Chapter I: Part 1

The Sowdone of Babylone.

Early English Text Society. Extra Series. No. XXXVIII. 1881.

BERLIN: ASHER & CO., 13, UNTER DEN LINDEN. NEW YORK: C. SCRIBNER & CO.; LEYPOLDT & HOLT. PHILADELPHIA: J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.

THE ENGLISH CHARLEMAGNE ROMANCES.

PART V.

The Romaunce of The Sowdone of Babylone and of Ferumbras his Sone who conquerede Rome.

RE-EDITED FROM THE UNIQUE MS. OF THE LATE SIR THOMAS PHILLIPPS, with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, BY EMIL HAUSKNECHT, PH. D.

LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & Co., PATERNOSTER HOUSE, CHARING-CROSS ROAD, W.C. MDCCCLXXXI. [«Reprinted 1891, 1898.»]

Extra Series, XXXVIII.

RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, LONDON & BUNGAY.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION … v

Popularity of the Carlovingian Romances … v

Popularity of the Ferumbras Poem … vi

The Provençal Ferabras … ix

The Fierabras Poem an Enlarged and Recast Portion of the Old Balan
Romance … xi

The Poem of the Destruction de Rome … xiii

MSS. of the French Fierabras … xv

The English Sir Ferumbras, its Source, etc. … xvi

The Poem of the Sowdan of Babylon, its Sources, its Differences
from the Original Balan Romance and from the Ashmolean Ferumbras …
xxii

Dialect of the Sowdan … xxxiv

Metre and Rhymes of the Sowdan … xl

Date and Author of the Sowdan … xlv

MS. of the Sowdan … xlvii

Roxburghe Club Edition of the Sowdan … xlviii

ADDITIONS … xlix

The Hanover MS. of the French Fierabras Compared With the Sowdan …
xlix

The Hanover Version Compared With Sir Ferumbras … lii

SKETCH OF THE STORY … liv

THE ROMAUNCE OF THE SOWDONE OF BABYLONE AND OF FERUMBRAS HIS SONE WHO CONQUEREDE ROME … 1

NOTES … 95

GLOSSARIAL INDEX … 133

INDEX OF NAMES … 141

[p-v]

INTRODUCTION.

The exploits of Charles the Great, who by his achievements as conqueror and legislator, as reformer of learning and missionary, so deeply changed the face of Western Europe, who during a reign of nearly half a century maintained, by his armies, the authority of his powerful sceptre, from the southern countries of Spain and Italy to the more northern regions of Denmark, Poland, and Hungary, must have made a profound and unalterable impression in the minds of his contemporaries, so that for centuries afterwards they continued to live in the memory of the people. Evidence of this high pitch of popularity is given by the numerous «chansons de geste» or romances, which celebrate the deeds, or are connected with the name, of the great and valiant champion of Christendom.

It is true that the sublime figure of Charlemagne, who with his imaginary twelve peers perpetually warred against all heathenish or Saracen people, in the romances of a later period, has been considerably divested of that nimbus of majestic grandeur, which the composers of the earlier poems take pains to diffuse around him. Whereas, in the latter, the person of the Emperor appears adorned with high corporeal, intellectual, and warlike gifts, and possessed of all royal qualities; the former show us the splendour of Royalty tarnished and debased, and the power of the feodal vassals enlarged to the prejudice of the royal authority. Roland, in speaking of Charlemagne, says, in the «Chanson de Roland», l. 376:—

“Jamais n’iert hum qui encuntre lui vaillet,”

and again the same Roland says of the Emperor, in «Guy de Bourgoyne», l. 1061:—

“Laissomes ce viellart qui tous est assotez.”

[p-vi]

This glorification of the great Christian hero took its rise in France, but soon spread into the neighbouring countries, and before long Charlemagne was celebrated in song by almost all European nations. Indeed, there are translations, reproductions, compilations of French Charlemagne romances to be met with in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, as well as in Scandinavia and Iceland. Even in Hungary and Russia these «chansons» of the Charlemagne cycle seem to have been known.[1]

A full account of almost all Charlemagne romances will be found in Gaston Paris’s exhaustive work of the «Histoire poétique de Charlemagne» (Paris, 1865), and in Léon Gautier’s «Epopées françaises» (Paris, 1867).

Of all the Charlemagne romances, that of Fierabras or Ferumbras has certainly obtained the highest degree of popularity, as is shown by the numerous versions and reproductions of this romance, from the 13th century down to the present day.

When the art of printing first became general, the first romance that was printed was a prose version of «Fierabras»; and when the study of mediæval metrical romances was revived in this century, the «Fierabras» poem was the first to be re-edited.[2]

The balm of Fierabras especially seems to have been celebrated for its immediately curing any wound; we find it referred to and minutely described in Florian’s «Don Quichotte», I. chap. 10. The scene of Fierabras challenging to a combat the twelve peers of France, and of his vaunting offer to fight at once with six (or twelve) of them,[3] must also have been pretty familiar to French readers, as the name of Fierabras is met with in the sense of a simple common noun, signifying “a bragging bully or swaggering hector.”[4]

Rabelais[5] also alludes to Fierabras, thinking him renowned enough as to figure in the pedigree of Pantagruel.

In 1833, on a tour made through the Pyrenees, M. Jomard witnessed [p-vii] a kind of historical drama, represented by villagers, in which Fierabras and Balan were the principal characters.[6]

That in our own days, the tradition of Fierabras continues to live, is evident from the fact, that copies of the Fierabras story, in the edition of the «Bibliothèque Bleue», still circulate amongst the country people of France.[7] There is even an illustrated edition, published in 1861, the pictures of which have been executed by no less an artist than Gustave Doré. And like Oberon, that other mediæval hero of popular celebrity,[8] Fierabras has become the subject of a musical composition. There is an Opera «Fierabras» composed by Franz Schubert (words by Joseph Kupelwieser) in 1823, the overture of which has been arranged for the piano in 1827, by Carl Czerny.[9]

The different versions and the popularity of the present romance in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany, having been treated in the Introduction to «Sir Ferumbras», we need not repeat it again here.[10] As to the popularity of the «Fierabras» romance in the Netherlands, the following passage from Hoffmann, «Horæ Belgicæ» (Vratislaviæ, 1830), I. 50, may be quoted here[11]:—

“Quam notæ Belgis, sec. xiii. et xiv., variæ variarum nationum fabulæ fuerint, quæ ex Gallia septemtrionali, ubi originem ceperunt, translatæ sunt, pauca hæc testimonia demonstrabunt:— . . . . in exordio Sidraci:—[12]

