E.
Evans.[11] But, as for the "authentic records" on which the partisans of Kaspar Hauser based their version, they are anonymous, unauthenticated, discredited by the results of a libel action in 1883; and, in short, are worthless and impudent rubbish.
[Footnote 11: _The Story of Kaspar Hauser from Authentic Records._ Swan Sonnenschein & Co., London, 1892.]
On all sides, indeed, the evidence as to Kaspar Hauser is in bewildering confusion. In 1832, four years after his appearance, a book about him was published by Paul John Anselm Von Feuerbach. The man was mortal, had been a professor, and, though a legal reformer and a learned jurist, was "a nervous invalid" when he wrote, and he soon after died of paralysis (or poison according to Kasparites). He was approaching a period of life in which British judges write books to prove that Bacon was Shakespeare, and his arguments were like theirs.
His _Kaspar Hauser_ is composed in a violently injudicial style. "To seek the giant perpetrator of such a crime" (as the injustice to Kaspar), "it would be necessary ... to be in possession of Joshua"s ram"s horns, or at least of Oberon"s horn, in order, for some time at least, to suspend the activity of the powerful enchanted Colossi that guard the golden gates of certain castles," that is, of the palace at Karlsruhe. Such early Nuremberg records of Kaspar"s first exploits as existed were ignored by Feuerbach, who told Lord Stanhope, that any reader of these "would conceive Kaspar to be an impostor." "They ought to be burned." The records, which were read and in part published, by the younger Meyer (son of one of Kaspar"s tutors) and by President Karl Schmausz, have disappeared, and, in 1883, Schmausz could only attest the general accuracy of Meyer"s excerpts from the town"s ma.n.u.scripts.
Taking Feuerbach"s romantic narrative of 1832, we find him averring that, about 4.30 P.M. on Whit Monday, May 26, 1828, a citizen, unnamed, was loitering at his door, in the Unschlitt Plas, Nuremberg, intending to sally out by the New Gate, when he saw a young peasant, standing in an att.i.tude suggestive of intoxication, and apparently suffering from locomotor ataxia, "unable to govern fully the movements of his legs." The citizen went to the boy, who showed him a letter directed to the captain of a cavalry regiment. The gallant captain lived near the New Gate (654 paces from the citizen"s house), and thither the young peasant walked with the citizen. So he _could_ "govern fully the movements of his legs." At the house, the captain being out, the boy said, "I would be a horseman as my father was,"
also "Don"t know." Later he was taken to the prison, up a steep hill, and the ascent to his room was one of over ninety steps. Thus he could certainly walk, and when he spoke of himself he said "I" like other people. Later he took to speaking of himself as "Kaspar," in the manner of small children, and some hysterical patients under hypnotism. But this was an after-thought, for Kaspar"s line came to be that he had only learned a few words, like a parrot, words which he used to express all senses indifferently. His eye-sight, when he first appeared, seems to have been normal, at the prison he wrote his own name as "Kaspar Hauser," and covered a sheet of paper with writing.
Later he could see best in the dark.
So says Feuerbach, in 1832. What he does not say is whence he got his information as to Kaspar"s earliest exploits. Now our earliest evidence, on oath, before a magistrate, is dated November 4, 1829.
