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 MS. as in the Sowdan. Thus we find the following names agreeing in both versions: Lucafer, Maragonde, Maupyn. Only instead of Laban which is used in the Sowdan, we read Balan. In the fragment printed by Grœber,66 we find the name of the Soudan’s son ‹xxxii› with the same spelling as in the Destruction, Fierenbras, which is nearer to Ferumbras than Fierabras.67
This resemblance of the names contained in the two versions might lead us to believe the Hanover MS. of Fierabras to be the original of the second part of the Sowdan, just as the Destruction, found in the same MS., is the original of the first part. But as, according to Gaston Paris, the Hanoverian version “is the same as the printed text, differing only in slight variations of readings,”68 we may suppose it likely that in all passages where the Sowdan differs from the printed Fierabras, it also differs from the Hanover MS. Nevertheless, as the differences between the Sowdan and the printed Fierabras are, on the whole, not very significant; for the several instances of omission in the Sowdan, being easily accounted for by the general plan of the poet, cannot be regarded as real variations; and as some names, the spelling of which differs in S and F, are found to be identical in S and H, we might, perhaps, be entitled to think the second part of the Sowdan to be founded on a MS. similar to the Hanover one.
It still remains for us to compare the Sowdan with the Provençal version.
In most cases where S differs from F, it also differs from P, therefore S cannot have taken those variations of readings from the Provençal poem.
The account of the knights sent on a mission to Laban, in S 1663–1738, considerably differs from the corresponding passage in P 2211 ss.
In P the scene of the whole poem is placed in Spain, there is no mention of the combat before Rome,69 as in the first part of the Sowdan.
The game of blowing a coal, S 1996 ss., is not mentioned in the Provençal version.
From these variations, taken at random out of a greater number, ‹xxxiii› it becomes evident that the Provençal poem has not been the original of the Sowdan.
If now we compare the Sowdan with Caxton’s version, which we know to be simply a translation of the French prose romance of Fierabras;70 the few following instances of differences between C and S will show at once, that also that version from which the prose romance was copied or compiled71 cannot have been the original of the Sowdan.
There are several variations in the names contained in the two versions. Thus we find Ballant in C for Laban in S; Fyerabras in C for Ferumbras in S; Garin, C 55/3 = Generyse, S 1135; Amyotte, C 176/26 = Barrokk, S 1135, &c. The game of blowing a coal is told with more details in S 1998, and somewhat differently from C 118/24; the incident of Laban’s seizing the image of Mahound and smashing it, which is related in S 2507, is omitted in C, &c.
Looking back now to our investigation concerning the original of the Sowdan, we sum up what results from it, in the following resumé:
Most probably the Destruction de Rome is the original of the first part of the Sowdan. As to the second part, we are unable to identify it with any of the extant versions. The French Fierabras, as edited by MM. Krœber and Servois, is not the original, but the differences between the two poems are not significant; apparently a version similar to the Hanover MS. may be thought to be the original.
The Sowdan is no translation, but a free reproduction of its originals; the author of the Sowdan following his sources only as far
