the unseen world and other essays-第36节

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