‘Dickent hebbic de gone ghescouden, die hem an boeken houden daer si clene oerbare in leren, also sijn jeesten van heeren, van Paerthenopeuse, van Amidase, van Troijen ende van «Fierabrase», ende van menighen boeken, die men mint ende daer men litel oerbaren in vint, [p-viii] ende dat als leghene es ende mere, ende anders en hebben ghene lere, danne vechten ende vrowen minnen ende lant ende steden winnen . . . . . .’—

“Nec rarius tanguntur fabulæ de Carolo Magno, «Speculum Historiale», IV. 1. xxix (cf. Bilderdijk, «Verscheidenh», I. D. bl. 161–2):—

‘Carel es menichwaerf beloghen in groten boerden ende in hoghen, alse boerders doen ende oec dwase, diene beloghen van «Fierabrase», dat nie ghesciede noch en was . . . . die scone walsce valsce poeten, die mer rimen dan si weten, belieghen groten Caerle vele in sconen worden ende bispele van «Fierabrase van Alisandre», van «Pont Mautrible» ende andre, dat algader niet en was . . . .’”

That the «Fierabras» romance must have been well known and highly popular in England and Scotland, may be gathered from the numerous references to this poem in various Middle English works.

Thus the whole subject of the «Fierabras» romance is found in the following passage, taken from «Barbour’s Bruce», ed. Skeat, 3, 435 ss., where the King is described as relating to his followers:—

“Romanys off worthi Ferambrace,
That worthily our-commyn was
Throw the rycht douchty Olywer;
And how the duz Peris wer
Assegyt intill Egrymor,
Quhar King Lawyne lay thaim befor
With may thowsandis then I can say,
And bot elewyn within war thai,
And a woman; and wa sa stad,
That thai na mete thar within had,
Bot as thai fra thair fayis wan.
Y heyte, sua contenyt thai thaim than;
That thai the tour held manlily,
Till that Rychard off Normandy,
Magre his fayis, warnyt the king,
That wes joyfull off this tithing:
For he wend, thai had all bene slayne,
Tharfor he turnyt in hy agayne,
And wan Mantrybill and passit Flagot;
And syne Lawyne and all his flot
Dispitusly discumfyt he:
And deliueryt his men all fre,
And wan the «naylis», and the «sper»,
And the croune that Ihesu couth ber; [p-ix]
And off the «croice» a gret party
He wan throw his chewalry.”[13]

In his poem of «Ware the Hawk», Skelton (ed. Dyce, I. 162) cites «Syr Pherumbras» as a great tyrant. He also refers to him in one of his poems against Garnesche, whom he addresses with the following apostrophe:—

“Ye fowle, fers and felle, as Syr Ferumbras the ffreke.”

The story of the combat between Oliver and Ferumbras is alluded to by Lyndsay, in his «Historie of ane Nobil and Wailȝeand Squyer, William Meldrum», ed. Hall, ll. 1313–16:—

“Roland with Brandwell, his bricht brand,
Faucht never better, hand for hand,
Nor Gawin aganis Golibras,
Nor «Olyver» with «Pharambras».”

The tale of the fortified bridge of Mauntrible seems also to have been very well known in England and Scotland. In the «Complaint of Scotland», ed. Murray, p. 63, we find the «Tail of the Brig of the Mantrible» mentioned among other famous romances. In his lampoon on Garnesche, Skelton describes his adversary as being more deformed and uglier than

“Of Mantryble the bryge Malchus[14] the murryon.”

As has already been mentioned, amongst all the Charlemagne romances the (originally French) romance of «Fierabras» is remarkable as being one of the first that was rescued from the dust of libraries; and it is worthy of note, in connection with it, that the first printed version was not a French, but a Provençal one, which was published not in France, the birth-place of the romance, but in Germany.

The manuscript of this Provençal version having been discovered by Lachmann in the Library of Prince Ludwig von Oettingen-Wallerstein,[15] [p-x] somewhere about the year 1820, the poem was published in 1829 by Immanuel Bekker.[16]

Raynouard, who drew attention to this edition of the poem in the «Journal des Savants», March 1831, supposed this Provençal version to be the original.

Soon after Fauriel discovered at Paris two MSS. of the romance in French, and a third French MS. was found in London,[17] by Fr. Michel, in 1838.

In 1852 Fauriel gave an account of the poem in the «Histoire Littéraire de la France, par les religieux bénédictins de congregation de Saint-Maur . . . . . continuée par des membres de l’Institut», vol. xxii. p. 196 «et seq.», where he also investigated the question of the originality of the two versions, without arriving at a final solution; as from the comparison of the French and the Provençal version, no conclusion as to the original could be drawn in favour of either of the two poems.[18]

As early as 1829 Uhland and Diez had expressed their opinion, that in all probability the Provençal poem was to be looked upon as a reproduction of some French source;[19] and in 1839 Edelestand du Méril, in France, had pointed out the French poem as the original of the Provençal version;[20] Guessard in his lectures at the Ecole des Chartes, at Paris, had also defended the same opinion; when in 1860, the editors of the French «Fierabras»[21] finally and irrefutably proved the impossibility of considering the Provençal poem as anything but a translation of a French original. [p-xi]

In 1865, Gaston Paris, in his «Poetical History of Charlemagne», pointed out that what we have now of the Fierabras romance must be looked upon as a very different version from the old original «Fierabras» (or «Balan») romance, the former being indeed only a portion, considerably amplified and in its arrangement modified, of the old poem, the first portion of which has been lost altogether. Gaston Paris had been led to this supposition by the rather abrupt opening of the «Fierabras», which at once introduces the reader «in medias res», and by the numerous passages of the «Fierabras», which contain allusions and references to preceding events; several of which, being obscure and inexplicable from the context of the «Fierabras» itself, can only be explained by assuming the existence of an earlier poem.

The main subject of the old «Balan» or «Fierabras» romance may be given as follows:—“The Saracens having invaded Rome and killed the Pope, Charlemagne sends, from France, Guy of Burgundy and Richard of Normandy to the rescue of the city, and follows himself with his main army. After a fierce combat between Oliver and Ferumbras, the city is delivered from the Saracens, and a new Pope established.”[22] [p-xii]

Of all the events related in the old «Balan» romance, there is but one which is contained in the «Fierabras» poem, viz. the combat between Oliver and Ferumbras, and even this has been greatly modified in consequence of the composer’s transferring the scene of action from Italy to Spain. All the other events related in the «Fierabras», the love of Floripas and Guy, the capture of the twelve peers, their being besieged in the castle of Agremor, and their deliverance by Charlemagne, and the ultimate wedding of Floripas and Guy are altogether wanting in the original «Fierabras» [Balan] romance.

