Nicolas Fouquet or Foucquet, born in Paris, baptized on January 27, 1615, died in Pignerol on April 3, 1680, Viscount of Melun and Vaux, Marquis of Belle-Isle was a French statesman. General prosecutor of the Parliament of Paris, all-powerful superintendent of finances of Louis XIV, protector of writers and artists, he was disgraced in 1661 by the young monarch and, after a long trial, thrown into prison where he died.
Youth
Nicolas Fouquet is the second son of François IV Fouquet, State Councilor in the Parliament of Paris and partner of the Compagnie des Îles d'Amérique, and Marie de Maupéou, from a large family of the dress. The Fouquet family made a fortune in the cloth trade before converting to the judiciary. Contrary to the claims of the time of the Fouquet clan, the family is not noble. It bears Argent a squirrel rampant Gules, with the motto "Quo non ascendet?" (“How high will he not go?”). A "foucquet" is indeed, in patois of the western regions (Angevin), a squirrel. Like the Maupéou, the Fouquets are "an exemplary family of the Counter-Reformation", with a spirituality very close to François de Sales and Jeanne de Chantal. Of the couple's twelve surviving children, the six girls became nuns, all the boys were tonsured and two of them were bishops.
In the same spirit, it was to the Jesuits of the college of Clermont that his parents entrusted the education of Nicolas. At the same time, he helps his mother, Marie de Maupéou, in the preparation of medicine for the poor. His taste for chemistry and pharmacy persisted throughout his life. His older brother being destined to join the robe, like his father, the young Nicolas was first oriented towards the ecclesiastical state. As a result, he received the tonsure in January 1635. He became treasurer of the Abbey of Saint-Martin de Tours and received the benefit of the priory of Saint-Julien de Doüy. Despite everything, his family still hesitates on the orientation to give to his career. In the end, it was the law that prevailed - according to the jurisconsult Christophe Balthazar, on the advice of Richelieu himself:Nicolas passed his law degree at the Sorbonne and was registered on the roll of lawyers.
Political career
Magistrate
In March 1633, his father asked the cardinal for a position as adviser to the Parliament of Paris for Nicolas. His request is refused:the eldest brother, François V, already has an identical office. Nevertheless, the following year he obtained a position as adviser to the Parliament of Metz, newly created by Richelieu. This granting testifies to the favor of François and the confidence of the cardinal in Nicolas, who obtains an exemption from age. Nicolas receives a mission from the cardinal:to inventory the papers of the Treasury of the chancellery of Vic, where are kept all the titles of the temporal of the bishopric of Metz and the abbey of Gorze. It is a question of verifying whether Duke Charles IV of Lorraine does not encroach on the rights of the King of France, which is always the case when it comes to landlocked territories abroad and recently attached to France.; this is the commonly used casus belli. It is indeed a question of justifying the entry of the French troops in its States which occupy the duchy before the conclusions of Nicolas. The young man carries out his task brilliantly.
In 1635, the older brother of Nicolas enters the orders. From now on, it is Nicolas who carries the hopes of social ascent of his father, who buys his son a position as master of requests at the Hotel. Here too, Nicolas receives an age exemption[8]. In 1638, he was detached from the court of Metz to participate in the Sovereign Council imposed by France in Nancy. He led the way there, taking part in comedy sessions, balls and feasts. The same year, his father, to associate him with his business, gave him a share in the Compagnie des îles d'Amérique.
François Fouquet, feeling close to death, pushes his son to marry. Nicolas sets his sights on Louise Fourché. The contract is signed on January 10, 1640 in Nantes between the parents. It was a rich marriage:Louise brought a dowry of 160,000 pounds in cash and private income plus the land of Quéhillac. Nicolas receives from his parents the property of his office of master of requests estimated at 150,000 pounds, with in addition an annuity of 4,000 pounds to the denier 18, which represents approximately 20,000 pounds of capital. In addition, both Louise and Nicolas have strong family ties in Brittany:Louise through her parents (her father is an adviser to the Parliament of Brittany) and Nicolas through his Chalain cousins and through his father's ties with the trading companies of the Atlantic. François Fouquet died shortly afterwards, followed in early 1641 by Nicolas' maternal grandfather, Gilles de Maupéou.
