[◊] Contents

1881.

BERLIN: ASHER & CO., 13, UNTER DEN LINDEN.

NEW YORK: C. SCRIBNER & CO.; LEYPOLDT & HOLT.

PHILADELPHIA: J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.

THE ENGLISH CHARLEMAGNE ROMANCES. PART V.

The Romaunce of
The Sowdone of Babylone
and of Ferumbras his Sone
who conquerede Rome.

RE-EDITED FROM THE UNIQUE MS. OF THE LATE SIR THOMAS PHILLIPPS, with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, By EMIL HAUSKNECHT, PH. D.

LONDON: PUBLISHED FOR THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY BY KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & Co., PATERNOSTER HOUSE, CHARING-CROSS ROAD, W.C.

MDCCCLXXXI.

[Reprinted 1891, 1898.]

Extra Series,

XXXVIII.

RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, LONDON & BUNGAY.

CONTENTS.

• INTRODUCTION … [v]
  • Popularity of the Carlovingian Romances … [v]
  • Popularity of the Ferumbras Poem … [vi]
  • The Provençal Ferabras … [ix]
  • The Fierabras Poem an Enlarged and Recast Portion of the Old Balan Romance … [xi]
  • The Poem of the Destruction de Rome … [xiii]
  • MSS. of the French Fierabras … [xv]
  • The English Sir Ferumbras, its Source, etc. … [xvi]
  • The Poem of the Sowdan of Babylon, its Sources, its Differences from the Original Balan Romance and from the Ashmolean Ferumbras … [xxii]
  • Dialect of the Sowdan … [xxxiv]
  • Metre and Rhymes of the Sowdan … [xl]
  • Date and Author of the Sowdan … [xlv]
  • MS. of the Sowdan … [xlvii]
  • Roxburghe Club Edition of the Sowdan … [xlviii]
• ADDITIONS … [xlix]
  • The Hanover MS. of the French Fierabras Compared With the Sowdan … [xlix]
  • The Hanover Version Compared With Sir Ferumbras … [lii]
• SKETCH OF THE STORY … [liv]
• THE ROMAUNCE OF THE SOWDONE OF BABYLONE AND OF FERUMBRAS HIS SONE WHO CONQUEREDE ROME … [1]
• NOTES … [95]
• GLOSSARIAL INDEX … [133]
• INDEX OF NAMES … [141]

INTRODUCTION. [◊]

THE exploits of Charles the Great, who by his achievements as conqueror and legislator, as reformer of learning and missionary, so deeply changed the face of Western Europe, who during a reign of nearly half a century maintained, by his armies, the authority of his powerful sceptre, from the southern countries of Spain and Italy to the more northern regions of Denmark, Poland, and Hungary, must have made a profound and unalterable impression in the minds of his contemporaries, so that for centuries afterwards they continued to live in the memory of the people. Evidence of this high pitch of popularity is given by the numerous chansons de geste or romances, which celebrate the deeds, or are connected with the name, of the great and valiant champion of Christendom.

It is true that the sublime figure of Charlemagne, who with his imaginary twelve peers perpetually warred against all heathenish or Saracen people, in the romances of a later period, has been considerably divested of that nimbus of majestic grandeur, which the composers of the earlier poems take pains to diffuse around him. Whereas, in the latter, the person of the Emperor appears adorned with high corporeal, intellectual, and warlike gifts, and possessed of all royal qualities; the former show us the splendour of Royalty tarnished and debased, and the power of the feodal vassals enlarged to the prejudice of the royal authority. Roland, in speaking of Charlemagne, says, in the Chanson de Roland, l. 376:—

“Jamais n’iert hum qui encuntre lui vaillet,”

and again the same Roland says of the Emperor, in Guy de Bourgoyne, l. 1061:—

“Laissomes ce viellart qui tous est assotez.”

[‹vi›]

This glorification of the great Christian hero took its rise in France, but soon spread into the neighbouring countries, and before long Charlemagne was celebrated in song by almost all European nations. Indeed, there are translations, reproductions, compilations of French Charlemagne romances to be met with in Italy, Spain, and Portugal, as well as in Scandinavia and Iceland. Even in Hungary and Russia these chansons of the Charlemagne cycle seem to have been known.[1]

A full account of almost all Charlemagne romances will be found in Gaston Paris’s exhaustive work of the Histoire poétique de Charlemagne (Paris, 1865), and in Léon Gautier’s Epopées françaises (Paris, 1867).