Therefore Gaston Paris was right in saying that the «Fierabras» poem contained only the second part of the earlier poem, the first part of which had not come down to us.

Now it seemed as though this view, which had been clearly [p-xiii] demonstrated and generally adopted, would have to undergo a thorough modification on the discovery of a new Fierabras Manuscript in Hanover. Professor Grœber, having been informed of the existence of that MS. by Professor Tobler, published from it, in 1873, the poem of the «Destruction de Rome»,[23] which in that MS. precedes the «Fierabras» romance.[24] In his Address to the Assembly of German Philologists at Leipzig,[25] the same scholar attempted to show that this poem represented the first part of the earlier «Balan» romance.

This supposition, however, can only be accepted with reserve, and needs a great modification, as by no means all the references to previous events contained in the «Fierabras» receive explanation in the «Destruction», although all such previous events must have been narrated in the original «Balan». Moreover, one of these allusions in the «Fierabras» is in direct contradiction to the contents of the «Destruction».

Thus ll. 2237 «et seq.» of the «Fierabras»:[26]—

“.i. chevalier de France ai lontans enamé:
Guis a nom de Borgoigne, moult i a bel armé;
Parens est Karlemaine et Rollant l’aduré.
Dès que je fui à Romme, m’a tout mon cuer emblé,
Quant l’amirans mes peres fist gaster la cité,
«Lucafer de Baudas abati ens ou pré,»
«Et lui et le ceval, d’un fort espiel quarré»,”

where Floripas declares that she has seen Guy before Rome when defeating Lukafer, widely differ from the account given in ll. 1355 «et seq.» of the «Destruction», where Guy does not arrive at Rome until «after» the departure of Laban’s army to Spain.

In the «Destruction» no clue is given which would enable us to explain why Charles should be constantly applying to Richard in the «Fierabras» (ll. 112 «et seq.») for information about Fierabras, or why Richard, in particular, should know more about Fierabras than any one else. There is no mention in the «Destruction» of Richard chasing [p-xiv] the Emir before him in the plain of Rome, to which event ll. 3708–9 of the «Fierabras»[27] clearly refer.

“Richars de Normendie au courage aduré,
Qui cacha l’amirant devant Romme ens el pré.”

The allusion contained in l. 2614,[28]

. . . . “Richart de Normendie,
Cil qui m’ocist Corsuble et mon oncle Mautrie,”

where Richard is said to have slain Corsuble and Mautrie, the uncle of Floripas, is not cleared up by the «Destruction», as in the three passages, where Richard is mentioned there (ll. 246, 288, 541), he does not play an active part at all, whereas from Mousket’s analysis of the original «Fierabras» [«Balan»] romance, we know how important a part Guy and Richard played in the old poem.[29] There Richard and Guy being sent off by Charlemagne as a first succour to the oppressed Romans, succeeded in delivering Château-Miroir, which had been seized by the Saracens. The story of the combat around Château-Miroir, as related in the «Destruction», ll. 593 ss., is thoroughly different,[30] as besides other variations, there is neither Richard nor Guy concerned in it.

Therefore, as the contents of the «Destruction» are not identical with Mousket’s analysis of the old «Balan» romance, and as several passages alluding to events previously described are left unexplained in the «Destruction»; and as there is even an instance of the «Destruction» being in contradiction to the «Fierabras», the poem of the «Destruction de Rome» cannot be said to be identical with the first part of the «Balan» romance.[31] [p-xv]

The Provençal version and the «Destruction» are each printed from unique MSS., the latter from the Hanover MS., the former from the Wallerstein MS. Of the French «Fierabras» there are seven MSS. known to exist.

«a» = the MS. of the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, Supplém. franç., No. 180, which has been followed throughout by the editors of the French «Fierabras», who in cases of evident errors or lacunæ of this MS., consulted the three following MSS.:

«b» = the MS. of the Biblioth. Nationale, Lancelot, 7566^{3.3}.

«c» = the MS. of the British Museum, MS. Reg. 15. E. vi.[32]

«d» = the MS. of the Vatican Library, Regina 1616.

«D» = the MS. in possession of M. Ambroise-Firmin Didot, a small fragment of which has been printed by Gautier, «Epopées» fr. ii. 307.

«E» = the Escorial MS., a description of which, together with the variations, has been given by Knust, in the «Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Sprache und Literatur», vol. ix. p. 43 et seq.

«H» = the Hanover MS., which also contains the «Destruction de Rome». It has been described by Professor Grœber in the «Jahrbuch», xiii. p. 111. [p-xvi]

As to the English «Fierabras» romances, there are two versions known to exist:[33] the poem of «Sir Ferumbras» contained in the Ashmole MS. 33[34] and the present poem.

In the following we shall attempt to point out the differences of these two versions, and to examine whether there is any relationship between the English and the French poems, and if possible to identify the original of the former.

A superficial comparison of the English poem of «Sir Ferumbras» with the French romance «Fierabras» (edd. Krœber and Servois) will suffice at once to show the great resemblance between the two versions. In my «Dissertation» on the sources and language of the «Sowdan of Babylone» (Berlin, 1879) I have proved (pp. 30–40) that the Ashmolean «Ferumbras» must be considered as a running poetical translation of a French original. Since Mr. Herrtage, in the Introduction to his edition of the Ashmole MS. 33, has also pointed out the closeness with which the translator generally followed the original, which he believes to belong to the same type as the «Fierabras», edited by MM. Krœber and Servois. “The author has followed his original closely, so far as relates to the course of events; but at the same time he has translated it freely, introducing several slight incidents and modifications, which help to enliven and improve the poem. That he has not translated his original literally, is shown by the fact that the French version consists of only 6219 lines, or allowing for the missing portion of the Ashmole MS., not much more than one-half the number of lines in the latter, and that too, although he has cut down the account of the duel between Oliver and Ferumbras from 1500 to 800 lines, by leaving out Oliver’s attempts at converting the Saracen, Charlemagne’s prayers, &c.”

