Bouillon, inheritor of the rights, and above all of the
ambitious pretensions of the La Tour family, was endeavouring to prove the
descent of that house in the direct line from the ancient hereditary counts
of Auvergne of the 9th century.

As authentic documents in support of these pretensions could not be found,
false ones were fabricated. The production of spurious genealogies had
already been begun in the _Histoire de la maison d'Auvergne_ published by
Christophe Justel in 1645; and Chorier, the historian of Dauphiny, had
included in the second volume of his history (1672) a forged deed which
connected the La Tours of Dauphiny with the La Tours of Auvergne. Next a
regular manufactory of forged documents was organized by a certain Jean de
Bar, an intimate companion of the cardinal. These rogues were skilful
enough, for they succeeded in duping the most illustrious scholars; Dom
Jean Mabillon, the founder of Diplomatics, Dom Thierry Ruinart and Baluze
himself, called as experts, made a unanimously favourable report on the
23rd of July 1695. But cardinal de Bouillon had many enemies, and a war of
pamphlets began. In March 1698 Baluze in reply wrote a _Letter_ which
proved nothing. Two years later, in 1700, Jean de Bar and his accomplices
were arrested, and after a long and searching inquiry were declared guilty
in 1704. Baluze, nevertheless, was obstinate in his opinion. He was
convinced that the incriminated documents were genuine and proposed to do
Justel's work anew. Encouraged and financially supported by the cardinal de
Bouillon, he first produced a _Table genealogique_ in 1705, and then in
1709 a _Histoire genealogique de la maison d'Auvergne_, with "Proofs,"
among which, unfortunately, we find all the deeds which had been pronounced
spurious. In the following year he was suddenly engulfed in the disgrace
which overtook his intriguing patron: deprived of his appointments,
pensions and benefices, he was exiled far from Paris. None the less he
continued to work, and in 1717 published a history of his native town,
_Historiae Tutelensis libri tres_. Before his death he succeeded in
returning to Paris, where he died unconvinced of his errors on the 28th of
July 1718. Was he dupe or accomplice? The study of his correspondence with
the cardinal gives the impression that he was the victim of clever cheats.

The history of the forgeries committed in the interests of the house of
Bouillon forms a curious and instructive epi