Of all the Charlemagne romances, that of Fierabras or Ferumbras has certainly obtained the highest degree of popularity, as is shown by the numerous versions and reproductions of this romance, from the 13th century down to the present day.

When the art of printing first became general, the first romance that was printed was a prose version of Fierabras; and when the study of mediæval metrical romances was revived in this century, the Fierabras poem was the first to be re-edited.[2]

The balm of Fierabras especially seems to have been celebrated for its immediately curing any wound; we find it referred to and minutely described in Florian’s Don Quichotte, I. chap. 10. The scene of Fierabras challenging to a combat the twelve peers of France, and of his vaunting offer to fight at once with six (or twelve) of them,[3] must also have been pretty familiar to French readers, as the name of Fierabras is met with in the sense of a simple common noun, signifying “a bragging bully or swaggering hector.”[4]

Rabelais[5] also alludes to Fierabras, thinking him renowned enough as to figure in the pedigree of Pantagruel.

In 1833, on a tour made through the Pyrenees, M. Jomard witnessed [‹vii›] a kind of historical drama, represented by villagers, in which Fierabras and Balan were the principal characters.[6]

That in our own days, the tradition of Fierabras continues to live, is evident from the fact, that copies of the Fierabras story, in the edition of the Bibliothèque Bleue, still circulate amongst the country people of France.[7] There is even an illustrated edition, published in 1861, the pictures of which have been executed by no less an artist than Gustave Doré. And like Oberon, that other mediæval hero of popular celebrity,[8] Fierabras has become the subject of a musical composition. There is an Opera Fierabras composed by Franz Schubert (words by Joseph Kupelwieser) in 1823, the overture of which has been arranged for the piano in 1827, by Carl Czerny.[9]

The different versions and the popularity of the present romance in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany, having been treated in the Introduction to Sir Ferumbras, we need not repeat it again here.[10] As to the popularity of the Fierabras romance in the Netherlands, the following passage from Hoffmann, Horæ Belgicæ (Vratislaviæ, 1830), I. 50, may be quoted here[11]:—

“Quam notæ Belgis, sec. xiii. et xiv., variæ variarum nationum fabulæ fuerint, quæ ex Gallia septemtrionali, ubi originem ceperunt, translatæ sunt, pauca hæc testimonia demonstrabunt:— . . . . in exordio Sidraci:—[12]

‘Dickent hebbic de gone ghescouden,

die hem an boeken houden

daer si clene oerbare in leren,

also sijn jeesten van heeren,

van Paerthenopeuse, van Amidase,

van Troijen ende van Fierabrase,

ende van menighen boeken, die men mint

ende daer men litel oerbaren in vint,

[‹viii›]

ende dat als leghene es ende mere,

ende anders en hebben ghene lere,

danne vechten ende vrowen minnen

ende lant ende steden winnen . . . . . .’—

“Nec rarius tanguntur fabulæ de Carolo Magno, Speculum Historiale, IV. 1. xxix (cf. Bilderdijk, Verscheidenh, I. D. bl. 161–2):—

‘Carel es menichwaerf beloghen

in groten boerden ende in hoghen,

alse boerders doen ende oec dwase,

diene beloghen van Fierabrase,

dat nie ghesciede noch en was . . . .

die scone walsce valsce poeten,

die mer rimen dan si weten,

belieghen groten Caerle vele

in sconen worden ende bispele

van Fierabrase van Alisandre,

van Pont Mautrible ende andre,

dat algader niet en was . . . .’”

That the Fierabras romance must have been well known and highly popular in England and Scotland, may be gathered from the numerous references to this poem in various Middle English works.

Thus the whole subject of the Fierabras romance is found in the following passage, taken from Barbour’s Bruce, ed. Skeat, 3, 435 ss., where the King is described as relating to his followers:—

“Romanys off worthi Ferambrace,

That worthily our-commyn was

Throw the rycht douchty Olywer;

And how the duz Peris wer

Assegyt intill Egrymor,

Quhar King Lawyne lay thaim befor

With may thowsandis then I can say,

And bot elewyn within war thai,

And a woman; and wa sa stad,

That thai na mete thar within had,

Bot as thai fra thair fayis wan.