At the age of 26, Nicolas Fouquet finds himself head of his family clan. He took over his father's activities within the various shipping companies in which the family held shares:Compagnie des îles d'Amérique, du Sénégal or de la Nouvelle-France. In 1640, he was one of the first shareholders of the Société du Cap-Nord and in 1642, he entered that of the East Indies
At the same time, to establish his social position, he acquired the noble land of Vaux, in Brie, in the bailiwick of Melun, which gave him the title of viscount of Vaux. Six months after his marriage, however, his wife died shortly after giving birth to a daughter, Marie. In 1642, the death of Richelieu, longtime protector of the Fouquet family, put an end to his colonial and maritime dreams. Fouquet then definitively chose state service. Fortunately for him, the ministerial team was kept in place by Louis XIII then, on his death, by the regent Anne of Austria:Cardinal Mazarin took over from Richelieu and became Fouquet's new boss. /P>
In 1644, he was appointed intendant of justice, police and finance in Grenoble in the Dauphiné, probably by personal decision of the regent. It is a difficult position for a young man with little experience, moreover in a province with strong regional particularism. Fouquet commits one of the rare blunders of his career there. During the summer, when he took his post, he left his post without authorization to attend the enthronement of his elder brother François, appointed bishop of Agde. However, in his absence, an anti-tax riot broke out. He was immediately revoked by Mazarin, on the initiative of Chancellor Séguier. Fortunately, a second incident allows him to shorten his disgrace:on the way back, new riots break out in Valencia. Thanks to his composure, his oratorical talents and his personal courage, Fouquet managed to calm things down. As a reward, he returned to the corps of masters of requests in 1646. Mazarin entrusts him with an observation mission during the siege of Lérida, in Spain. Having given full satisfaction, Fouquet was appointed intendant to the army of Picardy the following year, on the personal decision of Anne of Austria.
Under the Fronde
In 1648, he became intendant of the generality of Paris. The Fronde gave his post an unexpected importance. He immediately sided with Anne of Austria and Mazarin, thus winning the queen's unwavering favor. After Union stopped, he sent the queen a letter advising to negotiate and divide his enemies, an attitude he maintained throughout the Fronde. During the siege of Paris, he took care of the subsistence service.
In November 1650, he took an important step by buying for 450,000 pounds the office of attorney general of the parliament of Paris, with the blessing of Mazarin as of the regent. He thus enters the elite of the dress. He took the opportunity to establish his social status with a second marriage, concluded in February 1651. The new Madame Fouquet, born Marie-Madeleine de Castille-Villemareuil, belonged to a family of ennobled merchants. She is only 15 years old, he is 36. Her dowry is less than that of Marie Fourché, but she brings in compensation a vast circle of relations. At the same time, Parliament votes to expel Mazarin. He took the lead by going into exile in Germany. Officially, Fouquet, attorney general, instructed against Mazarin. Secretly, he kept Mazarin informed until his return to favor, thanks to his brother Basile, known as "Abbé Fouquet", chief of the cardinal's secret police. On July 31, a royal decree transfers the Parliament to Pontoise. Fouquet oversees the operation, to the jeers of the crowd.
He had his revenge at the end of the Fronde:during the bed of justice of October 22, 1652, after the reading of the act of amnesty, he delivered a great speech praising the clemency of the king and castigating his colleagues who had remained in Paris. . Thereafter, he will be ruthless with the supporters of Condé.
Finance Superintendent
In February 1653, the Duke of La Vieuville, superintendent of finances, died suddenly. Fouquet, supported by financial friends, immediately applied for his succession. Even if Mazarin, reluctant to decide, also appointed the diplomat Abel Servien to the same office, Fouquet won on February 7 over candidates of primary importance such as Le Tellier, Mathieu Molé, the former superintendent of Maisons or the marshals of Villeroi and Hospital. He owes his appointment to his good behavior during the Fronde, but also to the influence of his brother Basile. The superintendency is accompanied by a minister's certificate, which allows Fouquet to sit on the Conseil d'En-Haut, the most powerful monarchical body. Fouquet is thus the youngest person in charge of Finances of the Old Regime. As to its competence, opinions vary. One of his biographers, Jean-Christian Petitfils, believes that “he knew little about the mysteries of finance” and that he was “a stranger among publicans”. Historian Daniel Dessert indicates on the contrary that he is "prepared to face the formidable task of the Royal Finances" and that he "knows from the inside how finance works.