Now, in my opinion, we ought not to lay too much stress on the fact that the number of lines in the two versions differs, as all translators of poetical works, who wish to follow their original as closely as possible, will easily be able to render it ‘literally’ as long as they write in prose. But adopting a poetical form for their translation, and still pursuing their intention of a close rendering of their original, [p-xvii] they must needs be more diffuse, and the consideration of rhythm and rhyme will compel them sometimes to abandon a quite literal translation, and to be content with a free reproduction. This is also the case with the author of «Syr Ferumbras», who, notwithstanding the many passages where the French text is not given ‘literally,’ must be considered as a close rhymed translation of the French poem. The only liberty which we see the English author take sometimes, consists in contracting or amalgamating together those «couplets similaires»,[35] or strophes which contain repetitions.

But not always did the author thus give up his plan of rendering his original closely: occasionally he has such repetitionary lines in the same place as the French poem, as, for instance, in ll. 130 «et seq.» corresponding to «Fierabras», ll. 125 «et seq.»

The closeness and literalness of his translation is well exemplified by his introduction in an English dress of a great many French words which are unknown, or at least of a most rare occurrence, in English, and which in his translation are found in the same place and context, where the French text has them. This will be best illustrated by juxtaposing the corresponding phrases of the two versions.

Ashmole «Ferumbras». French «Fierabras».

312 Hit ys «rewarded» ous two 301 ‘Nous jujon Olivier, si betwyne þat Olyuer schal wende l’avons «esgardé» Qu’il fera la and take þe batail bataille au paien deffaé.’

330 «Mercy», quaþ he to kyng 333 ‘As piés le roy se jete, Charles «merchi» li a priié.’

369 þat «paynede» crist 377 ‘—dont vos Diex fu «penès».’

388 Er y «remuvie» me of þis 392 ‘Ains que je m’en «remue» ...’ place

399 y «chalenge» wiþ þe to fiȝt 402 ‘—je te voel «calengier»’

457 «Parfay», ansuerde erld O. 449 ‘«Par foi», dist Oliviers ...’

533 þat he ne . . maden ȝelde his 548 ‘se Roland s’i combat, ne faice body to him «creaunt» «recréant»’

537 wiþ my swerd «trenchaunt» 553 ‘ . . . à m’espée «trencant»’

538 «Sarsyns», said erld O. 554 «Sarrazins», dist li quans ...

551 long man in «fourchure» 579 Il ot «l’enfourcéure» grant

558 a ful «gret pite», etc. 586 j’ai de toi «grand pité», etc.

[p-xviii]

751 haue «mercy» of me, «iantail» 1494–5 — «merci» li a crié: knyȝt «Gentix» hom . .

781 to «remurie» þe of þis place 1515 ja par moi n’i seriés . .
«remués»

817 he was «encombred» with F. 1552 Mais de F. est . . .
«encombrés»

922 þey went forth on a «pendant» 1696 Cil s’entornent fuiant le
«pendant» d’un laris

947 wan hure spere gunne to 1712 Quant les lances lor «falent» «faile»

984 At «avalyng» of an hulle 1734 À «l’avaler» d’un tertre

1008. 1012 to «rescourre» þe 1757 . . les barons «rescous» . . barons

1016 wel longe hadde þis «chas» 1764 Moult fu grans cele «chace» ylest

1058 and oþre reliques riche ynow 1806 Et les dignes reliques dont il wherof y have «plentee» i ad «plenté»

1227 for to wyte wat þay «be» and 2067 Lor «couvine» et lor «estre» hure «covyne» yknowe enquerre et demander.

1316 By an old forsake ȝeate of 2144 Par une gaste porte de «viel» þe «olde antiquyte» «antequité»

1773 sittynge on a grene «erber» 2562 . . siét sous cel «arbre»
ramé.

1974 Florippe his doȝtre þe 2712 Floripas la «courtoise» a «cortoyse» in «chambre» þar le «nois» escoute Puis issi de she was In þe «paleys» yhurde la «cambre», . . . Entresi c’au «noise» and þyder þan she gas «palais» . .

2007 þow ert «asotid» 2733 . . vous voi «assoté».

2538 a gret «repref» it were 3136 . . il nous est «reprouvé»

3665 brydel and «paytrel» and al 4117 Li estrier furent d’or, þe gere wiþ fyn gold yharneyssed rices fu li «poitrés» were

3672 and þe king him gan «ascrie» 4126 . . . si s’est haut «escriés».

3791 a gret «dul» þay made þere 4236 . . demainent grant «dolour»

4541 with an hard «crestid» 4832 vestu ot la pel d’un dur «serpentis» fel «serpent» «cresté»

5753 on þan ston a «cracchede» 5910 en «despit» de Ihesu ens es and in a spatte in «dispit» of fous «ecraca». god, etc.

Besides these undoubted examples of translation, we must bear in mind that there occur some variations of readings, where, indeed, the author of «Syr Ferumbras» seems to have introduced slight incidents and modifications. But examining them more closely, we shall soon become aware that many of them also point to a French original, which we may sometimes identify by comparing these variations with the readings of those French MSS. that are already printed. Thus, the words “þarto ys stede þan tyeþ he,” l. 91, render exactly a line of the Escorial MS.[36]—“son cheval aresna à l’abricel rose”—which is omitted in l. 93 of «F» («i. e.» the French «Fierabras», as edited by MM. Krœber and Servois).[37] [p-xix]

The following is another example of A (= the Ashmolean «Ferumbras») differing from «F», but agreeing with «E»:

A. E.

175 Ne «lyre» he noȝt þys day til 175 ke il puisse tant «vivre» que
evene cis jours soit passés

2131 Adoun þay gunne falle, 2833 Issi «agenoillierent» par «knellyng» on þe erthe stille bones volentez ... & «kussedem» «everechone», ... «Ils baissent» les reliques ... etc.

Notwithstanding these resemblances of «A» to «E», in passages where «A» differs from «F», «E» cannot have been the source of «A», as there are many instances where «E» and «F» show the same reading, whereas «A» differs from both versions.

Thus, «A», l. 340 «et seq.», it is Duke Reyner who blesses his son, and not Charles, as «E» and «F» (l. 357) have it.

The names of Arrenor, Gwychard, Gayot, and Angwyree, given in l. 814, differ from those which are mentioned in the corresponding passage of «E» and «F» (ll. 1548–49).

There is no mention of Kargys being slain by Oliver («A» 880) to be found in «E» or «F» (l. 1670–76).

In «A» 1178, «Lamasour» advises the Soudan not to slay the prisoners; in «E» and «F» (l. 1948) the same advice is given by «Brulans».

