MARY, an Anglo-Norman Poetefs. 61

frequent allufions to the feudal fyftem, prove more and more that this Englim translation muft have been pofterior to the reign of Al- fred. In fhort, before it can be eftablimed that either that king, or any of the learned men about his court, could have performed it, it muft be mewn that Mary, who learned only the Englim of the 1 3th century, was capable, by that means, of underftanding the Saxon of the pth ; and this impoffibility, coupled with the reafons already given, induces me to give judgment as well againft the pre- tended translators employed by Alfred, as againft that prince him- felf. In the laft place, the Harleian MS. N 4333, afcribes the tranf- lation to king Henry. But to which of the three firft princes of that name ? For if a king Henry was really the tranflator, it is ne- ceiTarilyto one of them,fince Mary lived under the reign of Henry III. With refpect to Henry I. The Normans were acquainted with the fables of .yEfop, or at leaft thofe which were attributed to him during the middle ages. Ravul de Vafly, fon of Robert archbimop of Rouen, died in 1064, without leaving hTue, and the duke of Nor- mandy thought that, in this cafe, he could reunite the fucceflion to his demefne. From the fame archbilhop iiTued the family of the earls of Evreux ; the lords of Montfort, one of whom had married its heirefs, reprefented it, and confequently there were collateral heirs who had a legal claim to the fucceffion. But diike William, who was the grand-nephew of the fame archbifhop, imagined that he could feize upon the whole of the inheritance ; and force having filenced right, the real heirs were deprived of their own during the life of the conqueror. After his death, however, they found means to eftablifh their claim againft Robert Courthofe, and we find that in aflerting it they reproach his father with having made the Lions partition in feizing upon their inheritance w]. [w] Orderic. Vitalis Hift. apud Duchcfne, pp. 488, 681, and 1084, This