quitted his country to join their service, in company with his sister Jehanne La Pucelle: with whom, and ever since her absence, even to the present moment, he has exposed his body and all he possesses in the said service."

- a

What means the term, "ever since her absence," but that La Pucelle had only been absent, and not dead?circumstance which Peter du Lis, her brother, would not have failed to express in his petition, had such been the fact, for the purpose of exciting more interest in the mind of the prince. The pain of death, and in particular, such torments as are commonly believed to have attended the exit of La Pucelle, are much more touching than a simple flight or absence.

Lastly, it is necessary to remind the reader, that immediately after the 30th of May, 1431, a report was prevalent that La Pucelle was not dead, and that the English had substituted in her place an unfortunate wretch, whose crimes merited that death which they were desirous it should be believed the Pucelle had experienced; nay, even some went so far as to state, that she never fell into the power of her enemies. Let us now proceed to proofs.

In the Chronicle of Lorraine, among the documents printed by Father Calmet, column ix. and which does. not come down later than 1544, when speaking of the siege of Compiègne, he states: "That the Pucelle was there lost, and that no one knew what became of her: many

said that she had been taken by the English, and was carried to Rouen, where she was burnt; others affirmed that none of the army had caused her death, because she attributed all the honour of her feats of arms to them."

The Chronicle of Metz is more decisive, column c. c. "The Pucelle was taken by the English and the Burgundians, who were enemies to the Gentille fleur-de-lys. After which she was sent to the city of Rouen in Normandy, and there was she at a scaffold burnt in a fire, as it was said; but the contrary of which is since proved." And lastly, in the journal of a citizen of Paris, in the reign of Charles VII. to the year 1449, printed in the history of Charles VI., from the edition of the Louvre, it is stated:-"That after the execution of La Pucelle, many persons who had been deceived by her, firmly thought that on account of her sanctity she had escaped the fire; and that another had suffered in her place, they believing that it was herself."

It even appears, that from the time of the Pucelle, reports were already afloat which led to the belief that the period would arrive when her execution would not be credited; since an ocular witness deposed, in the course of the process respecting her justification in 1455, that when the execution took place at Rouen, "The English, being doubtful lest reports should be disseminated in regard to the Pucelle's not being dead, or that some other had been burnt in her stead, caused the fire and wood to be withdrawn from behind the body after her death, in order that

it might be ascertained she was dead."- See MS. in the Chapter-house of Orleans.

This latter statement, which appears at the first glance. to favour an idea that the Pucelle was actually burnt, will, upon examination, be found susceptible of a construction diametrically opposite. Is a person recently suffocated by a great fire, which has consumed all the habiliments, easily recognized? And the precaution adopted by the English, to place upon the head of the sufferer whom they led to the stake an elevated mitre, by which she was disguised, and to cause to be carried before her

picture representing every thing against her that was infamous (Recherches de Pasquier, page 164)-were not those, I say, so many methods resorted to in order that the attention of the spectators might be diverted; of whom, a few excepted, none had ever seen her, and those few merely caught a glance of her person as she passed? Nothing more was required to lead into error, and make them believe that which it was absolutely wished they should accredit.

Some objections may here be raised; first, that supposing La Pucelle had escaped the cruelty of the English, it is impossible that some mention of the fact should not have been made during the process of her justification, particularly after the examination of no less than one hundred and twelve witnesses. It is easy to reply with Father Vignier, who raised the same objection, that the commission of those whom Pope Calixtus the Third dele

gated to inquire into this affair in 1455, was not to demonstrate that La Pucelle had escaped from death at Rouen; but to inquire whether they had been justified in condemning her as an heretic, a relapse, an apostate, and an idolatress; and although it appears more than probable they were aware she had not been burnt, such a fact was unconnected with their commission, and they consequently did not trouble themselves upon that head.

The second objection relates to this statement: that about the same period when La Pucelle presented herself in Lorraine and at Orleans, two other females were received by the people as La Pucelle, whose impositions were afterwards discovered; from whence it might be inferred, that Jeanne des Hermoises was a similar impostor, even supposing her not to have been one of those in question. Let us examine the proofs.

On perusing the Journal for the Life of Charles VII. already quoted, we find that—“ In the year 1440, the parliament and the university caused a woman to be brought to Paris, following the men in arms, believed by many to be Jehanne La Pucelle, and who on that account had been very honourably received at Orleans, which woman was publicly shown at the palace on the marble stone in the great court; and being there examined as to her life and her estate, was recognised as not being La Pucelle, and as having been married." The other impostor is mentioned in a manuscript at the Royal Library, written at the period of Charles VII., entitled:

Examples des Hardiesses de plusieurs Rois et Empereurs ; where it appears, according to Père Labbe, 180: "Among others I was told by the said lord (M. de Boissy), that ten years after the sentence at Rouen in 1441, was presented to the king another supposed Pucelle, who much resembled the first, and who was desirous that he should believe from reports spread, that it was the former one resuscitated. The king, upon hearing this, ordered that she should be conducted to his presence. But that his majesty said to her, Pucelle, my friend, you are right welcome in the name of God, who knows the secret which is between you and me.'-When most miraculously, after hearing only these words, this false Pucelle threw herself on her knees before the king, entreating mercy, and forthwith confessed all her treasons; none of which, however, were judged too rigorously."

We will now proceed to examine these facts. In the first recital there are traits which bear no analogy whatever to Jeanne des Hermoises; for the woman there spoken of, was a follower of soldiers, calling herself a maid, which could not possibly have any reference to Jeanne des Hermoises, who avowed herself a married woman, by assuming the appellation of her husband; who repaired to Orleans with her domestics only: since in all the registers of Morchousne not a syllable is said of her being in company with men at arms, captains, or officers, and much less with soldiers, like the female mentioned in the Journal: a circumstance claiming particular notice, as such conduct would have been disgusting in