On February 20, 1672, Saint-Mars, for the sake of economy, wished to use Dauger as valet to Lauzun.  This proves that Saint-Mars did not, after all, see the necessity of secluding Dauger or thought the King’s fears groundless.  In the opinion of Saint-Mars, Dauger did not want to be released, “would never ask to be set free.”  Then why was he so anxiously guarded?  Louvois refused to let Dauger be put with Lauzun as valet.  In 1675, however, he allowed Dauger to act as valet to Fouquet, but with Lauzun, said Louvois, Dauger must have no intercourse.  Fouquet had then another prisoner valet, La Riviere.  This man had apparently been accused of no crime.  He was of a melancholy character, and a dropsical habit of body:  Fouquet had amused himself by doctoring him and teaching him to read.

In the month of December, 1678, Saint-Mars, the commandant of the prison, brought to Fouquet a sealed letter from Louvois, the seal unbroken.  His own reply was also to be sealed, and not to be seen by Saint-Mars.  Louvois wrote that the King wished to know one thing, before giving Fouquet ampler liberty.  Had his valet, Eustache Dauger, told his other valet, La Riviere, what he had done before coming to Pignerol? (de ce a quoi il a ete employe aupravant que d’etre a Pignerol).  “His Majesty bids me ask you [Fouquet] this question, and expects that you will answer without considering anything but the truth, that he may know what measures to take,” these depending on whether Dauger has, or has not, told La Riviere the story of his past life.[1] Moreover, Lauzun was never, said Louvois, to be allowed to enter Fouquet’s room when Dauger was present.  The humorous point is that, thanks to a hole dug in the wall between his room and Fouquet’s, Lauzun saw Dauger whenever he pleased.

[1] Lair, Nicholas Foucquet, ii. pp. 463, 464.

From the letter of Louvois to Fouquet, about Dauger (December 23, 1678), it is plain that Louis XIV. had no more pressing anxiety, nine years after Dauger’s arrest, than to conceal what it was that Dauger had done.  It is apparent that Saint-Mars himself either was unacquainted with this secret, or was supposed by Louvois and the King to be unaware of it.  He had been ordered never to allow Dauger to tell him; he was not allowed to see the letters on the subject between Lauzun and Fouquet.  We still do not know, and never shall know, whether Dauger himself knew his own secret, or whether (as he had anticipated) he was locked up for not divulging what he did not know.

The answer of Fouquet to Louvois must have satisfied Louis that Dauger had not imparted his secret to the other valet, La Riviere, for Fouquet was now allowed a great deal of liberty.  In 1679, he might see his family, the officers of the garrison, and Lauzun—­it being provided that Lauzun and Dauger should never meet.  In March, 1680, Fouquet died, and henceforth the two valets were most rigorously guarded; Dauger, because he was supposed to know something; La Riviere, because Dauger might have imparted the real or fancied secret to him.  We shall return to these poor serving men, but here it is necessary to state that, ten months before the death of their master, Fouquet, an important new captive had been brought to the prison of Pignerol.