Thecomparativeobscurityinwhichshemusthaveremainedfortherestofherlife，otherwisequiteinexplicableonanyhypothesisofhersurvival，isinharmonywiththeabove-givenexplanation。
TheingratitudeofKingCharlestowardstheheroinewhohadwonhimhiscrownisthesubjectofcommonhistoricalremark。M。
Walloninsistsuponthecircumstancethat，afterhercaptureatCompiegne，noattemptsweremadebytheFrenchCourttoransomherortoliberateherbyaboldcoupdemain。Andwhen，atRouen，sheappealedinthenameoftheChurchtothePopetograntherafairtrial，notasingleletterwaswrittenbytheArchbishopofRheims，HighChancellorofFrance，tohissuffragan，theBishopofBeauvais，demandingcognizanceoftheproceedings。NordidtheKingmakeanyappealtothePope，topreventtheconsummationofthejudicialmurder。TheMaidwasdeliberatelylefttoherfate。Itisuponherenemiesatcourt，LaTremouilleandRegnaultdeChartres，thatwemustlaypartoftheblameforthiswickednegligence。ButitisalsoprobablethattheKing，andespeciallyhisclericaladvisers，wereattimesalmostdisposedtoacquiesceinthetheoryofJeanne’switchcraft。Admireherastheymight，theycouldnothelpfeelingthatinherwholebehaviourtherewassomethinguncanny；and，afterhavingreapedthebenefitsofherassistance，theywerecontenttolethershiftforherself。ThisaffordstheclewtotheKing’sinconsistencies。ItmaybethoughtsufficienttoexplainthefactthatJeanneissaidtohavereceivedpublictestimonialsatOrleans，whilewehavenoreasontosupposethatshevisitedParis。ItmayhelptodisposeoftheobjectionthatshevirtuallydisappearsfromhistoryafterthedateofthetragedyatRouen。
Nevertheless，thislastobjectionisaweightyone，andcannoteasilybegotridof。Itappearstomeutterlyincrediblethat，ifJeanned’Archadreallysurvived，weshouldfindnofurthermentionofherthansuchashaplyoccursinoneortwotown-recordsanddilapidatedaccount-books。Ifshewasalivein1436，andcorrespondingwiththeKing，someofherfriendsatcourtmusthavegotaninklingofthetruestateofthings。Whydidtheynotparadetheirknowledge，tothemanifestdiscomfitureofLaTremouilleandhiscompany？OrwhydidnotPierreduLiscauseittobeproclaimedthattheEnglishwereliars，hissisterbeingsafelyhousedinMetz？
Inthemereinterestsofhistoricalcriticism，wehavesaidallthatwecouldinbehalfofMr。Delepierre’shypothesis。Butastothefactsuponwhichitrests，wemayremark，inthefirstplace，thatthesurnameArcor“Bow“wasnotuncommoninthosedays，whiletheChristiannameJeannewasandnowistheverycommonestofFrenchnames。TheremighthavebeenahundredJeanned’Arcs，alldefinableaspucelleormaid，justaswesay“spinster“:weevenreadofoneinthetimeoftheRevolution。Wehave，therefore，nodoubtthatRobertdesHermoisesmarriedaJeanned’Arc，whomayalsohavebeenamaidofOrleans；butthisdoesnotprovehertohavebeenthehistoricJeanne。Secondly，astothecoveringoftheface，wemaymentionthefact，hithertowithheld，thatitwasbynomeansanuncommoncircumstance:thevictimsoftheSpanishInquisitionwereusuallyledtothestakewithveiledfaces。Thirdly，thephrase“jusquesasonabsentement“ishopelesslyambiguous，andmayaswellrefertoPierreduLishimselfastohissister。
ThesebriefconsiderationsseemtoknockawayallthemainpropsofMr。Delepierre’shypothesis，savethatfurnishedbytheapparenttestimonyofJeanne’sbrothers，givenatsecondhandintheMetzarchives。Andthosewhoarefamiliarwiththephenomenaofmediaevaldelusionswillbeunwillingtodrawtoohastyaninferencefromthisalone。FromtheEmperorNerotoDonSebastianofPortugal，therehavebeenmanyinstancesofthesupposedreappearanceofpersonsgenerallybelievedtobedead。Formyownpart，therefore，IambynomeansinclinedtoadoptthehypothesisofJeanne’ssurvival，althoughIhaveendeavouredtogiveittangibleshapeandplausibleconsistency。Butthefactthatsomuchcanbesaidinbehalfofatheoryrunningcounternotonlytouniversaltradition，butalsotosuchavastbodyofcontemporaneoustestimony，shouldteachustobecircumspectinholdingouropinions，andcharitableinourtreatmentofthosewhodissentfromthem。ForthosewhocandiscoverinthehistorianRenanandthecriticStraussnothingbutthemalevolenceofincredulity，thecaseofJeanned’Arc，dulycontemplated，mayserveasawholesomelesson。
