_Lines on hearing a greyheaded lady called Miss._ In humdrum, ancient days, the pretty name Of Miss at twenty was exchang’d for _Dame_, But these wise times to compliment exhort ye, For modern Misses are full _five-and-forty_. ELEVEN’S A NICK. _The Westminster Gazette_, October 8-12, 1776. _Quatrain pour le buste de Mademoiselle D’Eon, exécuté par Madame Falconet._ Ce marbre, où de D’Eon le buste est retracé, A deux femmes assure une gloire immortelle; Et par elles vaincu, l’autre sexe est forcé D’envier à la fois l’artiste et le modèle. M. BLIN LE SAINMORE. _Almanach des Muses_, 1781. _Impromptu sur Mademoiselle D’Eon, qui lui a été remis à Londres par M. Angelo, père, maître d’armes de la famille Royale d’Angleterre._ D’EON, ce double habit, qui frappe nos regards, Semble nous annoncer ton double caractère. Oui, tu sus dans la paix, au milieu des hazards, Cultiver d’une main politique et guerrière L’olive de Minerve, et les lauriers de Mars. Ch. MSS. _On Mademoiselle D’Eon’s skill in fencing._ A prodigy! this Chevalier, A most unrivalled peerless Peer Is surely Monsieur D’Eon; In arts of peace and war renown’d, As well as politics profound, And brave as Cœur-de-Lion. In vain may time his page explore, To find a precedent of yore, As yet out-done by no man; Let Britain boast her warlike sons, Or Asia of her amazons, While France can boast a woman. Both sexes’ admiration thou, A female and a manly brow, At once so oddly met; Say, can ye sages yet decide Which, best or both, can D’Eon guide, The camp or cabinet. _Old Newspapers._ ARGUMENT. ‘Toute histoire qui n’est pas contemporaine est suspecte.’—PASCAL. Two events in the career of the Chevalier D’Eon, undisputed by his contemporaries, but controverted of late years, must ever give cause for despair to biographers, so long as they seek to determine, by written evidence alone—(1) That D’Eon went to St. Petersburg for the first time in 1755, appearing there in the disguise of a female. (2) That he declared himself to be a female, and permanently adopted female attire in the year 1777, solely in obedience to the commands of Louis XVI. and his ministers. The objections raised by the non-contents to these earliest traditions is based uniquely on the complete absence of any documents in their direct support; how far such documents are indispensable the reader will judge in the face of much incidental evidence in their favour.