The names of «Lambrock» and «Colbrant» («A» 1616, 1618) are not found in «E» and «F», 2424.

«A», ll. 1347–48, are wanting in «E» and «F» (2174). [p-xx]

Instead of a giant («A» 1700) we find a giantess mentioned in «E» and «F» (l. 2483).

Instead of Roland («A» 1793) it is Naymes who speaks first in «E» and «F», 2570.

These few instances, the number of which might easily be increased, will certainly suffice to show the impossibility of regarding «E» as the original of «A».

Only a short passage of the Didot MS. has been hitherto printed;[38] therefore the arguments drawn from a comparison of «A» with that printed passage cannot be considered as altogether irrefutable and final. But as the Didot MS. belongs to the same family of MSS. as «E», we may at once presume, that as «E» cannot be taken for the original of «A», the possibility of the Didot MS. being the source of «A», is not very strong. Besides it may be stated, that no trace of the two additional lines (ll. 19 and 20[39]) which the Didot MS. inserts after l. 63 of «a» (or «F») is found in «A», although this version gives, in ll. 52 ss., a pretty close translation of the corresponding passage in «F» (ll. 50 «et seq.»). This may lead us to conclude that the Didot MS. was not the source of «A».

Comparing now «A» with what is known of the Hanover MS. of «Fierabras»,[40] we find «A» resembling to «H» in the following names: «Lucafer» (only once «Lukefer» in «A» 2204), «Maragounde» (once «Marigounde, A» 1364), «Maubyn A» = «Maupyn H.»—«A» 1700 and 2831, which differ from «F», equally agree with «H». In the last case «A» agrees also with «E» (although differing from «F»). Now as we know that «H» together with «D» and «E» are derived from the same group «z»,[41] we may perhaps be justified in regarding a MS. of the latter group as the original of «A». But a more detailed comparison of «A» with «H» being impossible at present, this argumentation wants confirmation.

The impossibility of regarding the Provençal version as the source [p-xxi] of the Ashmolean «Ferumbras», is proved by the fact that the long additional account, the ‘episode’ as Professor Grœber calls it,[42] is wanting in «A». Another proof is given by «A», ll. 5763 «et seq.», where «A» agrees with «F», but widely differs from «P».[43]

It seems superfluous to point out the inadmissibility of regarding the French prose version as the original of «A», the first edition of the prose version being of a much later date than the Ashmole «Ferumbras». But also that version from which the prose romance has been copied or compiled, cannot have been the original of «A». For although the phrase of «A», 3888—“A skuntede as a bore”—seems to contain some resemblance of expression with the reading of the prose «Fierabras»—“il commença à escumer come s’il fust ung senglier eschaufé,” which Caxton translates—“he began to scumme at the mouthe lyke a bore enchaffed”—the reading of «A», ll. 1307 ss., which greatly varies from Caxton’s version (a translation of the French prose «Fierabras»), renders inadmissible the supposition that the original of the French prose version is the source of «A».[44]

Having thus compared the Ashmolean «Ferumbras», as far as can be done at present, with all existing versions of this romance, we arrive at the following conclusions.

The Ashmole «Ferumbras» is a pretty close translation of some French version, which we are at present unable to identify. Its original was neither of the same family («w») as the «Fierabras», edited by MM. Krœber and Servois, nor yet of that of the Escorial version. Nevertheless, the original of «Sir Ferumbras» cannot have differed much from the common original, from which these two groups of MSS. are derived. To this original, called «y» by Grœber, the MS., from which «A» has been copied, appears to have been more closely related than to the Provençal version, from which it certainly is not derived. As the liberties which the author of «Sir Ferumbras» took in translating his original, consist only in very slight modifications, we may conclude [p-xxii] from his closeness of translation in general, that in those passages of «A» which exhibit significant deviations from the known French versions, these variations are not due to the composer of the Ashmolean poem, but were already to be found in its original. Therefore the Ashmole «Ferumbras» may be considered as representing by itself the translation of an independent French MS., which perhaps belonged, or at least was nearly related, to the type «y».

I now come to the consideration of the «Sowdan of Babylone», which the simple analysis given by Ellis,[45] shows to be an essentially different work from the Ashmolean «Ferumbras». Indeed, whilst the «Syr Ferumbras» represents only a portion (viz. the second part) of the original «Fierabras» [or «Balan», as Gaston Paris has styled it],[46] the «Sowdan» approaches the original more nearly in that it contains the long ‘introductory account’.[47] For this first part of the «Sowdan» (as far as l. 970), although it cannot be considered as identical with the first portion of the old «Balan» romance, contains several facts, which, however abridged and modified, show a great resemblance with those which must have been the subject of the lost portion of the old original. Whereas the Ashmolean «Ferumbras» is, on the whole, a mere translation of a French original, the «Sowdan» must be looked upon as a free reproduction of the English redactor, who, though following his original as far as regards the course of events, modelled the matter given there according to his own genius, and thus came to compose an independent work of his own.

This point being fully treated in my «Dissertation»,[48] I need not again enter into discussion of it here. I only mention that the composer of the «Sowdan» has much shortened his original, omitting all episodes and secondary circumstances not necessarily connected with the principal action, so that this poem does not contain half the number of lines which his original had,[49] and that the proportion of the diffuse Ashmolean «Ferumbras» and the «Sowdan» is over five to one.[50] [p-xxiii]

The subject of the ‘introductory account,’ or the first part of the «Sowdan», is nearly the same as that of the «Destruction de Rome», differing from this poem only in the omission of a few insignificant incidents or minor episodes, and in greater conciseness, which latter circumstances, however, enters into the general plan of the author.

Indeed, the author of the «Sowdan» seems to have known the «Destruction», as we see from a comparison of the two poems. Thus the following instances show a great resemblance of expression of the two versions:

«Sowdan.» «Destruction.»