The royal finances are then in a disastrous state. While the crown's money needs were immense, both to finance the war and for the personal expenses of Louis XIV, the stock of precious metals available barely increased, and its level was insufficient. To cope, Fouquet does not rely on a precise economic theory. However, he knows from experience that the main problem of the French state is its lack of credit:traders, farmers and other donors do not trust him. It is therefore working to restore credit by respecting the contracts made between these contractors and the Treasury and by granting them advantageous rates. Thus, he assigns old savings notes to new funds, thus compensating for part of the bankruptcy of 1648. He emphasizes "extraordinary business":creation and sale of charges, creation of new rights, issues annuities and loans, all under very advantageous conditions for contractors. Unlike past monetary manipulations, in July 1653 he imposed a revaluation of the Tournament Pound:the gold pistole went from 12 to 10 pounds. Credit is more abundant and the situation is improving.
Far from encouraging wisdom, this improvement is causing new reckless spending. From 1654, the crisis returned. Fouquet had to make a major commitment to his personal fortune and even that of those close to him. In November 1657, he had to take charge of a third of a global contract of 11.8 million pounds. His personal credit enabled him to cover the commitment, but at the cost of 20% interest. Along with the difficulties he encountered in the exercise of his office, he had to reckon with the changing favor of Mazarin and the criticisms of Colbert, steward of the latter. Exasperated by these tensions, he even offers his resignation, which is refused. He did not get on well with his colleague Servien either:as early as December 1654, he had had to ask the king for a regulation to delimit the functions of each. Servien had been assigned the expenses, and Fouquet the receipts.
Fouquet's policy enabled him to build up a large clientele among the kingdom's money-handlers. In addition, the considerable financial flows that passed through the hands of the superintendent as well as a network of spies and informants enabled Fouquet to consolidate his position. The greatest lords become his friends and/or his obligees. Finally, his Maupéou cousins as well as his remarriage guarantee him a good hold on the dress. Fouquet consecrates his social ascent by marrying his daughter Marie with Armand de Béthune, Marquis de Charost, descendant of Sully. He endows his daughter princely:she brings 600,000 pounds to her husband in gold and silver louis.
On the death of Servien in 1659, Fouquet was confirmed alone in his charge, which he retained until the latter was abolished in 1661. He successfully repelled an intrigue by Colbert to relieve him of the superintendence[24], s endeavored to convince Mazarin of the need to reduce State expenditure and simultaneously worked on a vast financial recovery plan based on improving the collection of indirect taxes (centralization of general farms), the reduction of taxes (rebate on unpaid size arrears), the consolidation of municipal finances (verification of town debts) and, always, the improvement of relations with money-handlers. Despite the end of the war, however, the situation of royal finances remains very degraded. Money-handlers prefer to lend to the Court than to the King, and Fouquet must once again pledge his personal signature, agree to considerable interest rates, grant discounts and resort to extraordinary deals.
The record of his superintendence is not unanimous. Classical historiography criticizes Fouquet for his lack of clear economic principles, his timidity in reducing "extraordinary business" and extinguishing royal loans, but above all his collusion with the middle of the money-handlers, his clientelism and his personal enrichment. Daniel Dessert considers this balance sheet largely marked by the criticisms of Colbert and prefers to underline the beginnings of financial recovery obtained by Fouquet, by means altogether similar to those of Colbert:
“In reality, there is no profoundly different financial policy between Fouquet and his rival [Colbert]. What differentiates them is their style:all in nuances, in subtle touches in the first; in battering at the second. »
Colonial and maritime adventures
A shareholder, following his father, in colonial mining companies, Fouquet was aware of the problems inherent in these companies which often hesitated between religious and commercial goals, had insufficient means and suffered from competition from the English and the Dutch. Quickly, he therefore decided to intervene in the colonies in a more direct way, by becoming a shipowner. From the 1640s, his family bought or built several ships, including warships. Some seem to be used for racing, commissioned by France and Portugal; a part will be sold to the crown of France in 1656. Members of the family are also placed in strategic functions:in 1646, his cousin the president of Chalain becomes governor of the Breton port of Concarneau.