Y heyte, sua contenyt thai thaim than;

That thai the tour held manlily,

Till that Rychard off Normandy,

Magre his fayis, warnyt the king,

That wes joyfull off this tithing:

For he wend, thai had all bene slayne,

Tharfor he turnyt in hy agayne,

And wan Mantrybill and passit Flagot;

And syne Lawyne and all his flot

Dispitusly discumfyt he:

And deliueryt his men all fre,

And wan the naylis, and the sper,

And the croune that Ihesu couth ber; [‹ix›]

And off the croice a gret party

He wan throw his chewalry.”[13]

In his poem of Ware the Hawk, Skelton (ed. Dyce, I. 162) cites Syr Pherumbras as a great tyrant. He also refers to him in one of his poems against Garnesche, whom he addresses with the following apostrophe:—

“Ye fowle, fers and felle, as Syr Ferumbras the ffreke.”

The story of the combat between Oliver and Ferumbras is alluded to by Lyndsay, in his Historie of ane Nobil and Wailȝeand Squyer, William Meldrum, ed. Hall, ll. 1313–16:—

“Roland with Brandwell, his bricht brand,

Faucht never better, hand for hand,

Nor Gawin aganis Golibras,

Nor Olyver with Pharambras.”

The tale of the fortified bridge of Mauntrible seems also to have been very well known in England and Scotland. In the Complaint of Scotland, ed. Murray, p. 63, we find the Tail of the Brig of the Mantrible mentioned among other famous romances. In his lampoon on Garnesche, Skelton describes his adversary as being more deformed and uglier than

“Of Mantryble the bryge Malchus[14] the murryon.”

As has already been mentioned, amongst all the Charlemagne romances the (originally French) romance of Fierabras is remarkable as being one of the first that was rescued from the dust of libraries; and it is worthy of note, in connection with it, that the first printed version was not a French, but a Provençal one, which was published not in France, the birth-place of the romance, but in Germany.

The manuscript of this Provençal version having been discovered by Lachmann in the Library of Prince Ludwig von Oettingen-Wallerstein,[15] [‹x›] somewhere about the year 1820, the poem was published in 1829 by Immanuel Bekker.[16]

Raynouard, who drew attention to this edition of the poem in the Journal des Savants, March 1831, supposed this Provençal version to be the original.

Soon after Fauriel discovered at Paris two MSS. of the romance in French, and a third French 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 Fierabras[21] 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 Fierabras[27] 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 = the MS. of the Biblioth. Nationale, Lancelot, 7566^3.3.
• c = the MS. of the British Museum, MS. Reg. 15. E. vi.[32]
• d = the MS. of the Vatican Library, Regina 1616.
• D = the MS. in possession of M. Ambroise-Firmin Didot, a small fragment of which has been printed by Gautier, Epopées fr. ii. 307.
• E = the Escorial MS., a description of which, together with the variations, has been given by Knust, in the Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Sprache und Literatur, vol. ix. p. 43 et seq.
• H = the Hanover MS., which also contains the Destruction de Rome. It has been described by Professor Grœber in the Jahrbuch, xiii. p. 111. [‹xvi›]

As to the English Fierabras romances, there are two versions known to exist:[33] the poem of Sir Ferumbras contained in the Ashmole MS. 33[34] and the present poem.

In the following we shall attempt to point out the differences of these two versions, and to examine whether there is any relationship between the English and the French poems, and if possible to identify the original of the former.

A superficial comparison of the English poem of Sir Ferumbras with the French romance Fierabras (edd. Krœber and Servois) will suffice at once to show the great resemblance between the two versions. In my Dissertation on the sources and language of the Sowdan of Babylone (Berlin, 1879) I have proved (pp. 30–40) that the Ashmolean Ferumbras must be considered as a running poetical translation of a French original. Since Mr. Herrtage, in the Introduction to his edition of the Ashmole MS. 33, has also pointed out the closeness with which the translator generally followed the original, which he believes to belong to the same type as the Fierabras, edited by MM. Krœber and Servois. “The author has followed his original closely, so far as relates to the course of events; but at the same time he has translated it freely, introducing several slight incidents and modifications, which help to enliven and improve the poem. That he has not translated his original literally, is shown by the fact that the French version consists of only 6219 lines, or allowing for the missing portion of the Ashmole MS., not much more than one-half the number of lines in the latter, and that too, although he has cut down the account of the duel between Oliver and Ferumbras from 1500 to 800 lines, by leaving out Oliver’s attempts at converting the Saracen, Charlemagne’s prayers, &c.”