37 ‘With kinges xii and 420 ‘Ensemble ou li issirent xv
admyralles xiv’ roi corone Et xiv amaceours’
1154 ‘Bien i a xxx roi et xiv
admiré’
689 ‘xxx roi sont ou li et xiv
amaceours’
163 ‘Et xiv amaceours’
77 ‘The Romaynes robbed us 115–16 ‘De cels de Romenie que
anone’ m’ont fait desrobber. Tiel
avoir m’ont robbé’
75 ‘to presente you’ 119 ‘vous quidai presenter’
76 ‘a drift of wedir us droffe to 120 ‘Uns vens nous fist à Rome
Rome’ parmi le far sigler’
110 ‘An hundred thousande’ 217 ‘Par C fois M payen’
128 ‘To manace with the Cristene 228 ‘pour François menacier’
lore’ 332 ‘Et menace François pour faire
les loye’
175–76 ‘Oure sheldes be not broke 546–47 ‘Quant encor nen est lance
nothinge, Hawberkes, spere, ner quassée ne brusie, Ne halbers
poleyne, ner pole’ derompus, ne fors targe percie’
224–27 ‘Lukafere, Kinge of Baldas, 613–19 ‘Lucafer de Baldas
The countrey hade serchid and discent al mestre tre, Devant
sought, Ten thousande maidyns l’amirail vint, forment
fayre of face Unto the Sowdan l’a encline: Voyant tot
hath he broghte’ ses barnages l’a l’eschec
presente, Moignes, prestres
et lais, que sont enchenee,
Hermites et enfants, a tous
lor poign lié; As femmes et
pucels les os furent bende,
Totes vives presentent par
devant l’admiré.’
228 ss. ‘The Sowdane commaunded 614 ‘Maintenant soient tot occis
hem anone That thai shulde al et descoupé. Ne voil que mi
be slayne . . . He saide “My serjant en soient encombré.’
peple nowe ne shalle With hem
noughte defouled be”’
278 ‘He clepede his engynour Sir 908 ‘Sortibrans a mande Mabon
Mavone’ l’engineor’
289 ‘Mahoundis benysone thou shalt 627 ‘Mahon te benoie’
haue’ 925 ‘Mahon te doint honor’

[p-xxiv]

286 ‘And fille the dikes faste 934 ‘Si emplirons les fosses’
anoone’
293 ‘Men myght go even to the 918 ‘K’om poet aler al mure’
walle’ 952 ‘K’om pooit bien au mur et
venir et aler’
307 ‘The hethen withdrowe hem tho’ 979 ‘Payen se sont retrait’
317 ‘His baner knowe I ful welle’ 997 ‘Jeo ai bien ses armes conu et
avisee’
331 ‘He entred to the maistre 1011 ‘Tantost le mestre porte
toure’ aurons moult bien ferme’
332 ‘The firste warde thus they 1057 ‘Mais tot le premier bail ont
wonne’ Sarasin pople’
346–50 ‘And Estragot with him he 1090–94 ‘Estragot le poursuit,
mette With bores hede, blake uns geans diffaes, Teste avoit
and donne. For as a bore an com senglers, si fu rois
hede hadde And a grete mace coronés. El main tient une
stronge as stele. He smote mace de fin ascier trempé, Un
Savaryz as he were madde’ coup a Savariz desur le chef
done’
587 ‘Therfore Gy of Bourgoyne! 1179 ‘Et Guion de Bourgoyne a
Myn owen nevewe so trewe’ a lui apelle, Fils est de
sa soror et de sa parente:
Cosins, vous en irrés . .’
647 ‘He smote of the traytours 1236 ‘Le chief al portier trenche’
hede’
648 ‘And saide “Gode gife him 1244 ‘“Diex” fist il “te maldie et
care, Shal he never more ete que t’ont engendré, Kar
brede, All traitours evel mot traitour au darain averont mal
thai fare”’ dehé.”’
663 ‘Ferumbras to Seinte Petris 1260 ‘Al moustier de saint Piere
wente’ est Fierenbras ales’
727 ‘Thre hundred thousande of 1403 ‘iii C mil chevaliers’
sowdeours’
743 ‘Sir Gye aspied his comynge, 1409 ‘Guis parceut le baniere le
He knewe the baner of Fraunce, roi de saint Dine, Encontre
He wente anoone ayen the Kinge, lui chevalche, la novele ont
And tolde him of that conté Come la fort cité li
myschaunce, payen ont gasté; La corone
Howe that the cursed sowdone, et les clous d’iloec en
Hath brent Rome and bore the sont robbé Et les altres
relequis awaye’ reliques . .’
771 ‘Wynde him blewe ful fayre and 1425 ‘Li vens en fiert es voilles
gode’ que les a bien guies’
778 ‘To londe thai wente iwis’ 1427 ‘il sont en terre entré’
783 ‘Tithinggis were tolde to 1436 ‘Les noveles en vindrent al
Lavan’ soldan diffaié’
787 ‘With three hundred thousand 1443 ‘iii C mile François’
of bacheleris’

Other instances of resemblance may be found in the following passages:

«S» 49–50 = «D» 94–99;[51] «S» 103 = «D» 202, 209; «S» 119 = «D» 385; «S» 146 = «D» 445–46; «S» 150 = «D» 503–4; «S» 157 = «D» 509; «S» 300 = «D» 967; [p-xxv] «S» 303 = «D» 915; «S» 396 = «D» 977; «S» 312 = «D» 989; «S» 340 = «D» 1063; «S» 360 = «D» 1101; «S» 376 = «D» 1119, 1121; «S» 377 = «D» 1133; «S» 380 = «D» 1136; «S» 699 = «D» 1379; «S» 723 = «D» 1384, &c., &c.

Besides, there are some names which occurring in none of the French versions, but in the «Destruction», point to this poem as to the original of the «Sowdan». Thus «Savaris»[52] («S» 171) seems to be taken from «D» 540.

«Astragot» or «Estragot», «S» 346, 2944, 3022, the name of the giant by whom Savaris is slain, and who is said to be the husband of Barrock, occurs in «D» 1090.

The «Ascopartes», a people subjected to the Soudan, are mentioned in «D» 98, 426, but not in «F» or «P».

King «Lowes», in the context where it occurs («S» 24) is clearly taken from «D» 9.

«Iffrez», «S» 165, is perhaps the same as «Geffroi» in «D» 1139, 1367, 1122.

[«Mounpelers», «S» 3228, occurs only in «D» 250, 286.]

«Persagyn», «S» 1259, seems to be identical with «Persagon», «D» 162.

The form «Laban» is only met with in the «Destruction», the French and the Provençal versions, and the Ashmole «Ferumbras» reading «Balan».[53]

The name of the Soudan’s son, «Ferumbras», is explained by the form «Fierenbras», which occurs in «D» 57, 66, 71, 91, 343, 1210, 1237, besides the spelling «Fierabras», which is the only one used in the French, the Provençal and Caxton’s versions.

Also the phrase ‘sowdan’ seems to have been derived from the «Destruction» (l. 1436, ‘soldan’), as it does not occur in any other version.

