按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
rities wanted。 The whole elaborate trial； and the extorted recantation； were devised for the purpose of demonstrating her to be a witch； and thus destroying her credit with the common people。 That they intended afterwards to burn her cannot for an instant be doubted； that was the only fit consummation for their evil work。
Now when； at the end of the week after Pentecost； the bishops and inquisitors at Rouen learned； to their dismay； that their victim had escaped； what were they to do？ Confess that they had been foiled； and create a panic in the army by the news that their dreaded enemy was at liberty？ Or boldly carry out their purposes by a fictitious execution； trusting in the authority which official statements always carry； and shrewdly foreseeing that； after her recantation； the disgraced Maid would no more venture to claim for herself the leadership of the French forces？ Clearly； the latter would have been the wiser course。 We may assume； then； that； by the afternoon of the 28th； the story of the relapse was promulgated； as a suitable preparation for what was to come； and that on the 30th the poor creature who had been hastily chosen to figure as the condemned Maid was led out； with face closely veiled； to perish by a slow fire in the old market…place。 Meanwhile the true Jeanne would have made her way； doubtless； in what to her was the effectual disguise of a woman's apparel； to some obscure place of safety； outside of doubtful France and treacherous Burgundy； perhaps in Alsace or the Vosges。 Here she would remain； until the final expulsion of the English and the conclusion of a treaty of peace in 1436 made it safe for her to show herself； when she would naturally return to Lorraine to seek her family。
The comparative obscurity in which she must have remained for the rest of her life； otherwise quite inexplicable on any hypothesis of her survival； is in harmony with the above…given explanation。 The ingratitude of King Charles towards the heroine who had won him his crown is the subject of common historical remark。 M。 Wallon insists upon the circumstance that； after her capture at Compiegne； no attempts were made by the French Court to ransom her or to liberate her by a bold coup de main。 And when； at Rouen； she appealed in the name of the Church to the Pope to grant her a fair trial； not a single letter was written by the Archbishop of Rheims； High Chancellor of France； to his suffragan； the Bishop of Beauvais； demanding cognizance of the proceedings。 Nor did the King make any appeal to the Pope； to prevent the consummation of the judicial murder。 The Maid was deliberately left to her fate。 It is upon her enemies at court； La Tremouille and Regnault de Chartres； that we must lay part of the blame for this wicked negligence。 But it is also probable that the King； and especially his clerical advisers； were at times almost disposed to acquiesce in the theory of Jeanne's witchcraft。 Admire her as they might； they could not help feeling that in her whole behaviour there was something uncanny； and； after having reaped the benefits of her assistance； they were content to let her shift for herself。 This affords the clew to the King's inconsistencies。 It may be thought sufficient to explain the fact that Jeanne is said to have received public testimonials at Orleans； while we have no reason to suppose that she visited Paris。 It may help to dispose of the objection that she virtually disappears from history after the date of the tragedy at Rouen。
Nevertheless； this last objection is a weighty one； and cannot easily be got rid of。 It appears to me utterly incredible that； if Jeanne d'Arc had really survived； we should find no further mention of her than such as haply occurs in one or two town…records and dilapidated account…books。 If she was alive in 1436； and corresponding with the King； some of her friends at court must have got an inkling of the true state of things。 Why did they not parade their knowledge； to the manifest discomfiture of La Tremouille and his company？ Or why did not Pierre du Lis cause it to be proclaimed that the English were liars； his sister being safely housed in Metz？
