“Romanys off worthi Ferambrace,That worthily our-commyn wasThrow the rycht douchty Olywer;And how the duz Peris werAssegyt intill Egrymor,Quhar King Lawyne lay thaim beforWith 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 flotDispitusly discumfyt he:And deliueryt his men all fre,And wan thenaylis, and thesper,And the croune that Ihesu couth ber;‹ix›And off thecroicea gret partyHe wan throw his chewalry.”13
“Romanys off worthi Ferambrace,That worthily our-commyn wasThrow the rycht douchty Olywer;And how the duz Peris werAssegyt intill Egrymor,Quhar King Lawyne lay thaim beforWith 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 flotDispitusly discumfyt he:And deliueryt his men all fre,And wan thenaylis, and thesper,And the croune that Ihesu couth ber;‹ix›And off thecroicea gret partyHe wan throw his chewalry.”13
“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 thenaylis, and thesper,
And the croune that Ihesu couth ber;‹ix›
And off thecroicea gret party
He wan throw his chewalry.”13
In his poem ofWare the Hawk, Skelton (ed. Dyce, I. 162) citesSyr Pherumbrasas a great tyrant. He also refers to him in one of his poems against Garnesche, whom he addresses with the followingapostrophe:—
“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 hisHistorie 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,NorOlyverwithPharambras.”
“Roland with Brandwell, his bricht brand,Faucht never better, hand for hand,Nor Gawin aganis Golibras,NorOlyverwithPharambras.”
“Roland with Brandwell, his bricht brand,
Faucht never better, hand for hand,
Nor Gawin aganis Golibras,
NorOlyverwithPharambras.”
The tale of the fortified bridge of Mauntrible seems also to have been very well known in England and Scotland. In theComplaint of Scotland, ed. Murray, p. 63, we find theTail of the Brig of the Mantriblementioned among other famous romances. In his lampoon on Garnesche, Skelton describes his adversary as being more deformed and uglier than
“Of Mantryble the bryge Malchus14the murryon.”
As has already been mentioned, amongst all the Charlemagne romances the (originally French) romance ofFierabrasis 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‹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 theJournal 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,17by Fr. Michel, in 1838.
In 1852 Fauriel gave an account of the poem in theHistoire Littéraire de la France, par les religieux bénédictins de congregation de Saint-Maur . . . . . continuée par des membres de l’Institut, vol. xxii. p. 196et 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;19and in 1839 Edelestand du Méril, in France, had pointed out the French poem as the original of the Provençal version;20Guessard in his lectures at the Ecole des Chartes, at Paris, had also defended the same opinion; when in 1860, the editors of the FrenchFierabras21finally and irrefutably proved the impossibility of considering the Provençal poem as anything but a translation of a French original.‹xi›
In 1865, Gaston Paris, in hisPoetical 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 originalFierabras(orBalan) 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 theFierabras, which at once introduces the readerin medias res, and by the numerous passages of theFierabras, which contain allusions and references to preceding events; several of which, being obscure and inexplicable from the context of theFierabrasitself, can only be explained by assuming the existence of an earlier poem.
The main subject of the oldBalanorFierabrasromance 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‹xii›
Of all the events related in the oldBalanromance, there is but one which is contained in theFierabraspoem, 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 theFierabras, 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 originalFierabras[Balan] romance.
Therefore Gaston Paris was right in saying that theFierabraspoem 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‹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 theDestruction de Rome,23which in that MS. precedes theFierabrasromance.24In his Address to the Assembly of German Philologists at Leipzig,25the same scholar attempted to show that this poem represented the first part of the earlierBalanromance.
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 theFierabrasreceive explanation in theDestruction, although all such previous events must have been narrated in the originalBalan. Moreover, one of these allusions in theFierabrasis in direct contradiction to the contents of theDestruction.
Thus ll. 2237et seq.of theFierabras: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,”
“.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,”
“.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. 1355et seq.of theDestruction, where Guy does not arrive at Rome untilafterthe departure of Laban’s army to Spain.
In theDestructionno clue is given which would enable us to explain why Charles should be constantly applying to Richard in theFierabras(ll. 112et seq.) for information about Fierabras, or why Richard, in particular, should know more about Fierabras than any one else. There is no mention in theDestructionof Richard chasing‹xiv›the Emir before him in the plain of Rome, to which event ll. 3708–9 of theFierabras27clearly refer.
“Richars de Normendie au courage aduré,Qui cacha l’amirant devant Romme ens el pré.”
“Richars de Normendie au courage aduré,Qui cacha l’amirant devant Romme ens el pré.”
“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,”
. . . . “Richart de Normendie,Cil qui m’ocist Corsuble et mon oncle Mautrie,”
. . . . “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 theDestruction, 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 originalFierabras[Balan] romance, we know how important a part Guy and Richard played in the old poem.29There 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 theDestruction, ll. 593 ss., is thoroughly different,30as besides other variations, there is neither Richard nor Guy concerned in it.
Therefore, as the contents of theDestructionare not identical with Mousket’s analysis of the oldBalanromance, and as several passages alluding to events previously described are left unexplained in theDestruction; and as there is even an instance of theDestructionbeing in contradiction to theFierabras, the poem of theDestruction de Romecannot be said to be identical with the first part of theBalanromance.31‹xv›
The Provençal version and theDestructionare each printed from unique MSS., the latter from the Hanover MS., the former from the Wallerstein MS. Of the FrenchFierabrasthere are seven MSS. known to exist.
As to the EnglishFierabrasromances, there are two versions known to exist:33the poem ofSir Ferumbrascontained in the Ashmole MS. 3334and 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 ofSir Ferumbraswith the French romanceFierabras(edd. Krœber and Servois) will suffice at once to show the great resemblance between the two versions. In myDissertationon the sources and language of theSowdan of Babylone(Berlin, 1879) I have proved (pp. 30–40) that the AshmoleanFerumbrasmust 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 theFierabras, 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,‹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 ofSyr 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 thosecouplets similaires,35or 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. 130et seq.corresponding toFierabras, ll. 125et 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.