also states, as from that former paper, that the losses which he particularized were all owing to the panic created by the Maid's services, and their lacke of sadde (wise) beleve" and their "unlevefull (unlawful) doubte that thei hadde of a disciple and lyme of the feende called the Pucille, that used fals enchauntements and sorcerie."

Since this note was written there has been published (at least in a separate form') the very able and interesting historical essay of Lord Mahon, "Joan of Arc." Allowance being made for the leaning of an author towards his heroine, there appears no reason to question the correctness of the view which his Lordship takes of the whole subject. It may, however, be doubted if he has sufficiently kept in mind the strong bias under which the testimony was given on the proceedings of the Revision, both from the persons examined and from the current of public feeling then setting in against the original trial, in which the prejudice was all the other way. This renders it difficult for the historical inquirer to find his way among the conflicting statements. The vast number of the works which have at different times been published either upon the Maid or upon the period to which her history belongs, does not much relieve him. M. Chaussard has enumerated above four hundred.

It seems to be now admitted that the story so long current, and which almost all accounts had adopted from Monstrelet, of her having for a length of time been servant at an inn and employed in the stables, is either groundless, or at least much exaggerated. Nevertheless Lord M., who with Barante and Sismondi gives it up, is not perhaps quite justified in ascribing it to the Burgundian prejudices of Monstrelet. The arguments of Dacier (referred to Note XLVII. supra) seem to disprove the opinion entertained by others, as well as his Lordship, that Monstrelet belonged to the Burgundian party. It is to be further observed, that some explanation is required of the Maid's remarkable address in the use of armour, and especially of her perfect horsemanship; and the judicious M. Petitot, as Lord M. admits, It had appeared in the Quarterly Review.

considers it as certain that for some time at least she had acted as servant at an inn (Col. de Mém., viii. 242, 243.) His Lordship reduces this period to fifteen days, which would in no wise account for her expertness.

Upon the subject of her communication to Charles respecting his secret thoughts, Lord M. follows M. Barante and M. Sismondi, who do not mention her having made any allusion to Charles's intended retirement from France in consequence of his distressed condition.

There can be no doubt that his Lordship is right in treating with contempt the exaggerations of the French writers who dwell upon the Maid's talents in council and in the field. Indeed nothing can be more absurd, or more in plain contradiction to the whole facts, especially the entire disregard of her by Charles's officers and advisers in every one respect except her enthusiasm, her courage, and her character, which they turned to account.

His Lordship also very judiciously represents her behaviour upon the condemnation and at the scaffold to have been very different from the description given by fanciful writers and enthusiasts. That she should have been both shocked, dismayed, and terrified, was most natural, and can in no way lessen our pity and our indignation. Voltaire's remark, too, is perfectly just, that this demeanour was quite consistent with her great and unvaried courage in the field. (Mel. Hist., iii. 265.)

An absurd error in translating Bedford's letter is made by some French writers. M. Barante (Ducs de Bourg., Phil. le Bon, liv. 3) translates "lyme of the feende"-" limon de l'enfer" (femme née du limon de l'enfer). M. Sismondi (Hist. des Franç., xiii. 146) gives it accurately-" membre du diable."

NOTE LIX.-p. 297.

No notice is taken in the text of the most unaccountable of all the singular circumstances connected with the Maid's historythe attempt to prove that she did not suffer at Rouen, another having been substituted in her place—because upon the whole it

should seem that this was an imposture. Nevertheless some of the matters related are well fitted to raise a doubt, they having received no kind of explanation. M. Barante passes the whole over in silence; M. Sismondi (xiii. 194) only mentions that Dom Calmet, in his Hist. de Lorraine, gives the extract from the contemporary chronicle of St. Thiebault. But the facts are worthy of attention.