George Weichmann, shoemaker (Feuerbach"s anonymous "citizen"), then swore that, on May 26, 1828, he saw Kaspar, not making paralysed efforts to walk, but trudging down a hilly street, shouting "Hi!" ("or any loud cry"), and presently asking, "with tolerable distinctness,"
"New Gate Street?" He took the boy that way, and the boy gave him the letter for the captain. Weichmann said that they had better ask for him at the New Gate Guard House, and the boy said "Guard House? Guard House? New Gate no doubt just built?" He said he came from Ratisbon, and was in Nuremberg for the first time, but clearly did not understand what Weichmann meant when he inquired as to the chances of war breaking out. In May 1834 Weichmann repeated his evidence as to Kaspar"s power of talking and walking, and was corroborated by one Jacob Beck, not heard of in 1829. On December 20, 1829, Merk, the captain"s servant, spoke to Kaspar"s fatigue, "he reeled as he walked," and would answer no questions. In 1834 Merk expanded, and said "we had a long chat." Kaspar averred that he could read and write, and had crossed the frontier daily on his way to school. "He did not know where he came from." Certainly Merk, in 1834, remembered much more than in 1829. Whether he suppressed facts in 1829, or, in 1834, invented fables, we do not know. The cavalry captain (November 2, 1829) remembered several intelligent remarks made by Kaspar. His dress was new and clean (denied by Feuerbach), he was tired and footsore. The evidence of the police, taken in 1834, was remote in time, but went to prove that Kaspar"s eyesight and power of writing were normal. Feuerbach absolutely discredits all the sworn evidence of 1829, without giving his own sources. The early evidence shows that Kaspar could both walk and talk, and see normally, by artificial and natural light, all of which is absolutely inconsistent with Kaspar"s later account of himself.
The personal property of Kaspar was a horn rosary, and several Catholic tracts with prayers to the Guardian Angel, and so forth.
Feuerbach holds that these were furnished by "devout villains"--a very sound Protestant was Feuerbach--and that Kaspar was ignorant of the being of a Deity, at least of a Protestant Deity. The letter carried by the boy said that the writer first took charge of him, as an infant, in 1812, and had never let him "take a single step out of my house.... I have already taught him to read and write, _and he writes my handwriting exactly as I do_." In the same hand was a letter in Latin characters, purporting to come from Kaspar"s mother, "a poor girl," as the author of the German letter was "a poor day-labourer."
Humbug as I take Kaspar to have been, I am not sure that he wrote these pieces. If not, somebody else was in the affair; somebody who wanted to get rid of Kaspar. As that youth was an useless, false, convulsionary, and hysterical patient, no one was likely to want to keep him, if he could do better. No specified reward was offered at the time for information about Kaspar; no portrait of him was then published and circulated. The Burgomaster, Binder, had a portrait, and a facsimile of Kaspar"s signature engraved, but Feuerbach would not allow them to be circulated, heaven knows why.
How Kaspar fell, as it were from the clouds, and unseen, into the middle of Nuremberg, even on a holiday when almost every one was out of town, is certainly a puzzle. The earliest witnesses took him for a journeyman tailor lad (he was about sixteen), and perhaps n.o.body paid any attention to a dusty travelling tradesman, or groom out of place.
Feuerbach (who did not see Kaspar till July) says that his feet were covered with blisters, the gaoler says that they were merely swollen by the tightness of his boots.
Once in prison, Kaspar, who asked to be taken home, adopted the _role_ of "a semi-unconscious animal," playing with toy horses, "blind though he saw," yet, not long after, he wrote a minute account of all that he had then observed. He could only eat bread and water: meat made him shudder, and Lord Stanhope says that this peculiarity did occur in the cases of some peasant soldiers. He had no sense of hearing, which means, perhaps, that he did not think of pretending to be amazed by the sound of church bells till he had been in prison for some days.
Till then he had been deaf to their noise. This is Feuerbach"s story, but we shall see that it is contradicted by Kaspar himself, in writing. Thus the alleged facts may be explained without recourse even to a theory of intermittent deafness. Kaspar was no more deaf than blind. He "was all there," and though, ten days after his arrival, he denied that he had ever seen Weichmann, in ten days more his memory for faces was deemed extraordinary, and he minutely described all that, on May 26 and later, he had observed. Kaspar was taught to write by the gaoler"s little boy, though he could write when he came--in the same hand as the author of his mysterious letter. Though he had but half a dozen words on May 26, according to Feuerbach, by July 7 he had furnished Binder with his history--pretty quick work! Later in 1828 he was able to write that history himself. In 1829 he completed a work of autobiography.
