by the straightforward frankness of Carbon Barreau. He caused fresh
investigations to be made, and other inhabitants of Sagias were summoned
to Rieux, who one and all agreed in identifying the accused as the same
Arnauld du Thill who had been born and had grown up under their very
eyes. Several deposed that as he grew up he had taken to evil courses,
and become an adept in theft and lying, not fearing even to take the
sacred name of God in vain, in order to cover the untruth of his daring
assertions. From such testimony the judge naturally concluded that
Arnauld du Thill was quite capable of carrying on, an imposture, and
that the impudence which he displayed was natural to his character.
Moreover, he noted that the prisoner, who averred that he was born in
Biscay, knew only a few words of the Basque language, and used these
quite wrongly. He heard later another witness who deposed that the
original Martin Guerre was a good wrestler and skilled in the art of
fence, whereas the prisoner, having wished to try what he could do,
showed no skill whatever. Finally, a shoemaker was interrogated, and his
evidence was not the least damning. Martin Guerre, he declared, required
twelve holes to lace his boots, and his surprise had been great when he
found those of the prisoner had only nine. Considering all these points,
and the cumulative evidence, the judge of Rieux set aside the favourable
testimony, which he concluded had been the outcome of general credulity,
imposed on by an extraordinary resemblance. He gave due weight also to
Bertrande's accusation, although she had never confirmed it, and now
maintained an obstinate silence; and he pronounced a judgment by which
Arnauld du Thill was declared "attainted and convicted of imposture, and
was therefore condemned to be beheaded; after which his body should
be divided into four quarters, and exposed at the four corners of the
town."

This sentence, as soon as it was known, caused much diversity of opinion
in the town. The prisoner's enemies praised the wisdom of the judge,
and those less prejudiced condemned his decision; as such conflicting
testimony left room for doubt. Besides, it was thought that the
possession of property and the future of the children required much
consideration, also that the most absolute certainty was demanded before
annulling a past of two whole years, untroubled by any counter claim
whatever.

The condemned man appealed from this sentence to the Parl