Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/304

the plunder committed by William the Conqueror and his Normans; the indignation with which he describes the ravages unfeelingly committed by this monarch to enlarge his forests, and the cruelty of his forest laws; the address, with which he slurs the virtue of the wife of the conqueror; the dissembling character, and atrocious soul ascribed to the conqueror himself: all, in short, bespeaks the discontented pen of an Anglo-Saxon.

When the poet tells us that he translated his work into French verse, he is willing, no doubt, to make us believe that, in the composition, he made use of Latin chronicles or histories, which were in existence in his time. I have not examined whether or not this author is exact in his Anglo-Saxon hiftory. But this I can say, that he is often otherwise in his Anglo-Norman history.

He confounds, for instance, Matilda of Flanders, wife of William the Conqueror, with Matilda of Scotland, wife of Henry the Ist. He says that the first of thefe kings died at Caen, while it is a fact incontrovertible that he died at Rouen; he assures us that the second was buried at Caen, while it is certain that he was interred at Reading, &c. &c. These errors prove that this poet, as far at least as relates to the Anglo-Normans, has sometimes trusted to his memory, which has not always been correct; or if he has really taken prior historians for his guides, we must allow that they were faulty and erroneous. However, in despite of these inaccuracies, I could wish to discover them, since this author produces some facts not to be found in other historians. Here then we may observe that, either the sources whence he has collected these facts are lost; or that they came down to him by tradition; or, in a word, that they sprung from his own imagination. I shall only cite one of these facts, to illustrate my idea on this subject.

This poet and historian states to us, that William the Conqueror, in the height of his glory, was not so much at ease, but that thepossibility