Fouquet wanted to go further and create for himself a domanial power in Brittany that could serve as a basis for vast colonial and commercial enterprises. It was with this in mind that he joined the illustrious Breton house of Rieux, from whom he bought several lands around the Gulf of Morbihan. In 1658, through Jeanne-Pélagie de Rieux, owner of the island of Yeu, he fortified the island where he brought armed vessels. The same year, he bought Belle-Île, of which he restored the walls, and where he built a port, stores and warehouses. It seems that the island is also intended to be a place of safety, a refuge in case of trial. At the same time, he set up, through a nominee, a trading company for Spain and the Indies, whose boats used Belle-Île as their home port and warehouse. At the head of a dozen ships, used for cabotage or long-distance trade, Fouquet ranks among the leading shipowners in the kingdom.
In order to take advantage of a legitimate authority, Fouquet bought in 1660 from the Duke of Damville the office of Viceroy of America, which he entrusted to a man of straw:the letters of provision granted the holder the authorization to to exempt from taxes the goods and ammunition intended for the places existing or to be created in America. The superintendent's objective was then to take control of the trade in Acadian skins and furs, as well as the cod fishery. However, he was unable to materialize his plans following the opposition of the Compagnie de la Nouvelle-France. His projects in Newfoundland and the West Indies were similarly unsuccessful, no doubt due to the dispersal of Fouquet's efforts.
Protector of arts and letters
Saint Mandé
Fouquet has many residences. As a young man, he lived in the family home on rue de Jouy, in Paris. He then acquired a residence near rue de Matignon, before moving to the Hôtel de Castille, brought as a dowry by his second wife. He then owned the Hôtel de Narbonne and that of Émery, adjoining that of Mazarin. He also buys a large property in Saint-Mandé. He causes it to be rebuilt and embellished. There he built up a large collection of books (27,000 volumes), surpassed only by that of Mazarin (50,000). His taste for gardens developed there:he redesigned them, decorating them with statues, greenhouses and orangeries. Nevertheless, he does not show a very refined taste:he seeks above all decorative and sumptuous pieces. He gave many receptions there and played big games. In 1656, he successively received the Court, Gaston d'Orléans and Queen Christine of Sweden.
Vaux-le-Vicomte
From 1653, he had a magnificent castle built in Vaux-le-Vicomte (current town of Maincy). The starting estate, purchased before he became superintendent, consists only of wasteland and an old castle. He began by methodically buying up the surrounding land:the entire estate ultimately represented more than 200 contracts, with some purchases only involving a few acres of land. He razed the village of Vaux, a few other hamlets and woods, diverted a river and uprooted vines. In addition, water supply works are carried out.
He made Le Vau, Le Brun and Le Nôtre work there. He surrounded himself with a small court of writers such as Molière, La Fontaine, Madame de Sévigné or Madame de Scudéry. The king came there for the first time in July 1659. On July 17, 1660, Fouquet received him there again, accompanied by the Infanta, when they were returning from Saint-Jean-de-Luz.
On July 11, 1661, he once again received the Court. Louis XIV was unable to attend the party, another is given on August 17. It is sumptuous, with water jets, fireworks, ambiguous (buffet) given for more than 1000 covers and supervised by François Vatel and play by Molière (creation of Les Fâcheux). Louis XIV is furious to see so much splendor while his own homes are empty. The origin of so much money seems suspicious to him. Fouquet's offer to give her Vaux only irritates her further. The Abbé de Choisy reported this to Anne of Austria:“Ah! Madame, won't we make all these people give their throats? »
The patron
Fouquet founded a salon in Meudon at the end of the Fronde. He attracted Paul Pellisson, Charles Perrault, Quinault, Ménage, La Fontaine. He also frequents scientists like the doctor Samuel Sorbière or the philosopher La Mothe Le Vayer. From 1660, he became interested in Molière.
In Vaux, his salon brings together precious people. Fouquet himself wrote poems, songs, riddles and rhymes, following the fashion of the time. He pensions many poets, such as Corneille (2000 books per year), Scarron (1600 books) or Gombauld (1000 books). His generosity towards artists makes him one of the most powerful patrons in France, well ahead of Cardinal Mazarin. In gratitude, Corneille dedicated his Oedipus to the superintendent, and Madeleine de Scudéry placed him in his Clélie, histoire romaine in the same rank as Richelieu as patron of the arts and letters.
