The Romaunce of the Sowdone of Babylone and of Ferumbras His Sone Who Conquerede Rome. Various
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 ‹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 evene | 175 | ke il puisse tant vivre que cis jours soit passés |
| 2131 | Adoun þay gunne falle, knellyng on þe erthe stille … & kussedem everechone, etc. | 2833 | Issi agenoillierent par bones volentez … Ils baissent les reliques … |
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). ‹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 2039) 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 ‹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 ‹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