Wehavedevotedsomuchspacetothisproblem，byfarthemostconsiderableofthosetreatedinMr。Delepierre’sbook，thatwehavehardlyroomforanyoftheothers。ButafalselegendconcerningSolomondeCaus，thesupposedoriginalinventorofthesteam-engine，issoinstructivethatwemustgiveabriefaccountofit。
In1834“thereappearedintheMuseedesFamillesaletterfromthecelebratedMarionDelorme，supposedtohavebeenwrittenonthe3dFebruary，1641，toherloverCinq-Mars。“InthisletteritisstatedthatDeCauscamefouryearsago[1637]fromNormandy，toinformtheKingconcerningamarvellousinventionwhichhehadmade，beingnothinglessthantheapplicationofsteamtothepropulsionofcarriages。“TheCardinal[Richelieu]dismissedthisfoolwithoutgivinghimahearing。“ButDeCaus，nowisediscouraged，followedcloseupontheautocrat’sheelswhereverhewent，andsoteasedhim，thattheCardinal，outofpatience，senthimofftoamadhouse，wherehepassedtheremainderofhisdaysbehindagratedwindow，proclaiminghisinventiontothepassengersinthestreet，andcallinguponthemtoreleasehim。
Mariongivesagraphicaccountofhervisit，accompaniedbythefamousLordWorcester，totheasylumatBicetre，wheretheysawDeCausathiswindow；andWorcester，inwhosemindtheconceptionofthesteam-enginewasalreadytakingshape，informedherthattheravingprisonerwasnotamadman，butagenius。A
greatstirwasmadebythisletter。Theanecdotewascopiedintostandardworks，andrepresentedinengravings。Yetitwasacompletehoax。DeCauswasnotonlyneverconfinedinamadhouse，buthewasarchitecttoLouisXIII。uptothetimeofhisdeath，in1630，justelevenyearsBEFOREMarionDelormewassaidtohaveseenhimathisgratedwindow！
“Ontracingthishoaxtoitssource，“saysMr。Delepierre，“wefindthatM。HenriBerthoud，aliterarymanofsomerepute，andaconstantcontributortotheMuseedesFamilles，confessesthattheletterattributedtoMarionwasinfactwrittenbyhimself。
TheeditorofthisjournalhadrequestedGavarnitofurnishhimwithadrawingforataleinwhichamadmanwasintroducedlookingthroughthebarsofhiscell。Thedrawingwasexecutedandengraved，butarrivedtoolate；andthetale，whichcouldnotwait，appearedwithouttheillustration。However，asthewood-engravingwaseffective，and，moreover，waspaidfor，theeditorwasunwillingthatitshouldbeuseless。Berthoudwas，therefore，commissionedtolookforasubjectandtoinventastorytowhichtheengravingmightbeapplied。Strangelyenough，theworldrefusedtobelieveinM。Berthoud’sconfession，sogreataholdhadtheanecdotetakenonthepublicmind；andaParisnewspaperwentsofarevenastodeclarethattheoriginalautographofthisletterwastobeseeninalibraryinNormandy！
M。Berthoudwroteagain，denyingitsexistence，andofferedamillionfrancstoanyonewhowouldproducethesaidletter。“
Fromthiswemaylearntwolessons，thefirstbeingthatutterlybaselessbutplausiblestoriesmayariseinqueerways。Intheabovecase，themostfar-fetchedhypothesistoaccountfortheoriginofthelegendcouldhardlyhavebeenasapparentlyimprobableasthereality。Secondly，wemaylearnthatifamythoncegetsintothepopularmind，itisnexttoimpossibletogetitoutagain。IntheCastleofHeidelbergthereisaportraitofDeCaus，andafoliovolumeofhisworks，accompaniedbyanote，inwhichthisletterofMarionDelormeisunsuspectinglycitedasgenuine。Andonlythreeyearsago，atapublicbanquetatLimoges，awell-knownFrenchSenatorandmanoflettersmadeaspeech，inwhichheretailedthestoryofthemadhousefortheedificationofhishearers。Trulyapopularerrorhasasmanylivesasacat；itcomeswalkinginlongafteryouhaveimaginediteffectuallystrangled。