Portrait
Behind a rather frail physical appearance, and despite his young experience, he showed great courage and composure. He is not easily troubled by adversity, and he relies on the resources of his intelligence and his eloquence to triumph over the worst difficulties.
This charmer, thanks to his persuasive verb, can as well subjugate rough crowds, overflowing with misery and anger, as the refined spirits of the court or the Palace, who delight in listening to his opinion. In a difficult position, he always appears as a man of dialogue, of negotiation, and his inventive and flexible spirit allows him to adapt to circumstances and master events. He quickly analyzes situations and knows how to take advantage of circumstances. In short, he demonstrates the qualities of a man of action, combined with a sense of moderation that knows how to manage recourse.
He has a character that predisposes him to become a Superintendent of Finances, efficient and adored, capable, like a conjurer, of bringing out capital. We notice a phenomenon that will follow Fouquet his entire life:wherever he goes, his personal seduction, his ability to impose himself on others are marvellous. Nicolas has a flexible and inventive mind; he has many qualities rarely combined in one man:he is full of charm and he knows perfectly the fiscal and financial apparatus of the kingdom.
His character also pushes him to fulfill his function as well as possible, both through a desire to serve well and to achieve glory; he is ready to lose everything to triumph... As a teenager and then as a young man, he rubs shoulders with questions of high politics and the most serious economic problems that agitate the kingdom; maritime and colonial affairs were familiar to him from an early age.
Few women had resisted Fouquet and those who, like Madame de Sévigné or the Marquise du Plessis-Bellière, had not been his mistresses, praised themselves for being his friends. However, he made the mistake of making advances to Louise de La Vallière, mistress of Louis XIV, which further increased the king's wrath towards him.
The trial
The reasons for the fall
When Mazarin died in March 1661, Fouquet's favor seemed to be at its height:he controlled the sovereign's Privy Council, which charged him with creating a Trade Council and entrusted him with several secret diplomacy missions. However, Colbert's incessant criticism of Fouquet ended up bearing fruit:Louis XIV was increasingly suspicious of a minister deemed too ambitious. Contrary to tradition, the extravagant party at Vaux was not the cause of Fouquet's arrest:the decision to dismiss him, by the king's own admission, had been taken earlier, on May 4. It is mainly explained by the impression of Louis XIV of being played by Fouquet:after having promised him to return to a healthier management of his finances, the superintendent fell back into his old practices. The king's resolve hardened when Colbert gave him the reports of his cousin, Colbert de Terron, on the fortifications and armament of Belle-Île.
Two elements stood in the way of the superintendent's fall:by virtue of his position as Attorney General, Fouquet was only justifiable before Parliament, which he controlled. Then, the superintendent enjoys the favor of Anne of Austria. Colbert counters it methodically:first, he manages so that Fouquet spontaneously proposes to the king to sell his office to give him the proceeds Then, he wins over to the anti-Fouquet cause the Duchess of Chevreuse, an old friend of the queen -mother. If Fouquet is informed of these intrigues, he does not understand the danger and on the contrary, accumulates blunders.
The arrest
While the court was in Nantes for the States of Brittany, on September 5, 1661, Louis XIV ordered d'Artagnan to arrest the superintendent for embezzlement. Visibly surprised, Fouquet offered to have Belle-Île handed over to the king and managed to notify his relatives, who would not use this respite to destroy his most compromising documents. Hugues de Lionne, his friend, asks the king to share the disgrace of the superintendent, but Louis XIV refuses. Belle-Isle surrenders without resistance to the royal troops. The seals are affixed to all of Fouquet's residences, and those of his clients. Mme Fouquet is exiled to Limoges, her brothers Louis and François confined to their dioceses. Gilles is stripped of his position as first squire, and even Basile has to go into exile in Guyenne. Some of his closest friends, like Pellisson, are imprisoned, the others under house arrest.
