The Valets Tragedy | Page 3

it. Among other things, this requires that
you do not remove, alter or modify the etext or this "small print!"
statement. You may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in
machine readable binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
including any form resulting from conversion by word pro- cessing or
hypertext software, but only so long as *EITHER*:
[*] The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and does *not*
contain characters other than those intended by the author of the work,
although tilde (~), asterisk (*) and underline (i) characters may be used
to convey punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters
may be used to indicate hypertext links; OR
[*] The etext may be readily converted by the reader at no expense into
plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent form by the program that displays
the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors); OR
[*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at no additional
cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext in its original plain ASCII form
(or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form).
[2] Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this "Small
Print!" statement.
[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the net profits
you derive calculated using the method you already use to calculate
your applicable taxes. If you don't derive profits, no royalty is due.
Royalties are payable to "Project Gutenberg
Association/Carnegie-Mellon University" within the 60 days following
each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your annual
(or equivalent periodic) tax return.
WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU
DON'T HAVE TO?
The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time, scanning
machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty free copyright
licenses, and every other sort of contribution you can think of. Money

should be paid to "Project Gutenberg Association / Carnegie-Mellon
University".
*END*THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN
ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END*

This etext was prepared by Les Bowler, St. Ives, Dorset.

THE VALET'S TRAGEDY AND OTHER STUDIES BY ANDREW
LANG

TO THE MARQUIS D'EGUILLES 'FOR THE LOVE OF THE MAID
AND OF CHIVALRY'

CONTENTS
PREFACE I. THE VALET'S TRAGEDY II. THE VALET'S MASTER
III. THE MYSTERY OF SIR EDMUND BERRY GODFREY IV. THE
FALSE JEANNE D'ARC. V. JUNIUS AND LORD LYTTELTON'S
GHOST VI. THE MYSTERY OF AMY ROBSART VII. THE
VOICES OF JEANNE D'ARC VIII. THE MYSTERY OF JAMES DE
LA CLOCHE IX. THE TRUTH ABOUT 'FISHER'S GHOST' X. THE
MYSTERY OF LORD BATEMAN XI. THE QUEEN'S MARIE XII.
THE SHAKESPEARE-BACON IMBROGLIO

PREFACE

These studies in secret history follow no chronological order. The affair
of James de la Cloche only attracted the author's attention after most of
the volume was in print. But any reader curious in the veiled intrigues

of the Restoration will probably find it convenient to peruse 'The
Mystery of James de la Cloche' after the essay on 'The Valet's Master,'
as the puzzling adventures of de la Cloche occurred in the years
(1668-1669), when the Valet was consigned to lifelong captivity, and
the Master was broken on the wheel. What would have been done to
'Giacopo Stuardo' had he been a subject of Louis XIV., ''tis better only
guessing.' But his fate, whoever he may have been, lay in the hands of
Lord Ailesbury's 'good King,' Charles II., and so he had a good
deliverance.
The author is well aware that whosoever discusses historical mysteries
pleases the public best by being quite sure, and offering a definite and
certain solution. Unluckily Science forbids, and conscience is on the
same side. We verily do not know how the false Pucelle arrived at her
success with the family of the true Maid; we do not know, or pretend to
know, who killed Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey; or how Amy Robsart
came by her death; or why the Valet was so important a prisoner. It is
only possible to restate the cases, and remove, if we may, the errors and
confusions which beset the problems. Such a tiny point as the year of
Amy Robsart's marriage is stated variously by our historians. To
ascertain the truth gave the author half a day's work, and, at last, he
would have voted for the wrong year, had he not been aided by the
superior acuteness of his friend, Mr. Hay Fleming. He feels morally
certain that, in trying to set historians right about Amy Robsart, he must
have committed some conspicuous blunders; these always attend such
enterprises of rectification.
With regard to Sir Edmund Berry Godfrey, Mr. A. W. Crawley-Boevey
points out to me that in an unpublished letter of Mr. Alexander Herbert
Phaire in 1743-44 (Addit. MSS. British Museum 4291, fol. 150)
Godfrey is spoken of in connection with his friend