Kaspar wrote that till the age of sixteen he was kept in "a prison,"
"perhaps six or seven feet long, four broad, and five high." There were two small windows, with closed black wooden shutters. He lay on straw, lived on bread and water, and played with toy horses, and blue and red ribbons. That he could see colours in total darkness is a proof of his inconsistent fables, or of his "hyperaesthesia"--abnormal acuteness of the senses. "The man" who kept him was not less hyperaesthetic, for he taught Kaspar to write in the dark. He never heard any noise, but avers that, in prison, he was alarmed by the town clock striking, on the first morning, though Feuerbach says that he did not hear the bells for several days.
Such is Kaspar"s written account (1829); the published account of July 1828, derived from "the expressions of a half-dumb animal" (as Feuerbach puts it), is much more prolix and minute in detail. The animal said that he had sat on the ground, and never seen daylight, till he came to Nuremberg. He used to be hocussed with water of an evil taste, and wake in a clean shirt. "The man" once hit him and hurt him, for making too much noise. The man taught him his letters and the Arabic numerals. Later he gave him instructions in the art of standing. Next he took him out, and taught him about nine words. He was made by the man to walk he knew not how far, or how long, the man leading him. n.o.body saw this extraordinary pair on the march.
Feuerbach, who maintains that Kaspar"s feet were covered with cruel blisters, from walking, also supposes that "perhaps for the greater part of the way" he was carried in a carriage or waggon! Whence then the cruel blisters caused by walking? There is medical evidence that his legs were distorted by confinement, but the medical _post-mortem_ evidence says that this was not the case. He told Binder that his windows were shuttered: he told Hiltel, the gaoler, that from his windows he saw "a pile of wood and above it the top of a tree."
Obviously Kaspar"s legends about himself, whether spoken in June 1828, or written in February 1829, are absurdly false. He was for three weeks in the tower, and was daily visited by the curious. Yet in these three weeks the half-conscious animal "learned to read tolerably well, to count, to write figures" (_that_ he could do when he arrived, Feuerbach says), "he made progress in writing a good hand, and learned a simple tune on the harpsichord," pretty well for a half-unconscious animal.
In July 1828, after being adopted by the excited town of Nuremberg, he was sent to be educated by and live with a schoolmaster named Daumer, and was studied by Feuerbach. They found, in Kaspar, a splendid example of the "sensitive," and a n.o.ble proof of the powers of "animal magnetism." In Germany, at this time, much was talked and written about "somnambulism" (the hypnotic state), and about a kind of "animal magnetism" which, in accordance with Mesmer"s theory, was supposed to pa.s.s between stars, metals, magnets, and human beings. The effects produced on the patient by the hypnotist (now ascribed to "suggestion") were attributed to a "magnetic efflux," and Reichenbach"s subjects saw strange currents flowing from metals and magnets. His experiments have never, perhaps, been successfully repeated, though hysterical persons have pretended to feel the traditional effects, even when non-magnetic objects were pointed at them. Now Kaspar was really a "sensitive," or feigned to be one, with hysterical cunning. Anything unusual would throw him into convulsions, or reduce him to unconsciousness. He was addicted to the tears of sensibility. Years later Meyer read to him an account of the Noachian Deluge, and he wept bitterly. Meyer thought this rather too much, the Deluge being so remote an event, and, after that, though Meyer read pathetic things in his best manner, Kaspar remained unmoved. He wrote a long account of his remarkable magnetic sensations during and before the first thunderstorm after his arrival at Nuremberg. Yet, before his appearance there, he must have heard plenty of thunderstorms, though he pretended that this was his first. The sight of the moon produced in him "emotions of horror." He had visions, like the Rev. Ansel Bourne, later to be described, of a beautiful male figure in a white garment, who gave him a garland. He was taken to a "somnambulist," and felt "magnetic" pulls and pushes, and a strong current of air. Indeed the tutor, Daumer, shared these sensations, obviously by virtue of "suggestion." They are out of fashion, the doctrine of animal magnetism being as good as exploded, and n.o.body feels pulled or pushed or blown upon, when he consults Mrs. Piper or any other "medium."
