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 Fierabras21 finally 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 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 ‹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 ‹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 ‹xiv› the Emir before him in the plain of Rome, to which event ll. 3708–9 of the Fierabras27 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 ‹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