M. Turpin (Sup. de l'Encyclop., i. 531) states the grounds upon which many contended that the woman was not an impostor who appeared the year after Bedford's death and declared she was Joan. First. Seven weeks were suffered by the Bishop of Beauvais to elapse between the last sentence and the execution, which it is suggested one so anxious for her death never would have done, except that there was delay in finding the capital convict to be substituted for her. But no delay whatever took place; and even if there had, it was easily explained by the efforts made to obtain a second confession from her. Secondly. Charles making no effort in her behalf is urged; but plainly no reliance is to be placed on this argument. Thirdly. A grant is produced from the Duc d'Orléans in 1443 to Pierre, brother of the Maid, proceeding upon his petition (supplication), in which he represents his loyalty, and especially his services to the Crown in accompanying his sister when she left her country, and he adds that he had constantly been with her ever since. Fourthly. The woman married in 1436 the Sieur des Armoises (some accounts have it Hermoises), a gentleman of good property. The contract of marriage between Jeanne du Lis (the name her family had been allowed by Charles to take) and Robert des Armoises is stated by P. Viguier, dean of St. Thiebault of Metz, to have been seen by him. The MS. of the Dean is cited by Dom Calmet, as is the contract and it must be observed that Metz was the place where she said she had resided after her escape, and before she returned to her home. M. Turpin naturally remarks upon the impossibility of believing that an impostor could have deceived the Maid's own brothers, Peter and John. He does not show that John was deceived, but the MS. mentions John's belief as well as Peter's. It is to be

observed that the impostor was perfectly successful, not only in persuading the Chev. des Armoises, but many others, including the Dean himself. She resided some time at Metz with her husband, and she had also so far deceived the Comte de Vunembourg that he had armour made which he presented her with. The marriage was at Erlon: "Là (says the Metz MS.) fût fait le mariage de M. des Hermoises, chevalier, et de Gehanne la Pucelle, et puis après s'en vint le dit Sieur avec sa femme la Pucelle demeurer à Metz, et se tint là jusqu'à tant qu'il leur plaisit aller."

M. Turpin observes that it would be better at once to deny the whole story than to suppose, as some have done, that she persuaded the brothers. But it is possible they may have been in league with her to deceive M. Armoises and the Duc d'Orléans. Lord Mahon, however, adds (from Petitot) a very important fact, which cannot be got rid of by any such hypothesis. The Receiver-General's accounts at Orleans contain, it seems, three entries for money paid in 1436 to entertain the Maid and her brothers; in 1439, to entertain la dame Jehanne des Armoises; and in August, 1439, for a gift to the same lady on account of her great services at the siege. This appears in Petitot's Coll. de Mém., tome viii. 311. His Lordship justly remarks on the difficulty of supposing that the people of Orleans could have been deceived respecting her person (Hist. Ess., pt. i. 54); and it must be recollected that the first of these entries relates to a period when there must have been many still living who well remembered the siege only seven years before. M. Petitot escapes from the difficulty, and does not meet it.

There seems but one means of escaping from the conclusion to which these circumstances lead. It is not easily to be supposed that the fact of her having escaped from her enemies should have been concealed both by Charles and his partisans, and by the friends of Bedford; and in the proceeding, in 1456, for her vindication at the instance of her brothers, it seems incredible that the fact of her having survived should not have been brought forward, had not the imposture at that time been thoroughly exposed and forgotten.

The ease with which all kinds of marvels seem to have obtained believers after the first appearance of the Maid is also to be considered. Several persons came forward pretending to heavenly gifts. One of them, called the Pastouret, had even been made use of by the French captains; but being taken in a skirmish a short time before Henry's coronation he was led to Paris and treated as a madman. He was drowned in the Seine. Voltaire (Mel. Hist., iii. 265), in very dogmatically treating the story of Madame des Armoises as a manifest imposture, says, without his wonted acuteness, that she succeeded in "deceiving the Maid's brothers." He adds, that there were two other women who had also some success in passing for Joan. As usual, he gives no authority; and among the endless number of books on the subject of the Maid it is useless to conjecture whence he took the statement.

The best of the later works are Le Brun's Extracts from the MS. in the Bib. du Roi; Laverdy's Biography, published in 1815; Quicherat's late publication, Procès de Jeanne d'Arc; and Petitot's Col. des Mémoires relatifs à l'Histoire de France, vol. viii.

M. Petitot (Coll. de Mém., viii. 325) has given a full account of Cazes' attempt to prove that the Maid was the daughter of Queen Isabelle by D'Orléans. It seems wholly unworthy of notice except that, perhaps, this opinion might explain the great puzzle of Madame des Armoises.

NOTE LX. p. 284.

The history of these times is fruitful in similar illustrations of the weakness which the remains of the feudal system entailed upon the executive power. But I hardly know a better instance than is afforded by the intrigues which beset Charles on his wishing to appoint Richemont successor of Buchan the Constable, killed at Verneuil in 1429. Richemont, though he had been won over by Bedford's address and by his own revenge, also by Bedford's suit to the Burgundian Princess, yet retained his affection for France and his antipathy to England, where he had