From a letter of Feuerbach of September 20, 1828, we learn that Kaspar, "_without being an albino_," can see as well in utter darkness as in daylight. Perhaps the man who taught Kaspar to write, in the dark, _was_ an albino: Kaspar never saw his face. Kaspar"s powers of vision abated, as he took to beef, but he remained hyperaesthetic, and could see better in a bad light than Daumer or Feuerbach. Some "dowsers," we know, can detect subterranean water, by the sensations of their hands, without using a twig, or divining rod, and others can "spot" gold hidden under the carpet, with the twig. Kaspar, merely with the bare hand, detected (without touching it?) a needle under a table cloth. He gradually lost these gifts, and the theory seems to have been that they were the result of his imprisonment in the dark, and a proof of it. The one thing certain is that Kaspar had the sensitive or "mediumistic" temperament, which usually--though not always--is accompanied by hysteria, while hysteria means cunning and fraud, whether conscious or not so conscious. Meanwhile the boy was in the hands of men credulous, curious, and, in the case of Daumer, capable of odd sensations induced by suggestion. From such a boy, in such company, the truth could not be expected, above all if, like some other persons of his cla.s.s, he was subject to "dissociation" and obliviousness as to his own past.
Rather curiously we find in Feuerbach"s own published collection of Trials the case of a boy, Sorgel, who had "paroxysms of second consciousness ... of which he was ignorant upon returning to his ordinary state of consciousness." We have also the famous case of the atheistic carpenter, Ansel Bourne, who was struck deaf, dumb, and blind, and miraculously healed, in a dissenting chapel, to the great comfort of "a large and warm congregation." Mr. Bourne then became a preacher, but later forgot who he was, strolled to a distant part of the States, called himself Browne, set up a "notions store," and, one day, awoke among his notions to the consciousness that he was Bourne, not Browne, a preacher, not a dealer in cheap futilities. Bourne was examined, under hypnotism, by Professor William James and others.[12]
[Footnote 12: _Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research_, vol. vii. pp. 221-257.]
Many such instances of "ambulatory automatism" are given. In my view, Kaspar was, to put it mildly, an ambulatory automatist, who had strayed away, like the Rev. Mr. Bourne, from some place where n.o.body desired his return: rather his lifelong absence was an object of hope.
The longer Kaspar lived, the more frequently was he detected in every sort of imposture that could make him notorious, or enable him to shirk work.
Kaspar had for months been the pet mystery of Nuremberg. People were sure that, like the mysterious prisoner of Pignerol, Les Exiles, and the Isle Sainte-Marguerite (1669-1703?), Kaspar was some great one, "kept out of his own." Now the prisoner of Pignerol was really a valet, and Kaspar was a peasant. Some thought him a son of Napoleon: others averred (as we saw) that he was the infant son of the Grand Duke Karl of Baden, born in 1812, who had not died within a fortnight of his birth, but been spirited away by a lady disguised as the spectral "White Lady of Baden," an aristocratic _ban-shie_. The subtle conspirators had bred the Grand Duke Kaspar in a dark den, the theory ran, hoping that he would prove, by virtue of such education, an acceptable recruit for the Bavarian cavalry, and that no questions would be asked. Unluckily questions were now being asked, for a boy who could only occasionally see and hear was not (though he could smell a cemetery at a distance of five hundred yards), an useful man on a patrol, at least the military authorities thought not. Had they known that Kaspar could see in the dark, they might have kept him as a guide in night attacks, but they did not know. The promising young hussar (he rode well but clumsily) was thus left in the hands of civilians: the Grand Ducal secret might be discovered, so an a.s.sa.s.sin was sent to take off the young prince.