buildings on an eminence.  Various instances may be given of this practice in England, as well as in France:  such is the case near Winchester, near Christ-Church, in the Isle of Wight, and in many other places.  St. Michael contested the honor with her; and he likewise has a chapel here, whose walls are yet standing.  Its antiquity was still greater than that of the neighboring monastery; a charter from Duke Richard IInd, dated 996, speaking of it as having had existence before his time, and confirming the donation of it to the Abbey of St. Ouen.  But St. Michael’s never rivalled the opulence of Saint Catherine’s priory.—­Gosselin himself, and Emmeline his wife, lay buried in the church of the latter, which is said to have been large, and to have resembled in its structure that of St. Georges de Bocherville:  it is also recorded, that it was ornamented with many beautiful paintings; and loud praises are bestowed upon its fine peal of bells.  The epitaph of the founder speaks of him, as—­

    “Premier Autheur des mesures et poids
     Selon raison en ce paeis Normand.”

It is somewhat remarkable, that there appear to have been only two other monumental inscriptions in the church, and both of them in memory of cooks of the convent; a presumptive proof that the holy fathers were not inattentive to the good things of this world, in the midst of their concern for those of the next.—­The first of them was for Stephen de Saumere,—­

    “Qui en son vivant cuisinier
     Fut de Reverend Pere en Dieu,
     De la Barre, Abbe de ce lieu.”

The other was for—­

    “Thierry Gueroult, en broche et en fossets
     Gueu tres-expert pour les Religieux.”

The fort and the religious buildings all perished nearly at the same time:  the former was destroyed at the request of the inhabitants, to whom Henry IVth returned on that occasion his well-known answer, that he “wished for no other fortress than the hearts of his subjects;” the latter to gratify the avarice of individuals, who cloked their true designs under the plea that the buildings might serve as a harbor for the disaffected.

Of the origin of the fort I find no record in history, except what Noel says[62], that it appears to have been raised by the English while they were masters of Normandy; but what I observed of the structure of the walls, in 1815, would induce me to refer it without much hesitation to the time of the Romans.  Its bricks are of the same form and texture as those used by them; and they were ranged in alternate courses with flints, as is the case at Burgh Castle, at Richborough, and other Roman edifices in England.  That the fort was of great size and strength is sufficiently shewn by the depth, width, and extent of the entrenchments still left, which, particularly towards the plain, are immense; and, if credence may be given to common report, in such matters always apt to exaggerate, the subterraneous passages indicate a fortress of importance.