Now, in my opinion, we ought not to lay too much stress on the fact that the number of lines in the two versions differs, as all translators of poetical works, who wish to follow their original as closely as possible, will easily be able to render it ‘literally’ as long as they write in prose. But adopting a poetical form for their translation, and still pursuing their intention of a close rendering of their original, [‹xvii›] they must needs be more diffuse, and the consideration of rhythm and rhyme will compel them sometimes to abandon a quite literal translation, and to be content with a free reproduction. This is also the case with the author of Syr Ferumbras, who, notwithstanding the many passages where the French text is not given ‘literally,’ must be considered as a close rhymed translation of the French poem. The only liberty which we see the English author take sometimes, consists in contracting or amalgamating together those couplets similaires,[35] or strophes which contain repetitions.

But not always did the author thus give up his plan of rendering his original closely: occasionally he has such repetitionary lines in the same place as the French poem, as, for instance, in ll. 130 et seq. corresponding to Fierabras, ll. 125 et seq.

The closeness and literalness of his translation is well exemplified by his introduction in an English dress of a great many French words which are unknown, or at least of a most rare occurrence, in English, and which in his translation are found in the same place and context, where the French text has them. This will be best illustrated by juxtaposing the corresponding phrases of the two versions.

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:

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 20[39]) 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 work of his own.

This point being fully treated in my Dissertation,[48] I need not again enter into discussion of it here. I only mention that the composer of the Sowdan has much shortened his original, omitting all episodes and secondary circumstances not necessarily connected with the principal action, so that this poem does not contain half the number of lines which his original had,[49] and that the proportion of the diffuse Ashmolean Ferumbras and the Sowdan is over five to one.[50] [‹xxiii›]

The subject of the ‘introductory account,’ or the first part of the Sowdan, is nearly the same as that of the Destruction de Rome, differing from this poem only in the omission of a few insignificant incidents or minor episodes, and in greater conciseness, which latter circumstances, however, enters into the general plan of the author.

Indeed, the author of the Sowdan seems to have known the Destruction, as we see from a comparison of the two poems. Thus the following instances show a great resemblance of expression of the two versions:

Other instances of resemblance may be found in the following passages:

S 49–50 = D 94–99;[51] S 103 = D 202, 209; S 119 = D 385; S 146 = D 445–46; S 150 = D 503–4; S 157 = D 509; S 300 = D 967; [‹xxv›] S 303 = D 915; S 396 = D 977; S 312 = D 989; S 340 = D 1063; S 360 = D 1101; S 376 = D 1119, 1121; S 377 = D 1133; S 380 = D 1136; S 699 = D 1379; S 723 = D 1384, &c., &c.

Besides, there are some names which occurring in none of the French versions, but in the Destruction, point to this poem as to the original of the Sowdan. Thus Savaris[52] (S 171) seems to be taken from D 540.

Astragot or Estragot, S 346, 2944, 3022, the name of the giant by whom Savaris is slain, and who is said to be the husband of Barrock, occurs in D 1090.

The Ascopartes, a people subjected to the Soudan, are mentioned in D 98, 426, but not in F or P.

King Lowes, in the context where it occurs (S 24) is clearly taken from D 9.

Iffrez, S 165, is perhaps the same as Geffroi in D 1139, 1367, 1122.

[Mounpelers, S 3228, occurs only in D 250, 286.]

Persagyn, S 1259, seems to be identical with Persagon, D 162.

The form Laban is only met with in the Destruction, the French and the Provençal versions, and the Ashmole Ferumbras reading Balan.[53]

The name of the Soudan’s son, Ferumbras, is explained by the form Fierenbras, which occurs in D 57, 66, 71, 91, 343, 1210, 1237, besides the spelling Fierabras, which is the only one used in the French, the Provençal and Caxton’s versions.

Also the phrase ‘sowdan’ seems to have been derived from the Destruction (l. 1436, ‘soldan’), as it does not occur in any other version.

The great number of these resemblances seem evidently to point out the Destruction as the original of the first portion of the Sowdan; the few points in which the two versions differ not being such as to offer convincing arguments against this supposition. [‹xxvi›]

Indeed if, for instance, we find a lot of nations, the names of which are not in D, mentioned by the author of the poem as belonging to the Soudan’s empire, this point can be considered as irrelevant, as from many other instances we know how fond many composers of mediæval romances were of citing geographical names, by the great number of which they believed to show their knowledge in that science.[54] Also the three names of Saints (Qwyntyn, Symon, Fremond[55]), and the names of five Saracen gods and of a Saracen bishop,[56] many of which, moreover, seem to be inserted only for the sake of rhyme, cannot be regarded as being of great consequence in establishing the source of the Sowdan. Others also, as Oliborn, Focard, Hubert, Gyndard, Tamper (the last occurring twice as a rhyme-word), being the names of insignificant characters, may be looked upon as mere expletives. Another variation is Isrez (ll. 625, 641) for Tabour (D 1202).

Besides these variations in the names contained in the two poems, we find in the Sowdan some slight modifications as to the matter related; none of which, however, is of so significant a character, as necessarily to point to some other original than the Destruction, which the very striking points of resemblance above cited show almost decisively to have been the original of the Sowdan. The differences in the subject-matter may be explained by the tendency of the poet to follow his original only as far as the principal events are concerned, but to have his own way in the arrangement of the subject-matter, and especially to deal freely with secondary incidents.

Thus he may have thought the combat round Château-Miroir—which, moreover, is related in the Destruction in a rather obscure and confused style—to be a rather episodical incident, which he had better leave out in his poem, as not advancing the principal course of events.

A similar explanation may be given of the fact, that the account of Lukafer’s desiring the hand of Floripas is given on another occasion in the Sowdan than in the Destruction. In the Destruction, l. 241, Lucafer claims that maiden immediately on arriving in the [‹xxvii›] Soudan’s camp, as a reward for his having travelled such a long way in Laban’s service. The poet of the Sowdan thinking, perhaps, that this was not a sufficient reason to justify such a claim, mentions this incident at another time, which he may have considered as more properly chosen for demanding a reward. It is on returning from a victorious expedition undertaken by Lukafer that the latter in the Sowdan, ll. 224–242, asks for the hand of Floripas.

As to the following or second part of the Sowdan, on the whole the same subject is treated of as in the Ashmole Ferumbras. But there are many differences between the two poems.

In the Sowdan, l. 1411 et seq., Roland is captured by the Saracens at the same time as Oliver, and both on being conducted before Laban at once avow their names. In the Ashmole MS., ll. 909, &c., Oliver is led away to the Soudan together with Gwylmer, Berard, Geoffrey, and Aubray, whereas Roland is among the French peers whom Charlemagne sends on a mission to Laban to demand the surrender of Oliver.[57]

The names of the twelve peers do not agree in both poems. In the Sowdan we find the following list (cf. ll. 1653 et seq., and ll. 1730, 880):—Roland, Oliver, Duk Neymes of Bavere, Oger Danoys, Tery Lardeneys, Folk Baliante, Aleroyse of Loreyne, Miron of Braban, Bishop Turpyn, Bernard of Spruwse, Bryer of Mountez,[58] Guy of Bourgoyne.[59]—Richard of Normandye, although a most important personage, is not included amongst the Douzeperes. Nor is Guenelyn mentioned as a peer of France. Four of these names, Folk Baliant, Turpyn, Bernard of Spruwse, Aleroyse of Loreyne, do not occur at all in the Ashmolean Ferumbras.[60]

The new game which Lucafer wants to teach Neymes, is differently described in the two poems, there being no mention made in the Ashmol. MS. (ll. 2231 et seq.) of the thread, 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 know[65] 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 compiled[71] 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 as concerns the course of the principal events, but going his own independent way in arranging the subject-matter as well as in many minor points.

The Sowdan differs from the poem of Syr Ferumbras in two principal points:

(1) In being an original work, not in the conception, but in the treatment of the subject-matter, whereas the Ashmole Ferumbras is little more than a mere translation. [‹xxxiv›]

(2) In representing, in its first portion, the first part of the old Balan romance, whereas Syr Ferumbras contains only the second. But as that second part of the old Balan romance appears to be considerably modified and greatly amplified in the Ashmole Ferumbras, so the first part of the Sowdan contains a likewise modified, but much shortened, narration of the first part of the old Balan poem, so that the Sowdan has arrived to become quite a different work from the original Balan or Fierabras romance, and that a reconstruction of the contents of that old poem would be impossible from the Sowdan.