Inconclusion，wemayremarkthatMr。Delepierredoesveryscantjusticetomanyoftheinterestingquestionswhichhediscusses。
Itistoberegrettedthathehasnotthoughtitworthwhiletoarguehispointsmorethoroughly，andthathehasnotbeenmorecarefulinmakingstatementsoffact。Hesometimesmakesstrangeblunders，theworstofwhich，perhaps，iscontainedinhisarticleonPetrarchandLaura。HethinksLaurawasmerelyapoeticalallegory，andsuchwasthecase，hegoesontosay，“withDantehimself，whoseBeatricewasachildwhodiedatnineyearsofage。“Dante’sBeatricediedonthe9thofJune，1290，attheageoftwenty-four，havingbeenthewifeofSimonedeiBardirathermorethanthreeyears。
TheAnnalsofRuralBengal。ByW。W。Hunter。Vol。I。TheEthnicalFrontierofLowerBengal，withtheAncientPrincipalitiesofBeerbhoomandBishenpore。SecondEdition。NewYork:LeypoldtandHolt。1868。8vo。，pp。xvi。，475。
Nointelligentreadercanadvancefiftypagesinthisvolumewithoutbecomingawarethathehasgotholdofaveryremarkablebook。Mr。Hunter’sstyle，tobeginwith，issuchasiswrittenonlybymenoflargecalibreandhighculture。Nowordsarewasted。Thenarrativeflowscalmlyandpowerfullyalong，likeageometricaldemonstration，omittingnothingwhichissignificant，admittingnothingwhichisirrelevant，glowingwithallthewarmthofrichimaginationandsympatheticgenius，yetneverallowinganyovertmanifestationoffeeling，everconcealingtheauthor’spersonalitybeneaththeunswervingexpositionofthesubject-matter。Thathighestart，whichconcealsart，Mr。Hunterappearstohavelearnedwell。Withhim，thecurtainisthepicture。
Suchastyleasthiswouldsufficetomakeanybookinteresting，inspiteoftheremotenessofthesubject。Butthe“AnnalsofRuralBengal“donotconcernussoremotelyasonemightatfirstimagine。Thephenomenaofthemoralandindustrialgrowthorstagnationofahighly-endowedpeoplemusteverpossesstheinterestoffascinationforthosewhotakeheedofthemaximthat“historyisphilosophyteachingbyexample。“Nationalprosperitydependsuponcircumstancessufficientlygeneraltomaketheexperienceofonecountryofgreatvaluetoanother，thoughignorantBourbondynastiesandRumpCongressesrefusetolearnthelesson。Itisoftheintimateevery-daylifeofruralBengalthatMr。Huntertreats。Hedoesnot，likeoldhistorians，tryourpatiencewithabead-rollofnamesthathaveearnednojusttitletoremembrance，ordazzleuswithabountifuldisplayof“barbaricpearlsandgold，“orleadusinthegondolasofBuddhistkingsdownsacredrivers，amid“asummerfannedwithspice“；buthedescribesthelaboursandthesufferings，themishapsandthegoodfortune，ofthirtymillionsofpeople，who，howeverduskymaybetheirhue，tannedbythetropicalsunsoffiftycenturies，areneverthelessmembersoftheimperialAryanrace，descendedfromthecoolhighlandseastwardoftheCaspian，where，longbeforethebeginningofrecordedhistory，theirancestorsandthoseoftheAnglo-Americanwereindistinguishablyunitedinthesameprimitivecommunity。
Thenarrativeportionofthepresentvolumeisconcernedmainlywiththesocialandeconomicaldisorganizationwroughtbythegreatfamineof1770，andwiththeattemptsoftheEnglishgovernmenttoremedythesame。TheremainderofthebookisoccupiedwithinquiriesintotheethniccharacterofthepopulationofBengal，andparticularlywithanexpositionofthepeculiaritiesofthelanguage，religion，customs，andinstitutionsoftheSantals，orhill-tribesofBeerbhoom。Afewremarksonthefirstofthesetopicsmaynotbeuninteresting。