resolved against truth. Let me suffer my
sentence at once, rather than endure what I
endure in prison." She was taken at her word.

On the thirtieth of May, fourteen hundred
and thirty-one— exactly a year and a week
after her capture, when she was not more
than twenty-one years old, if as much
she was informed of her doom: To be burnt
alive, that very day, in the market-place of
Rouen. For a few moments the awful
shadow of death, so sudden and terrible, was
too chill and black for her to bear. She
wept bitterly, and called aloud on the Great
Judge of Heaven to wreak instant vengeance
on her enemies, and to save her from their
cruelty. But her courage soon returned.
At nine in the morning she was placed in the
hangman's car and escorted to the market-
place by a party of English soldiers. A lying
sermon was preached. She was bound to the
pile; a mock mitre was placed upon her
brow, inscribed with the words, " Hérétique
Relapse, Apostate, Idolâtre," and the wood
was lighted. Her ashes were thrown into
the Seine. Meanwhile, the Charles whom
she had crowned was forgetting all but himself
in his regal revels, and stifling conscience
for his desertion of the high-minded maid in
the company of dames and light maidens
with whom he was in stronger sympathy.

This is the account which the ordinary
historical authorities give of the end of Joan
of Arc; but a few old records exist at
Metz and Orleans, which tend to prove that
she was alive long after the period of her
reported martyrdom; and, a short time ago,
these were collected and made the most of by
Monsieur Delepierre, in an interesting tract,
entitled Doute Historique (Historic Doubt).
When are we to take up again a fact in
History, and say to ourselves, This is settled
beyond all dispute?

He begins by quoting the authority of the
Père Vignier, an eminent antiquarian of the
seventeenth century. This investigator,
while examining the archives at Metz, in the
year sixteen hundred and eighty-seven, found
an entry to the effect that, on the twentieth
of May, fourteen hundred and thirty-six, " La
Pucelle Jehanne, who had been in France,"
came to that town; and " on the same day
came her two brothers, one of whom was a
knight, and called himself Messire Pierre,
and the other Petit-Jehan, an esquire," who
thought that she had been dead; but, "as
soon as they saw her, they recognised her, as
she did them." The document goes on to
state that, on the next day, they took her to
Boquelon, and procured for her a horse, a
pair of leggings, a cap, and a sword; and
"the said Pucelle managed the horse very
well, and said many things to the Sieur
Nicole, so that he felt sure that this was she '
who had been in France; and she was identified
by many signs as La Pucelle Jehanne
de France, who had consecrated Charles at
Rheims." After going to Cologne and many
other places, where she was looked upon as
the genuine Maid, she reached Erlon, where
"she was married to Monsieur de Hermoise,
a knight;" and soon after this "the said
Sieur de Hermoise and his wife La Pucelle
came and lived in Metz, in the house which
belonged to the said Sieur."

The Père Vignier did not set much value
on this record (and we cannot blame his
scepticism) until the next year, sixteen hundred
and eighty-eight, when he happened to
dine with a Monsieur des Armoises, who,
after the entertainment, gave him the keys of
the family library, where, to his surprise and
delight, he stumbled on a marriage contract
between " Robert des Armoises, knight, and
Jeanne d'Arcy, called Maid of Orleans." This
confirmation of the Metz record satisfied him.

Monsieur Delepierre then refers to some
documents found at Orleans in seventeen
hundred and forty, which contain charges,
under the years fourteen hundred and thirty-
five and fourteen hundred and thirty-six, for
money given to a messenger, who " brought
letters from Jehanne la Pucelle," and to
Jehan de Lils (that being the title by which
her brothers had been ennobled), " to help
him in returning to his sister." There is a
third entry: " To Jehanne Darmoises, as a
present, made to her on the first of August,
fourteen hundred and thirty-nine, after the
deliberation of the council of this city, for the
services rendered by her at its siege: two
hundred and ten livres."

As a last documentary evidence, there is a
petition from her brother, previous to his
being ennobled in fourteen hundred and
forty-four— a date contradicted by the Or-
leans charge, which was made in fourteen
hundred and thirty-six. This petition represents
that " he had left his native place to
join the king's service in company with his
sister, Jeanne la Pucelle, with whom, up to
the time of her absence, and since then till
the present, he had risked his life."

Monsieur Delepierre also urges, that at the
time of Joan's reputed execution, in the year
fourteen hundred and thirty-one, there was
a common talk that she was not dead, but
that the English had put another victim in
her place. Thus, the Chronicle of Metz, after
relating the story of her imprisonment, trial,
and burning, concludes, "ainsi qu'on le raconte,
car depuis le contraire a été prouvé."
(As they relate, for the contrary has since
been proved.)

He regards the period which elapsed between
her condemnation and execution, and
the extraordinary precautions which were
taken to conceal her, as calling for some explanation.
He notices that several women
who assumed the name of the Maid of Orleans
were tried and punished as impostors, while no
proceedings were taken against this Jeanne
des Armoises, or de Hermoise, or Darmoises.
In conclusion, he considers that these various
facts are only explicable on the supposition