of the martyr. But would it be easy, in the circumstances, to
recognise a charred corpse? The two Mesdames de Luxembourg were
distinguished apart, as by Quicherat. The Vignier documents as to
Robert des Armoises were said to be impostures. Quicherat, however,
throws no doubt on the deed of sale by Jehanne and her husband, des
Armoises, in November 1436. Many errors in dates were exposed. The
difficulty about the impostor's reception in Orleans, was
recognised, and it is, of course, THE difficulty. M. Lefevre de
Pontalis, however, urges that her brothers are not said to have been
with her, 'and there is not a trace of their persistence in their
error after the first months of the imposture.' But we have traces,
nay proofs, in the inquest of 1476. The inference of M. Save from
the fact that the Pucelle is never styled 'the late Pucelle,' in the
Orleans accounts, till 1452, is merely declared 'inadmissible.' The
fact, on the other hand, is highly significant. In 1452 the
impostor was recognised by the family; but in that year began the
Trial of Rehabilitation, and we hear no more of her among the du Lys
and the Voultons. M. Lefevre Pontalis merely mentions the inquest
of 1476, saying that the impostor of Sermaise (1449-1452) may
perhaps have been another impostor, not Jeanne des Armoises. The
family of the Maid was not capable, surely, of accepting TWO
impostors, 'one down, the other come on'! This is utterly
incredible.

*Le Moyen Age, June 1895.

In brief, the family of Jeanne, in 1436,1449-1452, were revelling
with Jeanne des Armoises, accepting her, some as sister, some as
cousin. In 1439 the Town Council of Orleans not only gave many
presents of wine and meat to the same woman, recognising her as