MARY, an Anglo-Norman Poetejs. 51

author writes in France, and in the language of the country, he does not fay that he is of France. Now this precaution on the part of Mary implies that me wrote in a foreign country, the greater part of whole inhabitants Spoke her native language ; and where mail we find the French tongue more ufed at that time than in Eng- land ? In order, therefore, to avoid being confounded with the writers of that island, or to give a greater confequence to her work, me has Slated herfelf a native of France. Guernes de Pont St. Maxence, who wrote at Canterbury in the 1 2th century, had been equally attentive to announce himfelf as a Frenchman, that his work might be regarded as written in a purer and correcter Slyle. II. MonSieur le Grand advances, without proof, that during the 1 3th century it was the uniform practice of the French poets to an- nounce their works as translated from the Englifh : an aflertion fo positive might, at leaft, have been accompanied with fomething like proof to fupport it ; for I confefs, that after all my refearches upon this fubjecl:, I have not been able to difcover more than two poets who profefs to have translated from Englifh works. The firft is Geoffrey Gaimar, who in the isth century compofed the hiftory of the Anglo-Saxon kings in French verfe ; but he not only con- tents himfelf with citing the Englilh and Welih MSS. that he ufed, but even names thofe perfons who had lent him them. He relates alfo with extreme minutenefs the difficulties he had found in pro- curing them. Now to call Such details as thefe by the name of quack- ery, is to deny even the exiftence of the works which he fays he had borrowed, and which are certainly known to have existed at that time. In a word, it is throwing a fcepticifm upon the teftimony of ancient writers, equally dangerous and unjuft. The fecond poet who has mentioned the circumStance of having tranflated from Englifh works is Mary herfelf, who, in fpeaking of , informs us that a king of England, H 2, Le