ation either.
All contemporary writers agree in praising her beauty (_hermosura_.)
Born in 1540, she married Ruy Gomez at the age of thirteen, and was only
thirty-eight years old at the present period. She was not one-eyed, but
she squinted. There was nothing in her person to prevent the intimacy
which Ranke discredits, but which numerous testimonies place beyond any
doubt. I quote only the most important, waiving the presents which Perez
had received from the princess, and which he was condemned to give back
by a decree of justice."

It is too late now, we join M. Mignet in believing, to doubt or even to
decry the personal charms of the Princess of Eboli, which the misty
delirium of the poet may have magnified, or the expedient boldness of
the romancer too voluptuously emblazoned, but which more than one grave
annalist has calmly commemorated.[4] We shall not, however, venture to
decide the nice question which oscillates between an obliquity and a
loss of vision. The Spanish word "tuerto" means, ordinarily, "blind of
one eye." And there is an answer which M. Mignet probably considers
apocryphal, as he does not allude to it, said to have been made by Perez
to Henry IV. of France, who expressed surprise that he should be so much
the slave of a woman that had but one eye. "Sire," replied the
ingeniously gallant Perez, "she set the world on fire with that; if she
had preserved both, she would have consumed it." It is of little
consequence. Any slight physical blemish or imperfection was more than
counterbalanced by the wit and accomplishments of this seductive woman,
whose enchantments, like those of Ninon de l'Enclos, defied the
impairing inroads of old age.

It is unnecessary here to repeat or analyse the powerful concatenation
of proofs by which her criminal intimacy with Perez is established. We
may frankly admit, nevertheless, that the first perusal of the evidence
did not convince us. The probability was strong that much would be
exaggerated, perverted, and invented, before a partial tribunal, in
order to annihilate a disgraced courtier, a fallen and helpless enemy.
But the reasons which appear conclusively to fix culpability, will be
better understood when the facts of the case are stated. Every witness
must be branded with perjury to entitle us to doubt that the familiarity
of Perez with the princess had attracted observation. Escovedo was aware
of it, saw it, and denounced it. He remonstrated with both parties on