A.E.175Nelyrehe noȝt þys day til evene175ke il puisse tantvivreque cis jours soit passés2131Adoun þay gunne falle,knellyngon þe erthe stille ... &kussedemeverechone, etc.2833Issiagenoillierentpar bones volentez...Ils baissentles reliques ...
Notwithstanding these resemblances ofAtoE, in passages whereAdiffers fromF,Ecannot have been the source ofA, as there are many instances whereEandFshow the same reading, whereasAdiffers from both versions.
Thus,A, l. 340et seq., it is Duke Reyner who blesses his son, and not Charles, asEandF(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 ofEandF(ll. 1548–49).
There is no mention of Kargys being slain by Oliver (A880) to be found inEorF(l. 1670–76).
InA1178,Lamasouradvises the Soudan not to slay the prisoners; inEandF(l. 1948) the same advice is given byBrulans.
The names ofLambrockandColbrant(A1616, 1618) are not found inEandF, 2424.
A, ll. 1347–48, are wanting inEandF(2174).‹xx›
Instead of a giant (A1700) we find a giantess mentioned inEandF(l. 2483).
Instead of Roland (A1793) it is Naymes who speaks first inEandF, 2570.
These few instances, the number of which might easily be increased, will certainly suffice to show the impossibility of regardingEas the original ofA.
Only a short passage of the Didot MS. has been hitherto printed;38therefore the arguments drawn from a comparison ofAwith that printed passage cannot be considered as altogether irrefutable and final. But as the Didot MS. belongs to the same family of MSS. asE, we may at once presume, that asEcannot be taken for the original ofA, the possibility of the Didot MS. being the source ofA, is not very strong. Besides it may be stated, that no trace of the two additional lines (ll. 19 and 2039) which the Didot MS. inserts after l. 63 ofa(orF) is found inA, although this version gives, in ll. 52 ss., a pretty close translation of the corresponding passage inF(ll. 50et seq.). This may lead us to conclude that the Didot MS. was not the source ofA.
Comparing nowAwith what is known of the Hanover MS. ofFierabras,40we findAresembling toHin the following names:Lucafer(only onceLukeferinA2204),Maragounde(onceMarigounde, A1364),Maubyn A=Maupyn H.—A1700 and 2831, which differ fromF, equally agree withH. In the last caseAagrees also withE(although differing fromF). Now as we know thatHtogether withDandEare derived from the same groupz,41we may perhaps be justified in regarding a MS. of the latter group as the original ofA. But a more detailed comparison ofAwithHbeing impossible at present, this argumentation wants confirmation.
The impossibility of regarding the Provençal version as the source‹xxi›of the AshmoleanFerumbras, is proved by the fact that the long additional account, the ‘episode’ as Professor Grœber calls it,42is wanting inA. Another proof is given byA, ll. 5763et seq., whereAagrees withF, but widely differs fromP.43
It seems superfluous to point out the inadmissibility of regarding the French prose version as the original ofA, the first edition of the prose version being of a much later date than the AshmoleFerumbras. But also that version from which the prose romance has been copied or compiled, cannot have been the original ofA. For although the phrase ofA, 3888—“A skuntede as a bore”—seems to contain some resemblance of expression with the reading of the proseFierabras—“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 ofA, ll. 1307 ss., which greatly varies from Caxton’s version (a translation of the French proseFierabras), renders inadmissible the supposition that the original of the French prose version is the source ofA.44
Having thus compared the AshmoleanFerumbras, as far as can be done at present, with all existing versions of this romance, we arrive at the following conclusions.
The AshmoleFerumbrasis 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 theFierabras, edited by MM. Krœber and Servois, nor yet of that of the Escorial version. Nevertheless, the original ofSir Ferumbrascannot have differed much from the common original, from which these two groups of MSS. are derived. To this original, calledyby Grœber, the MS., from whichAhas 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 ofSir Ferumbrastook in translating his original, consist only in very slight modifications, we may conclude‹xxii›from his closeness of translation in general, that in those passages ofAwhich 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 AshmoleFerumbrasmay be considered as representing by itself the translation of an independent French MS., which perhaps belonged, or at least was nearly related, to the typey.
I now come to the consideration of theSowdan of Babylone, which the simple analysis given by Ellis,45shows to be an essentially different work from the AshmoleanFerumbras. Indeed, whilst theSyr Ferumbrasrepresents only a portion (viz. the second part) of the originalFierabras[orBalan, as Gaston Paris has styled it],46theSowdanapproaches the original more nearly in that it contains the long ‘introductory account’.47For this first part of theSowdan(as far as l. 970), although it cannot be considered as identical with the first portion of the oldBalanromance, 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 AshmoleanFerumbrasis, on the whole, a mere translation of a French original, theSowdanmust 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 myDissertation,48I need not again enter into discussion of it here. I only mention that the composer of theSowdanhas 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,49and that the proportion of the diffuse AshmoleanFerumbrasand theSowdanis over five to one.50‹xxiii›
The subject of the ‘introductory account,’ or the first part of theSowdan, is nearly the same as that of theDestruction 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 theSowdanseems to have known theDestruction, as we see from a comparison of the two poems. Thus the following instances show a great resemblance of expression of the two versions: