France at this time, 1648, was in a position to gain for herself a peace with the world at her own terms, and her future seemed to be without a cloud.  It was the Fronde that checked her growth and glory, and the cause of this was the estrangement of the house of Conde through the action of Mme. de Longueville in passing with her husband over to the party of the Importants, she being the first of her family to forsake the government.  Under the leadership of La Rochefoucauld, she cast her lot with the opposing party, allowing herself to be identified with the interests of those who had endeavored to tarnish her early reputation.  Becoming a leader with Mme. de Chevreuse and Mme. de Montbazon (her rival), she easily won over her young brother, the Prince de Conti.  After the imprisonment of her husband and her two brothers, she began her real career as a woman of tactics, politics, and generalship.

With the connivance of Mme. de Chevreuse and the Princess Palatine, a general plan had been formed to create a new government by the union of the aristocracy.  The marriage, already spoken of, between the Duke of Enghien and one of the daughters of the Duke of Orleans and that arranged between the Prince of Conti and the daughter of Mme. de Chevreuse were to have united the Fronde with the house of Conde.  The alliances, however, were declared off, and Mme. de Chevreuse went over to the cardinal and the queen; Conde’s fall and Mazarin’s success followed, being the result, mainly, of the determination of Mme. de Chevreuse to avenge herself upon Conde for having consented to the breaking of the marriage contracts.

Mme. de Longueville did all in her power to continue the conflict that Conde had undertaken, but, exhausted by continual excitement and ill success, she was compelled to retire.  After this, her life, spent in Normandy, at the Carmelites’ convent and at Port Royal, became a long penance, which increased in austerity until she died in 1679.  Thus, her career was at first one of unblemished brilliancy, then a period of elegant and intellectual debauch, and finally one of expiation.

“Her politics,” says Sainte-Beuve, “considered in the ensemble, are nothing more than a desire to please, to shine—­a capricious love.  Her character lacked consistency and self-will, her mind was keen, ready, subtle, ingenious, but not reasonable.”

In her convent life, her crowning virtue was humility.  Her enemies did not cease to attack her, but she received all their affronts with the noblest resignation.  The following testimonies are taken from a Jansenist manuscript of 1685: 

“She never said anything to her own advantage.  She made use of as many occasions as she could find for humiliating herself without any affectation.  What she said, she said so well that it could not be better said.  She listened much, never interrupted, and never showed any eagerness to speak.  She spoke sensibly, modestly, charitably, and without passion.  To court her was to speak with equity and without passion of everyone and to esteem the good in all.  Her whole exterior, her voice, her face, her gestures, were a perfect music; and her mind and body served her so well in expressing what she wished to make heard, that she appeared the most perfect actress in the world.”