arrested in the midst of his army? how could he have been transferred to France without some one's knowing something about it? and why should he have been imprisoned? and why masked?

Others have imagined that he was Count Vermandois, natural son to Louis XIV., who, it is well known, died of the small-pox when with the army in 1683, and was buried in the town of Arras.

It has since been supposed that the Duke of Monmouth, who was publicly beheaded by order of King James in 1685, was the Man in the Iron Mask. But either the duke must have come to life again, and afterwards have changed the order of time, putting the year 1662 for the year 1685; or King James, who never pardoned any one, and therefore merited all his misfortunes, must have pardoned the Duke of Monmouth, and put to death in his stead some one who perfectly resembled him. In the latter case, a person must have been found kind enough to have his head publicly cut off to save the Duke of Monmouth; all England must have been deceived in the person; then King James must have begged of Louis XIV. that he would be so good as to become his gaoler.

Louis

XIV. having granted King James this small favour, could not have refused to show the same regard for King William and Queen Anne, with whom he was at war; but would have been careful to maintain the dignity of gaoler, with which King James had honoured him, to the end of the chapter.

All these illusions being dissipated, it remains to be known who this constantly-masked prisoner was, at what age he died, and under what name he was buried. It is clear that if he was not allowed to walk in the court of the Bastille, nor to see his physician. except in a mask, it was for fear that some very striking resemblance would be discovered in his features. He was permitted to show his tongue, but never his face. As for his age, he himself told the apothecary of the Bastille, a little before his death, that be believed he was about sixty: the apothecary's son-in-law, Marsolam, surgeon to Marshal De Richelieu, and afterwards

to the Duke of Orleans the regent, has repeated this to me several times. To conclude, why was an Italian name given to him? he was always called Marchiali. The writer of this article, perhaps, knows more on the subject than Father Griffet, though he will not say more.

It is true that Nicholas Fouquet, superintendant of the finances,* had many friends in his disgrace, and that they persevered even until judgment was passed on him. It is true that the chancellor, who presided at that judgment, treated the illustrious captive with too much rigour. But it was not Michel le Tellier, aş stated in some editions of the Siêcle de Louis XIV.; it was Pierre Seguier. This inadvertency, of having placed one for the other, is a fault which must be corrected.

It is very remarkable that no one knows where this celebrated minister died; not that it is of any import ance to know it, for his death, not having led to any event whatever, is like all other indifferent occurrences; but this serves to prove how completely he was for gotten towards the close of life, how worthless that worldly consideration is which is so anxiously sought for, and how happy they are who have no higher ambition than to live and die unknown. This knowledge is far more useful than that of dates.

Father Griffet does his utmost to persuade us that cardinal Richelieu wrote a bad book. Well! many statesmen have done the same. But it is very fine to see him strive so hard to prove, that, according to cardinal Richelieu, "our allies, the Spaniards," so happily governed by a Bourbon, "are tributary to Hell, and make the Indies tributary to Hell"!-Cardinal Richelieu's POLITICAL TESTAMENT is not that of a polite

man.

That" France had more good ports on the Mediterranean than the whole Spanish monarchy."-This Tes tament exaggerates.

That "to keep up an army of fifty thousand men,

* Under Cardinal Mazarin. He was arrested in 1661.—T.

it is best to raise a hundred thousand."-This Testament

throws money away.

That "when a new tax is imposed, the pay of the soldiers is increased."-Which has never been done either in France or elsewhere.

That "the parliaments and the other superior courts should be made to pay the taille."—An infallible means of gaining their hearts, and making the magistracy respectable.

That "the Noblesse should be forced to serve and to enrol themselves in the cavalry."-The better to preserve their privileges.

That " Genoa was the richest city in Italy."—Which I wish it were.

That " we must be very chaste." -The testator might add, like certain preachers, Do what I say, not what I do.

That "an abbey should be given to the holy Chapel at Paris."-A thing of great importance at the crisis in which Europe then stood.

