mouth, nor the Comte de
Vermandois, nor the Duc de Beaufort, and so on, as so many writers had
asserted." He called all their writings mere inventions, but added that
almost every one of them had got hold of some true incidents, as for
instance the order to kill the prisoner should he make himself known.
Finally he acknowledged that he knew the state secret, and used the
following words: "All that I can tell you, abbe, is, that when the
prisoner died at the beginning of the century, at a very advanced age, he
had ceased to be of such importance as when, at the beginning of his
reign, Louis XIV shut him up for weighty reasons of state."

The above was written down under the eyes of the marshal, and when Abbe
Soulavie entreated him to say something further which, while not actually
revealing the secret, would yet satisfy his questioner's curiosity, the
marshal answered, "Read M. de Voltaire's latest writings on the subject,
especially his concluding words, and reflect on them."

With the exception of Dulaure, all the critics have treated Soulavie's
narrative with the most profound contempt, and we must confess that if it
was an invention it was a monstrous one, and that the concoction of the
famous note in cipher was abominable. "Such was the great secret; in
order to find it out, I had to allow myself 5, 12, 17, 15, 14, 1, three
times by 8, 3." But unfortunately for those who would defend the morals
of Mademoiselle de Valois, it would be difficult to traduce the character
of herself, her lover, and her father, for what one knows of the trio
justifies one in believing that the more infamous the conduct imputed to
them, the more likely it is to be true. We cannot see the force of the
objection that Louvois would not have written in the following terms to
Saint-Mars in 1687 about a bastard son of Anne of Austria: "I see no
objection to your removing Chevalier de Thezut from the prison in which
he is confined, and putting your prisoner there till the one you are
preparing for him is ready to receive him." And we cannot understand
those who ask if Saint-Mars, following the example of the minister, would
have said of a prince "Until he is installed in the prison which is being
prepared for him here, which has a chapel adjoining"? Why should he have
expressed himself otherwise? Does it evidence an abatement of
consideration to call a prisoner a prisoner, and his prison a prison?

A certain M. de Saint-Mihiel published an