my father, who poked fun at his royalism and mine; good
old Marquis d'Herbouville, and M. Hémonin, donor of the
book that cost six sous.

"It isn't worth the money!" exclaimed M. Roger.

The conversation developed into a debate. Judgment
was passed upon _King John_. M. de Marcellus declared
that the assassination of Arthur was an improbable incident.
It was pointed out to him that it was a matter of history.
It was with difficulty that he became reconciled to it. For
kings to kill each other was impossible. To M. de
Marcellus's mind the murdering of kings began on January 21.
Regicide was synonymous with '93. To kill a king was
an unheard-of thing that the "populace" alone were capable
of doing. No king except Louis XVI. had ever been
violently put to death. He, however, reluctantly admitted
the case of Charles I. In his death also he saw the
hand of the populace. All the rest was demagogic lying
and calumny.

Although as good a royalist as he, I ventured to insinuate
that the sixteenth century had existed, and that it was the
period when the Jesuits had clearly propounded the question
of "bleeding the basilic vein," that is to say of cases
in which the king ought to be slain; a question which,
once brought forward, met with such success that it resulted
in two kings, Henry III. and Henry IV., being stabbed,
and a Jesuit, Father Guignard, being hanged.