to be jealous still less, to be deceived. But it was, that she wished constantly to see her lover, or to think of him, without being disturbed by indifferent persons."

This summary of her character wholly confirms our estimate of its exclusiveness and limited qualities. It shows her tenderness; but it demonstrates that she was neither large-minded nor largehearted. It also offers another significant point of consideration— borne out by similar particulars in the foregoing account of La Vallière as displaying the complaisance with which ecclesiastical dignitaries can extend leniency towards female error in the person of a king's mistress; the moderation they can afford in treating of a monarch's misdemeanours, and the chary terms in which they can dress a royal favourite's lapse from virtue. Extenuation and apology wait on court sin. A poor deluded peasant-girl would have been heaped with scorn and reprobation; while La Vallière is lauded as a specimen of excellence, and hailed as an interesting and edifying penitent. She has a palliative homily pronounced for her by a prospective bishop; her inaugural sermon is preached by one of France's most eminent prelates, an existing bishop; and her panegyric is written by a literary Abbé. Queens, princesses, and marchionesses, flock to admire her; a pattern-woman writes to her own daughter applauding her; while she herself is raised to be a duchess, and rises into a reputed saint. Verily, when female weakness is hardly dealt with in the person of lowly women, it might be as well to call to mind the story of La Vallière. Error springing from a too tender heart in those both indigent and ignorant, should find some forbearance, when the ultra-tenderness of La Vallière, rich, highborn, and educated, found such distinguished toleration.