and the Saracens, they were of small account, and generally
on the soil of Spain. Thus the historical foundation for the stories of
the romancers is but scanty, unless we suppose the events of an earlier
and of a later age to be incorporated with those of Charlemagne's own
time.

There is, however, a pretended history, which for a long time was
admitted as authentic, and attributed to Turpin, Archbishop of Rheims,
a real personage of the time of Charlemagne. Its title is "History of
Charles the Great and Orlando." It is now unhesitatingly considered as
a collection of popular traditions, produced by some credulous and
unscrupulous monk, who thought to give dignity to his romance by
ascribing its authorship to a well-known and eminent individual. It
introduces its pretended author, Bishop Turpin, in this manner:

"Turpin, Archbishop of Rheims, the friend and secretary of Charles the
Great, excellently skilled in sacred and profane literature, of a
genius equally adapted to prose and verse, the advocate of the poor,
beloved of God in his life and conversation, who often fought the
Saracens, hand to hand, by the Emperor's side, he relates the acts of
Charles the Great in one book, and flourished under Charles and his son
Louis, to the year of our Lord eight hundred and thirty."

The titles of some of Archbishop Turpin's chapters will show the nature
of his history. They are these: "Of the Walls of Pampeluna, that fell
of themselves." "Of the War of the holy Facundus, where the Spears
grew." (Certain of the Christians fixed their spears in the evening,
erect in the ground, before the castle; and found them, in the morning,
covered with bark and branches.) "How the Sun stood still for Three
Days, and of the Slaughter of Four Thousand Saracens."

Turpin's history has perhaps been the source of the marvellous
adventures which succeeding poets and romancers have accumulated around
the names of Charlemagne and his Paladins, or Peers. But Ariosto and
the other Italian poets have drawn from different sources, and
doubtless often from their own invention, numberless other stories
which they attribute to the same heroes, not hesitating to quote as
their authority "the good Turpin," though his history contains no trace
of them; and the more outrageous the improbability, or rather the
impossibility, of their narrations, the more attentive are they to cite
"the Archbishop," generally adding their testimonial to his
unquestionable