In the mere interests of historical criticism； we have said all that we could in behalf of Mr。 Delepierre's hypothesis。 But as to the facts upon which it rests； we may remark； in the first place； that the surname Arc or 〃Bow〃 was not uncommon in those days； while the Christian name Jeanne was and now is the very commonest of French names。 There might have been a hundred Jeanne d'Arcs； all definable as pucelle or maid； just as we say 〃spinster〃： we even read of one in the time of the Revolution。 We have； therefore； no doubt that Robert des Hermoises married a Jeanne d'Arc； who may also have been a maid of Orleans； but this does not prove her to have been the historic Jeanne。 Secondly； as to the covering of the face； we may mention the fact； hitherto withheld； that it was by no means an uncommon circumstance： the victims of the Spanish Inquisition were usually led to the stake with veiled faces。 Thirdly； the phrase 〃jusques a son absentement〃 is hopelessly ambiguous； and may as well refer to Pierre du Lis himself as to his sister。
These brief considerations seem to knock away all the main props of Mr。 Delepierre's hypothesis； save that furnished by the apparent testimony of Jeanne's brothers； given at second hand in the Metz archives。 And those who are familiar with the phenomena of mediaeval delusions will be unwilling to draw too hasty an inference from this alone。 From the Emperor Nero to Don Sebastian of Portugal； there have been many instances of the supposed reappearance of persons generally believed to be dead。 For my own part； therefore； I am by no means inclined to adopt the hypothesis of Jeanne's survival； although I have endeavoured to give it tangible shape and plausible consistency。 But the fact that so much can be said in behalf of a theory running counter not only to universal tradition； but also to such a vast body of contemporaneous testimony； should teach us to be circumspect in holding our opinions； and charitable in our treatment of those who dissent from them。 For those who can discover in the historian Renan and the critic Strauss nothing but the malevolence of incredulity； the case of Jeanne d'Arc； duly contemplated； may serve as a wholesome lesson。
We have devoted so much space to this problem； by far the most considerable of those treated in Mr。 Delepierre's book； that we have hardly room for any of the others。 But a false legend concerning Solomon de Caus； the supposed original inventor of the steam…engine； is so instructive that we must give a brief account of it。
In 1834 〃there appeared in the Musee des Familles a letter from the celebrated Marion Delorme； supposed to have been written on the 3d February； 1641； to her lover Cinq…Mars。〃 In this letter it is stated that De Caus came four years ago ＇1637＇ from Normandy； to inform the King concerning a marvellous invention which he had made； being nothing less than the application of steam to the propulsion of carriages。 〃The Cardinal ＇Richelieu＇ dismissed this fool without giving him a hearing。〃 But De Caus； nowise discouraged； followed close upon the autocrat's heels wherever he went； and so teased him； that the Cardinal； out of patience； sent him off to a madhouse； where he passed the remainder of his days behind a grated window； proclaiming his invention to the passengers in the street； and calling upon them to release him。 Marion gives a graphic account of her visit； accompanied by the famous Lord Worcester； to the asylum at Bicetre； where they saw De Caus at his window； and Worcester； in whose mind the conception of the steam…engine was already taking shape； informed her that the raving prisoner was not a madman； but a genius。 A great stir was made by this letter。 The anecdote was copied into standard works； and represented in engravings。 Yet it was a complete hoax。 De Caus was not only never confined in a madhouse； but he was architect to Louis XIII。 up to the time of his death； in 1630； just eleven years BEFORE Marion Delorme was said to have seen him at his grated window！
〃On tracing this hoax to its source；〃 says Mr。 Delepierre； 〃we find that M。 Henri Berthoud； a literary man of some repute； and a constant contributor to the Musee des Familles； confesses that the letter attributed to Marion was in fact written by himself。 The editor of this journal had requested Gavarni to furnish him with a drawing for a tale in which a madman was introduced looking through the bars of his cell。 The drawing was executed and engraved； but arrived too late； and the tale； which could not wait； appeared without the illustration。 However； as the wood…engraving was effective； and； moreover； was paid for； the editor was unwilling that it should be useless。 Berthoud was； therefore； commissioned to look for a subject and to invent a story to which the engraving might be applied。 Strangely enough； the world refused to believe in M。 Berthoud's confession； so great a hold had the anecdote taken on the public mind； and a Paris newspaper went so far even as to declare that the original autograph of this letter was to be seen in a library in Normandy！ M。 Berthoud wrote again； deny