The statement
On September 7, Fouquet was transferred to the Château d'Angers. The searches begin, in the presence of Colbert, yet a private individual with no role in the investigation. Throughout the research, he sent to the king, in all irregularity, inventoried documents, some of which were kept and some returned after a few days[34]. Colbert also had all the accounts and all the financial records seized analyzed, in order to look for evidence against Fouquet. Behind a mirror, in Meudon, we discover Fouquet's "defense plan":these are instructions in the event of a crisis, drawn up by Fouquet himself in 1657, at a time when he believed that Mazarin had sworn his loss. The memorandum provides that in the event of Fouquet being imprisoned and placed incommunicado, the governors who are among his friends lock themselves up in their citadel and threaten to enter into dissidence to obtain his release. Unquestionably factional, this plan is however incomplete, incomplete and completely unrealistic. There is also a commitment made by the winners of the tax to pay an annual pension of 120,000 pounds to a beneficiary whose name is left blank:this is clearly a bribe. Subsequently, Fouquet would accuse Colbert of having had a document taken from Mazarin's papers placed at his home:in fact, the paper was not mentioned in a first report drawn up before Colbert's visit, and was not found only after a thorough inspection of the premises by the latter.
On September 12, Louis XIV abolished the superintendence, replacing it with a Royal Finance Council. Colbert takes Fouquet's position on the Conseil d'En Haut, with the rank of minister. A chamber of justice was set up on the 15th. It was made up of magistrates from the Court of Aid and the Court of Auditors. Its object is “the research of abuses and embezzlements committed in the finances since 1635”. On December 1, Fouquet was transferred to the Château d'Amboise; the population insults him on his way.
The investigation of Fouquet's trial was opened on March 3, 1662. From then on, the procedure got bogged down. The interrogations began on March 4, when Fouquet had no knowledge of the documents seized and no procedural document had been notified to him. In May, he was charged. On July 6, a judgment of the Conseil d'en Haut prohibited him from appealing to Parliament, despite his status as a former public prosecutor. He is not confronted with witnesses until July 18, and is not granted counsel until September 7. October 18 marks an important stage in the trial:the court issues a judgment, which forces the proceedings to continue in writing.
The chairman appoints a list of rapporteurs. Madame de Maupéou, who is acting on behalf of her son, challenges two of them, as she has the right to do. Louis XIV replies that he had chosen precisely these two magistrates, and refuses any modification. On December 10, Colbert had Lamoignon replaced, deemed too favorable to the accused, and replaced him with Pierre Séguier, whose hatred for the former superintendent was notorious.
Finally, on March 3, 1663, the court agrees to communicate to Fouquet the documents of its choice, and agrees to use only those which he would have studied. Meanwhile, Fouquet's accomplices are tried and sentenced. Thus, Jean Hérault de Gourville was sentenced to death in absentia for "peculat" and lèse-majesté. The Marquise du Plessis-Bellière, probably Fouquet's best friend, is imprisoned.
At the same time, the prisoner's friends publish libels in his favour. Pellisson, imprisoned, secretly publishes a Speech to the King by one of his loyal subjects on the trial of M. Fouquet, of which Louis XIV becomes aware. La Fontaine écrit et fait circuler, sans nom d’auteur, une Élégie aux Nymphes de Vaux, poème dédié à « M. F. » faisant appel à la clémence du roi, ce qui lui vaut la suppression de sa pension par Colbert. L’opinion publique commence à se retourner. Colbert, furieux, fait pourchasser les auteurs et les colporteurs de gazettes.
Les crimes reprochés
Les deux crimes reprochés sont le péculat (détournement de fonds publics par un comptable public) et la lèse-majesté, passibles tous deux de la peine de mort.
Le péculat
Les chefs d’accusation peuvent être regroupés comme suit :
* réception de pensions sur les fermes mises en adjudication;
* acquisition de droits sur le roi par le biais de divers prête-noms;
* réassignation de vieux billets surannés;
* octroi d’avances à l’État en cumul avec une fonction d’ordonnateur des fonds, afin d’en tirer bénéfice.
L’accusation appuie son argumentation, issue de la coterie de Colbert, sur deux types de preuves :d’abord, l’opulence de Fouquet et ses nombreuses acquisitions, ensuite, le témoignage de plusieurs manieurs d’argent ainsi que les papiers trouvés durant les perquisitions.
