The acting of portraits and historical pictures, exhibited with the greatest fidelity of costume and attitude, by amateurs at Florence, is another species of ingenious deception, which is almost perfect; and, having lately been made instrumental to the general purposes of the drama, is likely to become a fruitful source of attraction at our theatres, where it commenced with the exact representation of Wilkie's "Rent-day," and "Distraining for Rent." This idea, if followed up, will make our best artists scenepainters, in spite of themselves. This is not the first time that favourite subjects from the pencil of the artist have been adapted to the stage; for Mr. Ireland, in his "Illustrations of Hogarth," informs us, that the first series of that painter, "The Harlot's Progress," excited so much attention and expectation, that above twelve hundred names were entered in the subscription-book for the engravings: the whole series were copied on fan-mounts, three on one side, and three on the other. It was transferred from the copper to the stage, in the form of pantomime, by Theophilus Cibber, and again represented in a ballad opera, entitled "The Jew decoyed."

The war dance, among the native Americans, is most striking. It is the representation of a complete American campaign. The departure of the warriors from their village, their march into the enemy's country, the caution with which they encamp, the address with which they station some of their party in ambush, the manner of surprising the enemy, the noise and ferocity of the combat, the scalping of those who are slain, the seizing of the prisoners, the triumphant return of the conquerors, and the torture of the victims, are successively exhibited. The performers enter with such enthusiastic ardour into their several

parts; their gestures, their countenance, their voice, are so wild, and so well adapted to their various situations, that Europeans can hardly believe it to be a mimic scene, or view it without emotions of horror

CHAPTER XVII.

MYSTERY OF THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK.

The man with the Iron Mask proved to be Matthioli-Who Matthioli was-He is bribed by Louis XIV. to obtain the Surrender of Casale-He violates his Engagement with the French Monarch -Louis resolves to take Vengeance on him-Matthioli is lured into the Hands of the French Agents-He is made Prisoner-Instructions given by Louis, relative to the Treatment of the Prisoner -Matthioli is compelled to wear a Mask-A mad Jacobin Monk is confined with him-He is removed to Exilles-Again removed to the Island of St. Margaret-Manner in which he travelled -Anecdotes respecting him-He is again removed to the Bastile -His death-Precautions taken after his Death to preserve Secrecy.

THE curiosity of the public, says Mr. Agar Ellis, from whose clear and satisfactory work on this subject the following account has been condensed, has been, for above one hundred years, so much excited by the mystery which enveloped the name of the Man of the Iron Mask, that numerous papers have been written, and conjectures hazarded, in favour of different theories; all with some semblance of probability, yet all unsatisfactory. M. Delort, by consulting the archives of the French government, found the correspondence of the French ministers of that time, which proved, beyond a doubt, that the Man of the Iron Mask was Italian of the name of Matthioli.

an

He entered into the service of Charles, third Duke of Mantua, by whom he was much favoured, and was

made secretary of state. Towards the end of the year 1677, the Abbé D'Estrades, ambassador from Louis the Fourteenth to the republic of Venice, was anxious to induce the Duke of Mantua to allow of the introduction of a French garrison into Casale; which place was, in a great measure, the key of Italy. D'Estrades sought a channel of communication to the Duke through Matthioli, who fell into his schemes, and, in a letter, offered to devote himself to Louis, whom, he said, he regarded and revered as a demigod. He had a terrible reason, afterwards, for altering his opinion of that implacable monarch.

In the further course of the treaty, between Louis and the Duke, it was proposed to send Matthioli to the French court. This it seemed D'Estrades was not anxious for, and he resolved to obstruct the departure of Matthioli for France as long as it was possible. Matthioli, however, of his own accord deferred his journey from the spring to the autumn, and arrived at Paris about the end of November, 1678. He had the honour of an interview with Louis, who gave him a ring of value, and promised greater things after the ratification of the treaty. He soon after returned to Italy.

Suspicions being, however, excited in the neighbouring states, at the report of the French troops assembling so near the territories of the Duke of Savoy, remonstrances were made to the proper authorities, and the agents of the French government became anxious to have the treaty ratified; but in the same proportion did Count Matthioli find fresh excuses for delay.

These excuses appear to have given the French court a suspicion of his fidelity, but it is not known

whether he was bribed by the Spaniards, or not sufficiently so by the French.

Reproaches and threats were now made by D'Estrades, and the treachery of Matthioli became every day more apparent; and it subsequently appeared that he had received a sum of money for his information from Turchi, one of the ministers of the Duchess of Savoy.

Matthioli informed the French agent, that the Duke of Mantua had been obliged to conclude a treaty with the Venetians, the object of which was directly opposed to that entered into with the French. M. Pinchesne, charge d'affaires at Venice, though convinced of the perfidy of Matthioli, did not break with him, but advised him to go to confer with D'Estrades at Turin: Matthioli followed this advice, to his own ruin.

The vindictive Louis had, meanwhile, determined to satisfy his wounded pride and frustrated ambition, by taking signal vengeance on Matthioli, and he accordingly sent orders to D'Estrades to try and arrest and guard him in such a manner that not only may he not have communication with any one else, but that he may have cause to repent of his own bad conduct." Matthioli complaining to D'Estrades of want of money, favoured the plan proposed by which to arrest him, as he was recommended to meet Catinat at the French frontiers near Pignerol; where also D'Estrades would be present.

Three miles from the place of rendezvous, they were stopped by a river, the bridge over which had been broken down by an inundation. Matthioli himself assisted to repair the bridge, over which he was to be conveyed into captivity.

Being questioned at the conference with Catinat,

he informed those present where all the original papers relative to the delivery of Casale would be found, though it seems this confession of his was false, as they were afterwards discovered, concealed in a wall at Padua.

He was then without ceremony arrested, and after his arrest no one was permitted to approach him: the most extraordinary precautions were taken against discovery, particularly that of obliging him to wear a mask during his journey when he saw any one, to conceal this violent breach of the law of nations; Matthioli being at this time plenipotentiary of the Duke of Mantua, for concluding a treaty with France: and the same reasons for concealment existed till his death, since that event happened while both Louis and the Duke of Mantua were still alive. This accounts for his confinement being always solitary and secret; one act of diplomatic treachery, however, could never warrant the infliction of the most horrible of all punishments, solitary confinement for twentyfour years in a dungeon; but Louis, whether as a man or a sovereign, was one of the most cruel and tyrannical characters transmitted to us in history.

By direction of D'Estrades, Matthioli was at first well treated, but his gaoler afterwards received the following instructions:-"It is not the intention of the king that the Sieur de Lestang,"-the name given to him," should be well treated, nor that, except the absolute necessaries of life, should he have any thing given to him, that may make him pass his time agreeably." Repeated injunctions, to this effect, are a proof how much importance the rancorous Louis attached to his victim being compelled to drink his bitter draught of captivity to the very dregs. The harshness and hopelessness of his prison seem to have

S