M. Loiseleur insists the more upon this unfounded interpretation, because it is almost the sole pretext,[556] I will not say for the theory--he is too cautious to call it so--but for the supposition that an obscure and unknown spy was arrested by Catinat in 1681, and confided, like Matthioly, to Saint-Mars’ care. Nothing, indeed--and M. Loiseleur does not deny this--absolutely nothing in the history of the resumption of the negotiations relative to Casale allows us to admit the truth of this hypothesis. While in 1679, there was uncertainty, hesitation, and embarrassment produced by Matthioly’s equivocal behaviour, in 1681 everything was simple, clear, and definitive. No doubt the preparations were still concealed; but observe the rapidity of execution and the startling revenge taken by Louis XIV.! On July 8, 1681, the treaty of surrender is signed at Mantua by the Duke himself and the Ambassador of the King of France. On August 2 Catinat is ordered from Flanders. On the 13th Louvois announces to Saint-Mars the journey of this officer to Pignerol. From September 1 to 22 the French troops muster at Briançon. On the 27th they arrive at Pignerol. On the 30th they enter Casale with the Marquis de Boufflers as commander and Catinat as governor of this new possession.[557] This time there was no intermediary between the negotiators, no obstacle to Louis XIV.’s project; and no employment of an embarrassing or perfidious spy. There is nothing that is suspicious, nothing that is obscure in the despatches relating to this enterprise. There is no void in them, nothing has been suppressed. Moreover--and this is a point upon which we cannot too strongly insist--the King, the ministers, and the ambassadors who penned them, could not foresee that they would one day no longer be buried in the impenetrable archives of Versailles, but be delivered to investigation and comment. Where is there anything in them about that obscure spy whom Catinat is said to have arrested? M. Loiseleur has wished rather to open a new field for conjecture than to put forward a definite opinion. He has comprehended so well the fragile nature of his train of reasoning that he does not hesitate to express himself in the following manner concerning this pretended prisoner of 1681:--“There is nothing to explain to us his true name, his position in life, or his crime. The only two theories which are now current concerning the Iron Mask are both equally erroneous. This is all that we have intended to establish.”[558]