Another document, the diary of a German merchant, one Eberhard de Windecke,[45] a conscientious and clever edition of which has also been published by M. Germain Lefevre-Pontalis, presents the same phenomenon. Nothing here related of the Maid is even probable. As soon as she appears a whole cycle of popular stories grow up round her name. Eberhard obviously delights to relate them. Thus we learn from these good foreign merchants that at no period of her existence was Jeanne known otherwise than by fables, and that if she moved multitudes it was by the spreading abroad of countless legends which sprang up wherever she passed and made way before her. And indeed, there is much food for thought in that dazzling obscurity, which from the very first enwrapped the Maid, in those radiant clouds of myth, which, while concealing her, rendered her all the more imposing. [Footnote 45: G. Lefevre-Pontalis, _Les sources allemandes de l'histoire de Jeanne d'Arc_, Eberhard Windecke, Paris, 1903, in 8vo.] Thirdly, with its memoranda, its consultations, and its one hundred and forty depositions, furnished by one hundred and twenty-three deponents, the rehabilitation trial forms a very valuable collection of documents.[46] M. Lanery d'Arc has done well to publish in their entirety the memoranda of the doctors as well as the treatise of the Archbishop of Embrun, the propositions of Master Heinrich von Gorcum and the _Sibylla Francica_.[47] From the trial of 1431 we learn what theologians on the English side thought of the Maid. But were it not for the consultations of Theodore de Leliis and of Paul Pontanus and the opinions included in the later trial we should not know how she was regarded by the doctors of Italy and France. It is important to ascertain what were the views held by the whole Church concerning a damsel condemned during her lifetime, when the English were in power, and rehabilitated after her death when the French were victorious. [Footnote 46: _Trial_, vols. ii to iii, 1844-1845 (vols. v and vi, 1846-1847, contain the evidence).] [Footnote 47: Lanery d'Arc, _Memoires et consultations en faveur de Jeanne d'Arc_, 1889, in 8vo. _Trial_, vol. iii, pp. 411-468.] Doubtless many matters were elucidated by the one hundred and twenty-three witnesses heard at Domremy, at Vaucouleurs, at Toul, at Orleans, at Paris, at Rouen, at Lyon, witnesses drawn from all ranks of life--churchmen, princes, captains, burghers, peasants, artisans. But we are bound to admit that they come far short of satisfying our curiosity, and for several reasons. First, because they replied to a list of questions drawn up with the object of establishing a certain number of facts within the scope of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Holy Inquisitor who conducted the trial was curious, but his curiosity was not ours. This is the first reason for the insufficiency of the evidence from our point of view.[48] [Footnote 48: _Trial_, vol. ii, pp. 378-463.]