LANGUAGE AND SUMMARY OF GRAMMATICAL FORMS. [◊]

AS regards the language of the Sowdan, the first point is the dialect. Looking at the plurals of the present indicative in -en or -n, we at once detect the Midland peculiarities of the poem. Thus we find, l. 1331, gone rhyming with one, l. 1010, goon : camalyon, l. 506, gone : than, l. 1762, lyven : gyfen, l. 1816, byleven : even.

The verbal forms of the singular present indicative and of the second person sing. preterite of weak verbs lead us to assign this poem to an East-Midland writer. The 2nd and 3rd person singular present indicative end in -est, -eth; and the 2nd person sing. preterite of weak verbs exhibits the inflection -est: l. 1202, goist : moost; 1314, 1715, knowest; 1344, trowest; 1154, blowest; 1153, saiest; 2292, forgetist; 560, doist; 1193, doistowe;—1093, goth : wroth, 1609 : loth, 1620 : doth; 1728, sleith : deth; 561, sholdest; 1244, shuldist; 603, madist; 563, hadist; 2219, askapedist, &c.—Twice we find the 2nd person preterite without -est (made, wroght); but see the note to l. 2.

If, now, we examine the phonological and inflectional peculiarities of the Sowdan, we find them thoroughly agreeing with those of other East-Midland works,[72] which still further confirms the supposition of the East-Midland origin of the poem. [‹xxxv›]

I or y, the descendants of original u (which in Old English [Anglo-Saxon] had already become y or i in consequence of i- mutation or umlaut)—are found rhyming with original i:—ll. 449, 881, kyn : him, 2060 : wynne; 1657, fille : stille; 1973, fire : desire, &c. It must, however, be noted that the rhyme king : inne (l. 372) or king : thing (ll. 173, 236) cannot be regarded as an East-Midland peculiarity, because king, drihten, chikken, the i of which is a modification of original u, are to be met with in all Middle-English dialects, as has been shown by Professor Zupitza in the Anzeiger für deutsches Altertum, vol. vi. p. 6.

Old English short a, which is liable to change into o, appears in this poem—

(1) always as o, before n- combinations (nd, nt, ng):—531, stronge : istonge; 3166, bronte : fonte; 214, amonge : longe, &c.

(2) as a, before the single consonants m and n:—1120, name : shame, 935 : same, 1739 : grame; 785, 1773, man : Lavan; 3125, came : Lavan (cf. 2579, Lavan : tane); 2160, came : dame, &c.—The fact that com (ll. 547, 1395, 3095, &c.) is used as well as cam as sing. preterite indic. need occasion no difficulty if we remember that the original short a (or o) of cam (or com) had already been lengthened into ô in the O.E. period.[73] Came and come as pret. sing. are employed indifferently in Chaucer as well as in the Celestin (ed. Horstmann, Anglia, i. 56), which is known to have been composed in the East-Midland dialect.

O long, from O.E. â, in our poem has that broad sound which is peculiar to the East-Midland dialect. We find it rhyming with—

(1) original ô:—1025, wrothe : sothe; 801, goo : doo; 60, inowe : blowe; 325, so : ido, &c.

(2) unchangeable a:—257, Aufricanes : stoones; 506, gon : than; 2049, agoon : Lavan, &c.

As many East-Midland works[74] the Sowdan has three forms for O.E. þâr:—thare, thore, there, all of which are established by the rhyme:—1805, thore : Egremoure (cf. 2895, Egremoure : tresoure, 1003, Agremore : more); 126, thore : lore; 430, thare : sware; [‹xxxvi›] 2245, there : chere, 2404 : bere; 2604, there : were (w

ron), 208 : were (werian), &c.

We likewise find sore and sare[75] (O.E. sâre):—1196, sore : more; 166, sare : care; 1377, sore : thore.

The O.E. diphthongs ea and eo and the O.E. ŷ (mutated from êa or êo) appear as e in this poem:—1595, me : see, 632 : fee, 1339 : free, 405 : be; 1535, depe : slepe; 1011, 1523, dere : here; 963, yere : vere, 1257 : Olyvere; 996, nere : were; 596, 1528, nede : spede; 1702, eke : speke; 1726, leke : speke; 184, 215, 1208, shelde : felde; 2530, hevene : elevene, &c.

A brief summary of the grammatical inflexions employed in the poem will also give evidence of a great similarity with the forms used by other East-Midland writers, and will serve to show that the language of the Sowdan agrees closely with that of Chaucer.