Sur le premier point, l’accusation soutient la pauvreté de Fouquet avant d’entrer dans les affaires :à preuve, il a dû emprunter les 300 000 livres de sa charge de procureur général. Elle met également en avant les dépenses importantes engagées pour Vaux. Elle met ensuite en avant son immense fortune actuelle, sur la base des 38 comptes découverts chez son commis :entre février 1653 et la fin 1656, Fouquet a reçu 23 millions de livres. Sur ce montant, 3,3 millions proviennent de ses gages et appointements, le reste étant constitué de billets de l’Épargne, d’ordonnances de comptant et de sommes reçues des gens d’affaires. Pour l’accusation, cela prouve que Fouquet confond les recettes destinées à l’État et ses revenus personnels.
De manière surprenante, et malgré les demandes de Fouquet, les magistrats ne dressent aucun état des biens de l’accusé, qui aurait pu permettre de trancher la question. En effet, Fouquet de son côté nie sa prétendue pauvreté au moment d’entrer en charge comme sa richesse actuelle. Tout au long de la procédure, il se défend habilement, profitant d’une insuffisante culture financière du chancelier Séguier. Il se montre évasif sur les questions les plus épineuses pour lui, comme celle des droits d’octroi, et exploite les faiblesses de l’accusation comme la complexité du dossier.
Sur le fond, Daniel Dessert donne raison au surintendant. Il juge que les différents chiffres produits à charge sont « divers, contradictoires, en un mot discutables » et devant être maniés avec précaution. Pour lui, ils témoignent davantage de la circulation des effets et de l’argent entre les mains de Fouquet et de ses collaborateurs que de l’ampleur de la fortune de ce dernier, et donc des détournements qu’il aurait commis. sur la base des actes notariés existant, des papiers du procès et des pièces relatives au règlement de la succession, il estime la fortune de Fouquet lors de son arrestation à 15,4 millions de livres d’actif et 15,5 millions de passif, soit un solde négatif de 89 000 livres. Fouquet n’aurait donc pas gagné à être surintendant. De plus, Fouquet n’aurait pas volé son argent au roi :toutes ses acquisitions seraient payées ou en cours de paiement avec l’argent de son couple. Il conclut que « l’ensemble du dossier, pièces à conviction et interrogatoires, ne permet pas de prouver un quelconque manquement de Fouquet. »
Jean-Christian Petitfils se montre plus réservé. Sa propre estimation de l’état des biens de Fouquet fait ressortir un actif de 18 millions de livres et un passif de 16,2 millions, soit un solde positif de 1,8 million. Il met également l’accent sur le compte de résultat et notamment l’importance des dépenses, ainsi que sur le désordre de la comptabilité de Fouquet. Si « rien ne démontre qu’il ait puisé directement dans les caisses du Trésor (...) il est difficile d’admettre qu’au milieu de cette orgie de faux et de concussion, Fouquet soit resté blanc comme neige[48]. » Comme beaucoup de ses contemporains, Fouquet se serait donc bel et bien enrichi en se comportant comme banquier, financier et traitant vis-à-vis de l’État, alors même qu’il était en même temps ordonnateur des fonds.
La lèse-majesté
L’accusation se fonde essentiellement sur le plan de défense de Saint-Mandé, lequel n’était pas connu au moment de l’arrestation :on reproche à Fouquet d’avoir fomenté un plan de rébellion en bonne et due forme en corrompant des gouverneurs de place et des officiers, en fortifiant certaines de ses terres, en constituant une flotte de vaisseaux armés en guerre et en tentant d’enlister dans son parti la Compagnie de Jésus. Au pied du mur, Fouquet invoque un mouvement de folie et dénie tout caractère sérieux au contenu du plan. Pour lui, son seul crime est de ne pas avoir brûlé ce papier aussitôt rédigé. Il conclut en faisant allusion au comportement de son accusateur, Séguier, pendant la Fronde, ainsi qu’à celui de son gendre, le duc de Sully, qui avait ouvert aux Espagnols les portes de Mantes dont il avait le gouvernement.
