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
