The Romaunce of the Sowdone of Babylone and of Ferumbras His Sone Who Conquerede Rome. Various
needle, and coal, as spoken of in ll. 1998–2000 of the Sowdan. ‹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. ‹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. ‹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 ‹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 know65 that some names, the spelling of which in the Sowdan differs from that in the other versions, have the same form in the Hanover