The great number of these resemblances seem evidently to point out the «Destruction» as the original of the first portion of the «Sowdan»; the few points in which the two versions differ not being such as to offer convincing arguments against this supposition. [p-xxvi]

Indeed if, for instance, we find a lot of nations, the names of which are not in «D», mentioned by the author of the poem as belonging to the Soudan’s empire, this point can be considered as irrelevant, as from many other instances we know how fond many composers of mediæval romances were of citing geographical names, by the great number of which they believed to show their knowledge in that science.[54] Also the three names of Saints («Qwyntyn», «Symon», «Fremond»[55]), and the names of five Saracen gods and of a Saracen bishop,[56] many of which, moreover, seem to be inserted only for the sake of rhyme, cannot be regarded as being of great consequence in establishing the source of the «Sowdan». Others also, as «Oliborn», «Focard», «Hubert», «Gyndard», «Tamper» (the last occurring twice as a rhyme-word), being the names of insignificant characters, may be looked upon as mere expletives. Another variation is «Isrez» (ll. 625, 641) for «Tabour» («D» 1202).

Besides these variations in the names contained in the two poems, we find in the «Sowdan» some slight modifications as to the matter related; none of which, however, is of so significant a character, as necessarily to point to some other original than the «Destruction», which the very striking points of resemblance above cited show almost decisively to have been the original of the «Sowdan». The differences in the subject-matter may be explained by the tendency of the poet to follow his original only as far as the principal events are concerned, but to have his own way in the arrangement of the subject-matter, and especially to deal freely with secondary incidents.

Thus he may have thought the combat round Château-Miroir—which, moreover, is related in the «Destruction» in a rather obscure and confused style—to be a rather episodical incident, which he had better leave out in his poem, as not advancing the principal course of events.

A similar explanation may be given of the fact, that the account of Lukafer’s desiring the hand of Floripas is given on another occasion in the «Sowdan» than in the «Destruction». In the «Destruction», l. 241, Lucafer claims that maiden immediately on arriving in the [p-xxvii] Soudan’s camp, as a reward for his having travelled such a long way in Laban’s service. The poet of the «Sowdan» thinking, perhaps, that this was not a sufficient reason to justify such a claim, mentions this incident at another time, which he may have considered as more properly chosen for demanding a reward. It is on returning from a victorious expedition undertaken by Lukafer that the latter in the «Sowdan», ll. 224–242, asks for the hand of Floripas.

As to the following or second part of the «Sowdan», on the whole the same subject is treated of as in the Ashmole «Ferumbras». But there are many differences between the two poems.

In the «Sowdan», l. 1411 «et seq.», Roland is captured by the Saracens at the same time as Oliver, and both on being conducted before Laban at once avow their names. In the Ashmole MS., ll. 909, &c., Oliver is led away to the Soudan together with Gwylmer, Berard, Geoffrey, and Aubray, whereas Roland is among the French peers whom Charlemagne sends on a mission to Laban to demand the surrender of Oliver.[57]

The names of the twelve peers do not agree in both poems. In the «Sowdan» we find the following list (cf. ll. 1653 «et seq.», and ll. 1730, 880):—Roland, Oliver, Duk Neymes of Bavere, Oger Danoys, Tery Lardeneys, Folk Baliante, Aleroyse of Loreyne, Miron of Braban, Bishop Turpyn, Bernard of Spruwse, Bryer of Mountez,[58] Guy of Bourgoyne.[59]—Richard of Normandye, although a most important personage, is not included amongst the «Douzeperes». Nor is Guenelyn mentioned as a peer of France. Four of these names, Folk Baliant, Turpyn, Bernard of Spruwse, Aleroyse of Loreyne, do not occur at all in the Ashmolean «Ferumbras».[60]

The new game which Lucafer wants to teach Neymes, is differently described in the two poems, there being no mention made in the Ashmol. MS. (ll. 2231 «et seq.») of the thread, needle, and coal, as spoken of in ll. 1998–2000 of the «Sowdan». [p-xxviii]

In the «Sowdan», l. 2507, Laban, being engaged with his gods, seizes the image of Mahound and smashes it. This incident is omitted in «Syr Ferumbras» (ll. 3345).

In the Ashmole MS., ll. 5760 «et seq.», Ferumbras tries to persuade his father to become a Christian, whilst Floripas urges Charles not to delay in putting him to death. In the «Sowdan», l. 3156 «et seq.», there is no mention of either of them interfering either for or against their father.

Ashm. MS., ll. 130 «et seq.», differs greatly from the corresponding passage in the «Sowdan» (ll. 1647 «et seq.»). In the latter poem the knights are pulled up from their dungeon with a rope, whilst in the former they have their fetters taken off by means of a sledge-hammer, anvil, and tongs, &c.

In the «Sowdan», l. 3044, Richard of Normandy is left back as a governor of Mantrible; in the Ashmole version, l. 4881 «et seq.», Raoul and Howel are ordered to keep that place, whereas Richard accompanies Charlemagne (cf. l. 5499).

In the Ashm. MS., l. 5209, Neymes sees first Charles coming with his host; in the «Sowdan», l. 3083, it is Floripas who first discovers the banner of France.

The prayer which Charlemagne, seeing Oliver in distress, addressed to Christ, in the «Sowdan», l. 1304 «et seq.», is not mentioned in the Ashm. version.

The account of the duel between Oliver and Ferumbras differs considerably in the two versions. In the Ashmolean MS., l. 580, the incident of Oliver assisting Ferumbras to arm (cf. «Sowdan», 1158) is omitted, and it is not Oliver (as in the «Sowdan», l. 1270) who is disarmed, but Ferumbras, whom his adversary offers to accept his own sword back (Ashm. MS., l. 680).

In the Ashmolean version, l. 102, Ferumbras offers to fight at once with twelve of Charles’s knights; in the corresponding passage of the «Sowdan», l. 1067, he challenges only six.