In the declension of substantives the only remnant of case-formation by means of inflexions is the ending used to form the Genitive Singular and the Plural.

The genitive singular of nouns ends in es (sometimes written -is or ys) for all genders:—356, develes; 1209, stedes; 849, worldis; 1804, worldes; 3035, dammes; 1641, nedes; 1770, shippes; 1072, faderis.

Substantives ending in -s in the nominative case, remain unchanged in the genitive case:—1214, 1287, Ferumbras; 2006, Naymes; 3207, Charles; 1639, 1350, Floripas.—Florip, l. 614, is the genitive case of Floripe or Florip, l. 2027, 1571.

The nominative plural of all genders is formed by -es (-is, -ys) or -s:—919, knightes, 1947, 2276, knightis; 1384, horses, 1401, horsys; 429, 2054, gatis; 192, wordes; 837, swerdes; 174, hedes; 2289, ladies; 3271, soules; 26, bokes; 606, peres; 297, tours, &c. Examples of a plural case without s are seen in thinge, l. 2, 1709:—O.E. þing; honde, 987, O.E. handa, as well as hondes, 1412, 2568; frende, 3212, O.E. frŷnd, as well as frendes, 1011, O.E. frêondas. Other plurals which are equally easily explained by their O.E. forms are:—eyen, 825, O.E. êagan; shoone, 1381, O.E. scêon; fete, 1403, O.E. fêt, fote, 1427, O.E. fôtum, 2673, O.E. fôta. [‹xxxvii›]

To mark the difference between the definite and indefinite forms of adjectives is a difficult task; as the final -e had in most cases already become silent in the poet’s dialect, it seems probable that he no longer observed the distinction.

The pronouns are the same as in Chaucer and in other East-Midland poems:—I, me, thou, the; he, hym; sche, her and hir; it and hit (cf. note to l. 41); we, us; ye, you. The plural of the personal pronoun of the 3rd person is thai and he (cf. note to l. 2698) for the nominative case; hem, and in some doubtful passages (see note to l. 88) thaym for the accusative case.

As in Chaucer, the pronoun of the 2nd person is often joined to the verb:—hastow 1680, maistow 1826, shaltow 1669, woltow 1727, wiltow 1151, artow 1967, kanstow 2335, &c.

Possessive pronouns:—myn and thyn are used before vowels and before h; my, thy before consonants. Only once, l. 90, my is placed before a vowel. His, hire and here; our, your; here and (twice, 623, 1244) thair.

The demonstrative pronouns are this, these or thes; that.

The definite article the or þe, is used for all cases singular and plural. But we find besides, the following examples of inflexion:—tho, 2063, O.E. þâ, and the accusative sing. þon, 108. In l. 2052, tho means ‘them, those’ = Lat. eos. Tha, l. 2639, seems to be a mistake of the scribe, it is perhaps miswritten for þat (day), cf. l. 619.

Men, 115, 1351, and me, 287, are used as indefinite pronouns. Everyche, every, everychone occur frequently. Note also ichoon 2774, ilka 2016; thilke 2644, eche 1865.

That or þat, who, whome are used as relative pronouns. The interrogative pronouns are who and what.

Verbs. The plural imperative ends in -eth or -th, which, however, we find frequently omitted, as in l. 194, prove you, 2078 proveth; 2131 sende, 167 sendith; telle 1977, tellyth 1625, &c.

The -n of the infinitive mood is often dropped, as in Chaucer:—274, 1588, sene : bene; 1124, see : tre; 658 : cite; 600, be : cite; 1225 : contre; 1411, flee : cite; 3065, fleen : men; 1282, sloo : mo; 792, sloone : one, &c.

The final -(e)n of past participles of strong verbs is in most cases [‹xxxviii›] dropped, as in Chaucer:—3176 forlorne: borne, 32 born, 3011 wonne, 21 wonnen, 2756 comen : nomen, 155 come, 2476 holpe, 1362 bygote, 1026 blowe, &c.

Weak verbs form their past participles in -ed, -d, -et, -t, much as in Chaucer:—lerned 3042, eyde 1648, toolde 670, bogt 111, delte 526, displaied 133.

The prefix i- or y- occurs sometimes, icome 784, come 155, istonge 533, itake 49, taken 1430, &c.

The present participles end in -inge and ande, as is often the case in East-Midland works:—2831 prikande : comande, 435 cryande, 924 makande, 3225 mornynge : kynge, 2399 slepynge : honde, where evidently slepande is the true reading.