Le jugement
Alors que le roi réclame discrètement mais fermement la mort, Fouquet est condamné le 21 décembre 1664 par la Chambre de justice au seul bannissement hors du royaume et à la confiscation de ses biens, bien qu’il soit reconnu coupable de péculat et de lèse-majesté. C’est un désaveu terrible pour Colbert, qui a consacré trois ans d’efforts à obtenir la peine capitale. Voltaire, tout en reconnaissant que Fouquet a « dissipé les finances de l’État et (...) en a usé comme des siennes propres », explique cette sentence clémente par « l’irrégularité des procédures faites contre [Fouquet], la longueur de son procès, l’acharnement odieux du chancelier Séguier contre lui, le temps qui éteint l’envie publique, et qui inspire la compassion pour les malheureux, enfin les sollicitations toujours plus vives en faveur d’un infortuné que les manœuvres pour le perdre ne sont pressantes. »
N’hésitant pas à recourir au déni de justice, Louis XIV commue la sentence en détention perpétuelle à Pignerol, place forte royale située dans les Alpes, et disgracie les juges, dont Lefèvre d’Ormesson, qui n’ont pas appliqué ses volontés dans cette affaire. Les riches amis financiers de Fouquet sont poursuivis par la même chambre de justice, qui siège jusqu’en 1669. Les nobles ne sont pas inquiétés.
La fin
Officiellement, Nicolas Fouquet meurt à la forteresse de Pignerol le 3 avril 1680, sous les yeux de son fils, le comte de Vaux, qui se trouve là en visite. La mort est due à une crise d’apoplexie et fait suite à une longue maladie. Aucun acte de décès n’est établi, mais une ordonnance énumère les frais entraînés par la maladie puis les funérailles de Fouquet. Au reste, la famille ne conteste pas les circonstances du décès; aucune autopsie n’est donc pratiquée. Le corps de Fouquet est déposé dans l’église Sainte-Claire de Pignerol, comme c’est la coutume pour les défunts anciens prisonniers de la forteresse, avant d’être transféré dans la chapelle Fouquet du couvent de la Visitation-Sainte-Marie, à Paris (actuelle église réformée du Marais, rue Saint-Antoine).
Cependant, plusieurs sources jettent le trouble sur ce récit des événements. Gourville affirme dans ses Mémoires que Fouquet a été libéré peu de temps avant de mourir, thèse confirmée, d’après Voltaire dans son Siècle de Louis XIV, par la comtesse de Vaux, sa belle-fille. Il faut noter cependant que le premier écrit des années après les événements et que la seconde a épousé le comte de Vaux après la mort de Fouquet. Robert Challes rapporte dans ses Mémoires une théorie que lui aurait confiée le premier commis de Colbert :relâché suite à l’intercession de la dauphine, Fouquet serait mort à Chalon-sur-Saône, possiblement d’une indigestion. Il est le premier à mentionner un éventuel empoisonnement. Malgré son niveau de détail, la théorie telle que rapportée par Challes est peu vraisemblable.
Enfin, il faut mentionner un ajout autographe de Louvois à la fin d’une lettre adressée à Saint-Mars, geôlier de Fouquet :« mandez-moi comment il est possible que le nommé Eustache ait fait ce que vous m’avez envoyé, et où il a pris les drogues nécesssaires pour le faire, ne pouvant croire que vous les lui ayez fournies. » Le « dénommé Eustache » est Eustache Dauger, un autre prisonnier de Pignerol, enfermé là pour éviter qu’il ne divulgue un secret d’État, et qui est devenu le valet de Fouquet. Le texte sybillin de Louvois laisse penser à un empoisonnement mais, si Dauger aurait bien eu la possibilité matérielle de le faire, on ne lui reconnaît aucun mobile. Petitfils suppose que les « drogues » dont il est question ont servi à élaborer de l’encre sympathique et conclut que Fouquet est mort de mort naturelle. Dessert, tout en jugeant « plausible » l’empoisonnement, souligne également l’absence de mobile, et écarte comme « matériellement impossible » l’idée que Colbert puisse en être à l’origine.
Sa haute position sociale au moment de son arrestation, et donc les nombreux secrets qu’il était censé connaître, l’acharnement du roi, qui brisa la sentence des juges, font que de nombreux auteurs, parmi lesquels Alexandre Dumas dans Le Vicomte de Bragelonne, ont mêlé le sort de Fouquet à celui de l’Homme au masque de fer. Cette thèse n’a pas de fondements historiques.