,

That "Pope Benedict XI. gave a deal of trouble to the Cordeliers, who were piqued on the subject of poverty, that is to say, of the revenues of the order of St. Francis. They were exasperated against him to such a degree, that they made war upon him by their writings. -More important still; and more learned!-especially when John XXII. is taken for Benedict XI.; and when, in a Political Testament, nothing is said of the manner in which the war against Spain and the Empire was to be conducted, nor of the means of making peace, nor of present dangers, nor of resources, nor of alliancés, nor of the generals and ministers who were to be employed, nor even of the Dauphin, whose education was of so much importance to the State, nor, in short, of any one object of the ministry.

I consent with all my heart, since it must be so, that Cardinal Richelieu's memory shall be reproached with this unfortunate work, full of anachronisms, ignorance, ridiculous calculations, and acknowledged falsities. Let people strive as hard as they please to persuade

themselves that the greatest of ministers was the most ignorant and tedious as well as the most extravagant of writers; it may afford some gratification to those who detest his tyranny. It is also a fact worth preserving in the history of the human mind, that this despicable work was praised for more than thirty years, while it was believed to be that great minister's; and quite as true, that the pretended Testament made no noise in the world until thirty years after the Cardinal's death; that it was not printed until forty-two years after that event; that the original signed by him has never been seen; that the book is very bad; and that it scarcely deserves to be mentioned.

Did Count De Moret, son of Henry IV., who was wounded in the little skirmish at Castelnaudari, live until the year 1693 under the name of the hermit Jean Baptiste? What proof have we that this hermit was the son of Henry IV ?—None.

Did Jeanne d'Albret de Navarre, mother of Henry IV. after the death of Antoine, marry a gentleman named Guyon, who was killed in the massacre of St. Bartholomew? Had she a son by him, who preached at Bourdeaux? These facts are detailed at great length in the Remarks on Bayle's Answers to the Questions of a Provincial, folio, page 689.

Was Margaret of Valois, wife to Henry IV. brought to bed of two children secretly after her marriage?

We might fill volumes with enquiries like these. But how much pains we should be taking to discover things of no use to mankind! Let us rather seek cures for the .scrofula, the gout, the stone, the gravel, and a thousand other chronic or acute diseases. Let us seek remedies for the distempers of the mind, no less terrible and no less mortal; let us labour to bring the arts to perfection, and to lessen the miseries of the human race; and let us not waste our time over the anas, the anecdotes, and curious stories of our day, the collections of pretended bon-mots, &c. the Letters to a friend, the Anonymous letters, the Reflections on the new tragedy, &c. &c. &c. I read in a book lately published, that Louis XIV.

exempted all new-married men from the taille for five years. I have not found this fact in any collection of ediets, nor in any memoir of that time.

I read in the same book that the King of Prussia has fifty livres given to every girl with child. There is, in truth, no better way of laying out money, nor of encouraging propagation: but I do not believe that this royal munificence is true; at least I have never witnessed it.

An anecdote of greater antiquity has just fallen under my eye, and appears to me to be a very strange one. It is said in a Chronological History of Italy, that the great Arian, Theodoric, he who is represented to have been so wise, had, amongst his ministers, a Catholic, for whom he had a great liking, and who proved worthy of all his confidence. This minister thought he should rise still higher in his master's favour by embracing Arianism; but Theodoric had him immediately beheaded, saying, If a man is not faithful to God, how can he be faithful to me, who am but a man? The com

piler remarks, that this trait does great honour to Theodoric's manner of thinking with respect to religion!

I pique myself on thinking, in matters of religion, better than the Ostrogoth Theodoric, the assassin of Symmachus and Boëtius; because I am a good Catholic, and he was an Arian. But I declare this king wor

thy of being confined as a madman, if he were so atrociously besotted. What! he immediately cut off his minister's head, because that minister had at last come over to his own way of thinking! How was a worshipper of God, who passed from the opinion of Athanasius to that of Arius and Eusebius, unfaithful to God? He was at most unfaithful only to Athanasius and his party, at a time when the world was divided between the Athanasians and the Eusebians. But Theodoric could not regard him as a man unfaithful to God, because he had rejected the term consubstantial, after admitting it at first. To cut off his favourite's head for such a reason could certainly be the act of none but the wickedest fool and most barbarous blockhead that ever existed. What would you say of Louis XIV. if he had beheaded the Duke de la Force