In the «Sowdan», l. 1512 «et seq.», Floripas advises her father not to slay the captive peers, but to detain them as hostages that might be exchanged for Ferumbras. In the Ashm. MS., l. 1178, it is not Floripas, but Lamasour, who gives that advice to the amirant. [p-xxix]

As in many of the variations, mentioned just before, there are many omissions in the Ashmole MS., which are related in the «Sowdan», it becomes evident that the Ashmolean version cannot have been the original from which the «Sowdan» was copied, which is also proved by several names occurring in the «Sowdan», but which are not to be found in «Syr Ferumbras». Thus, for instance, the names of «Espiard», «Belmore», «Fortibrance», «Tamper»,[61] do not occur at all in the Ashmolean version, whereas other names have quite a different form in the latter poem. For «Generyse», «S» 1135, 1239, we find «Garin», «A» 216, 443; «Barrock», «S» 2939, 2943, 3022 = «Amyote», «A» 4663; «Alagolofur», «S» 2135, 2881 = «Agolafre», «A» 3831, 4327; and «Laban» is always spelt «Balan» in the Ashmolean poem, &c.

Now as there are some passages where the «Sowdan», while it differs from the Ashm. MS., corresponds with the French «Fierabras», we might be inclined to think that poem to be the original of the «Sowdan». Thus Charlemagne’s prayer and the name of Bishop Turpin, which are omitted in the Ashm. MS., occur in the French «Fierabras». But there are several differences between the «Sowdan» and the French poem.

In the «Fierabras», l. 1933, the French prisoners, on being brought before the Soudan, do not avow their true names as they do in the «Sowdan», l. 1498.

In the French poem, l. 704, Oliver tells his adversary his name before the fight begins; in the «Sowdan», l. 1249, he does not confess his true name until they had fought for a considerable time.

In the «Fierabras», l. 1043, Oliver drinks of the bottles of balm, which is not mentioned in the «Sowdan», l. 1190.

Again, «Fierabras», ll. 1329 ss., where Ferumbras having disarmed Oliver, tells him to take his sword back again, does not agree with ll. 1279–82 of the «Sowdan».

Instead of Floripas («S» 1515), «Brulans» advises the Soudan not to slay the prisoners in «F» 1949.

The French knight slain at the sally of the captives is called «Bryer» in «S» 2604, but «Basin» in «F» 3313. [p-xxx]

Concerning the sacred relics there is no mention made of the «cross» («S» 3236) in the French poem, and the «signe», «i. e.» ‘the shroud or winding-sheet of the Lord’[62] («F» 6094), is omitted in the «Sowdan».

Besides these variations of the two versions there is an incident of Marsedag being killed by Guy, and buried by the Saracens («S» 2247–2274), which being omitted in the «Fierabras» proves that the author of the «Sowdan» cannot have followed the French poem, or at least not that version which is edited by MM. Krœber and Servois.

Similarly there is no mention made in the French «Fierabras» of Bryer being charged to take care of the relics and of Charles’s treasure («S» 3204).

The game of blowing burning coals is related in «Sowdan», l. 1996 ss., with several details which are wanting in the French poem, l. 2907.

The names also do not always agree in both versions. Thus we find «Generyse», «S» 1139, for «Garin», «F» 438; «Mapyn», «S» 2325, for «Maubrun», «F» 3046; «Alagolofur», «S» 2135, for «Agolafre», «F» 4290 or «Golafre», «F» 4267, 4383; «Bryer», «S» 2604, for «Basin», «F» 3313; «Maragounde», «S» 1563, for «Marabunde», «F» 2196; «Boloyne», «S» 3238, for «St. Denis», «F» 6199; «Barokke», «S» 2939, and «Espiard», «S» 2145, are not mentioned at all in the French «Fierabras», nor does« Belmore», «S» 3122, occur in the «Fierabras», either in the corresponding passage, «F» 5867, or elsewhere.

On the fact that the names of the twelve peers (see above, p. xxvii) differ in the «Sowdan» from those mentioned in the «Fierabras», too much stress need not, I think, be laid, as it might be explained by the simple inadvertence of the composer. The poet in freely reproducing his source, which he generally followed pretty closely as far as relates the course of events, well remembered the names of the principal French knights; but having forgotten those of less important characters, some of whom do not appear again in the poem, and being obliged to fill up their number of twelve, might have placed any names which he remembered having met with somewhere [p-xxxi] as included in the list of the douzeperes. By an oversight he omitted to mention Richard, whom however we see appear afterwards.[63]

Similarly the names of «Laban» and «Ferumbras» for «Balan» and «Fierabras» afford no convincing proof of the impossibility of the French «Fierabras» being the original of the second part of the «Sowdan», as the poet, having found those spellings in the «Destruction», the source of the first portion of his romance, might simply have retained them for the whole poem.

But reviewing all the facts of the case, and taking into account those passages which relate incidents omitted in the «Fierabras», and which the author of the «Sowdan» therefore cannot have taken from that poem—and further taking into account the several differences between the two versions, which, it may be admitted, generally speaking, are only slight ones—the French «Fierabras», «i. e.» the version edited by MM. Krœber and Servois, which represents the group «w» (see before, p. xix, footnote), cannot have been the original of the second part of the «Sowdan».

Proceeding now to a comparison of the «Sowdan» with the Escorial MS.,[64] we have not found any passage where «S» differing from «F» agrees with «E», as «E» and «F» generally have in those places the same reading. Therefore the Escorial MS. cannot be regarded as the original of the «Sowdan».

Unfortunately the fragment printed from the Hanover MS. is too short to allow of an exact comparison with that version. We only know[65] that some names, the spelling of which in the «Sowdan» differs from that in the other versions, have the same form in the Hanover MS. as in the «Sowdan». Thus we find the following names agreeing in both versions: «Lucafer», «Maragonde», «Maupyn». Only instead of «Laban» which is used in the «Sowdan», we read «Balan». In the fragment printed by Grœber,[66] we find the name of the Soudan’s son [p-xxxii] with the same spelling as in the «Destruction», «Fier»en«bras», which is nearer to «Fer»um«bras» than «Fier»a«bras».[67]

This resemblance of the names contained in the two versions might lead us to believe the Hanover MS. of «Fierabras» to be the original of the second part of the «Sowdan», just as the «Destruction», found in the same MS., is the original of the first part. But as, according to Gaston Paris, the Hanoverian version “is the same as the printed text, differing only in slight variations of readings,”[68] we may suppose it likely that in all passages where the «Sowdan» differs from the printed «Fierabras», it also differs from the Hanover MS. Nevertheless, as the differences between the «Sowdan» and the printed «Fierabras» are, on the whole, not very significant; for the several instances of omission in the «Sowdan», being easily accounted for by the general plan of the poet, cannot be regarded as real variations; and as some names, the spelling of which differs in «S» and «F», are found to be identical in «S» and «H», we might, perhaps, be entitled to think the second part of the «Sowdan» to be founded on a MS. similar to the Hanover one.