[1] M. Linguet says, that each of these niches was but just large enough for one person, and had neither light nor air except at the moment when the door was opened.

[2] M. de Fratteaux was seized in England, and carried off, by the French officers of police. “His misfortunes seem to have been owing to an unnatural father, who being on terms of intimacy with the minister, obtained a lettre de cachet to arrest and confine his son.”

[3] Prisoners who were not allowed to have a servant of their own, sometimes were indulged with an invalid soldier to attend them; but those who had neither, made their bed, lighted their fire, and swept their room, themselves.

[4] I have passed lightly over the life of Palissy, because I shall have occasion to dwell upon it, in another volume of the Family Library.

[5] Henry pointed his advice with a pun, which is not translatable. He recommended to Biron, “Qu’il l’otât d’auprès de lui, sinon que La Fin l’affineroit.” In English, if such a deceiver’s name were Cousin, we might similarly say, “If you do not get rid of that Cousin, he will cozen you.”

[6] Biographers and historians differ with respect to the circumstances which ensued on the pardon being announced. While some give the statement which I have adopted, others affirm that, when de Jars was taken back to prison, he remained for a long while speechless, and seemingly deprived of all consciousness. This is asserted by Madame de Motteville; and, as she was his intimate friend, her authority has considerable weight. But her assertion may be correct, and yet it is more than probable that de Jars may have made the reply which is attributed to him. I think the conduct ascribed to him in the text more consonant than any other with his intrepid character. Nature, however, can endure only to a certain point, and the effort that is made to bear up, and which, as long as danger is present, seldom fails with the honourable and brave, necessarily produces exhaustion when the struggle is over. It may therefore, easily be believed, that, though de Jars was capable of answering Laffemas with his wonted spirit—and the very sight of such a monster would stimulate that spirit—he might sink into insensibility on his return to prison.

[7] It has been conjectured, by some writers, that Richelieu was stimulated to this new attack upon the queen by the circumstance of her being pregnant, which induced him to dread that her influence would be greatly increased, if he did not find the means of rendering her an object of suspicion. But the conjecture is erroneous, as a comparison of dates will prove. The attack upon her was commenced in the summer of 1637 (La Porte was sent to the Bastile in August), and the queen was not brought to bed till September 1638, thirteen months afterwards.

[8] The mask is said to have been improperly described as being of iron; it being formed of black velvet. Only the frame work and the springs were of metal.

[9] This seems to be a quantity of linen so enormous as to stagger belief. But Latude is probably correct in his assertion. In some of the French provinces, families have an immense stock of linen; and it is necessary that they should, as the operation of washing is not performed more than twice or thrice a year.