n removed--the sword of
ridicule. To show animosity against women--humiliation! especially
when the women in question have laughter on their side, as a means of
vengeance. If, instead of leaving all the responsibility of the affair
to these women, one of the courtiers had had anything to do with the
intrigue, how delightedly would Louis have seized the opportunity of
turning the Bastile to personal account. But there, again, the king's
anger paused, checked by reason. To be the master of armies, of prisons,
of an almost divine authority, and to exert such majesty and might in
the service of a petty grudge, would be unworthy not only of a monarch,
but even of a man. It was necessary, therefore, simply to swallow the
affront in silence, and to wear his usual gentleness and graciousness
of expression. It was essential to treat Madame as a friend. As a
friend!--Well, and why not? Either Madame had been the instigator of the
affair, or the affair itself had found her passive. If she had been the
instigator of it, it certainly was a bold measure on her part, but, at
all events, it was but natural in her. Who was it that had sought her in
the earliest moments of her married life to whisper words of love in
her ear? Who was it that had dared to calculate the possibility of
committing a crime against the marriage vow--a crime, too, still more
deplorable on account of the relationship between them? Who was it that,
shielded behind his royal authority, had said to this young creature:
be not afraid, love but the king of France, who is above all, and a
movement of whose sceptered hand will protect you against all attacks,
even from your own remorse? And she had listened to and obeyed the royal
voice, had been influenced by his ensnaring tones; and when, morally
speaking, she had sacrificed her honor in listening to him, she saw
herself repaid for her sacrifice by an infidelity the more humiliating,
since it was occasioned by a woman far beneath her in the world.

Had Madame, therefore, been the instigator of the revenge, she would
have been right. If, on the contrary, she had remained passive in the
whole affair, what grounds had the king to be angry with her on that
account? Was it for her to restrain, or rather could she restrain, the
chattering of a few country girls? and was it for her, by an excess
of zeal that might have been misinterpreted, to check, at the risk of
increasing it, the impertinence of their conduct? All these v