Page:Archaeologia Volume 13.djvu/77

Rh imaginary, has very much imitated Phædrus; that these Latin fables had been translated into English; that, without doubt, those of some other unknown writers were added to them; and, finally, that from this latter version Mary made her translation into French verse.

II. Who was the author of the English translation?

In a MS. of the fables of Mary, cited by Duchesne and Menage, it is said that this version was the work of king Mires. The Harleian MS. No 978, makes the translator to have been king Alurez. The MS. cited by Pasquier, calls him king Auvert. The MS. in the Royal library, 15 A. VII. says the translation was made by the order of king Affrus; and, lastly, the Harleian MS. No 4333, makes it the work of king Henry.

It is easy to perceive into what confusion we are thrown by these different denominations; but it is not quite so easy to see how it is possible to get out of it.

In the first place, I am unacquainted with any historian, ancient or modern, who has mentioned a king Mires; and I am very much inclined to think that he entirely owes his existence to the transcriber of the MS. cited by Duchesne and Menage. He had probably read his original MS. wrong, and not knowing the series of English kings, did not perceive his mistake.

With respect to king Alurez or Auvert, every one who has examined our ancient writers of romance during the 12th and 13th centuries, must know that the name of Alfred was thus disfigured by them. But it is difficult to account for its having been converted into the barbarous one of Affrus, except we make due allowance for the rudeness and ignorance of the times in which it was done. XIII.