As in Chaucer the 2nd person preterite of strong verbs is sometimes formed by -est or -ist, letist 2167; but we find also regular forms, as in slough 1259, where, however, the O.E. e (slôge) is already dropped.

The -en or -n of the preterite plural and of past participles is commonly dropped, ronnen 3007, ronne 2959, took 477, tokene 2621, slough 78, sloughen 401, ido 327: so, &c.

The -d in the past participles and in the preterite of weak verbs is sometimes omitted, as often happens in East-Midland works. Thus we find comforte 2242 and comforted 312, commaunde 57 and commaunded 228, graunte 607, liste 1132, list 1966, discumfite 1464, &c. On the same analogy we find light 1125, 1189, and lighted 3109, worth 1203, and worthed 1163.

As regards the final -e’s, it may be remarked that the scribe has added many final -e’s, where the rules would not lead us to suspect them, and has often given a final -e to words which in other passages of the poem, although similarly used, have no e:—note 245, 274, not 255, 313; howe 19, how 275; undere 61, under 713; bute 247, but 8; cooste 202, coost 3062; crafte 424, craft 2335; ashamede 1295, ashamed 558, &c.

This is due either to carelessness on the part of the scribe, or perhaps to the fact that in the speech of the copyist the final e’s had already become altogether silent, so that finding many words ending in -e and not knowing its meaning, he considered it as a mere [‹xxxix›] “ornament in writing” (Ellis, Pronunciation, i. 338), and sometimes added, sometimes omitted it.

With respect to the composer of the Sowdan himself, there may be some doubt left whether in his speech the final e had become altogether silent, or was still pronounced occasionally. From the following instances it may be concluded with certainty that the poet very frequently did not sound the final e:—757 boghtẹ : noght, 3154 hat : fat, 961 wrongẹ : distruccion, 556 onlacẹ : was; cf. also 1383, 1611, 2163; 2795 spékẹ we of Ríchard, 2999 fought, 2093, 859 bringẹ, 9, 2547 keptẹ, 834 wentẹ, 142 comẹ, 713 wodẹ.

In other cases there is no certainty whether the final e is quite silent or must be slightly pronounced or slurred over, so as to form trisyllabic measures. It must be noted, however, that in supposing trisyllable measures in all these doubtful cases, the number of this kind of measure will increase to a great amount in the Sowdan. Therefore I rather incline to think the final e silent also in the following instances:—2090 défendẹ this place, 1201 brékẹ both báke, 861 cómẹ from ál, 2119 askẹ consaile, 1597 wólẹ these traítours, 1783 whéns comẹ yé, 2317 pássẹ that brígge, 1100 rónnẹ bytwéne, 2997 fóught so lónge, 175 brokẹ nothinge, 1658 béddẹ with ríght, 713 grénẹ wodẹ síde, 571 hómẹ to Rómẹ that nýght, 1610 the fáls jailoúr feddẹ yoúr prisonére, 2152 fáls traitóurs of Fránce, 921 chárged the yónge with ál, 380 aboútẹ midnýghte, 726 sóne to hím, 160 únneth not óne [Chaucer still pronounces unnethë].

Nevertheless there seems to be some instances where the final e is to be sounded, as in ll. 298, 2790, 1332, 1619, 2740, 592, 2166, 2463, 1405, 2386, 895, 332, 91.

Final en also seems sometimes not to constitute a separate syllable:—1365 waít

uppon mé, 459 brék

our wállis, 45 slép

with ópyne ýȝe, 485 cóm

by the cóst, 2313 díd

it aboút, &c.

In all these cases n had very probably already fallen off in the speech of the poet, as the following examples lead us to suppose:—178 wynne : him, 1582 dye : biwry, 2309 shewe : trewe, 2107 slépe to lónge, 861 cóme from ál, &c.

As regards the final es of nouns, the poet seems to have observed the same rules as those followed by Chaucer; viz. es is sounded when [‹xl›] joined to monosyllabic stems; it does not increase the number of syllables (and therefore is often spelt-s instead of-es), when the stem has two or more syllables:—197, 277 goddës, 665 nailës, 445 tentës, 2068 tentïs, 174, 1799 hedës, 2032, 2868 swerdës, 2327 wallës, 1209 stedës, 1770 shippës, 2702 somers, 2687, 2591 felowes, 2660 felows, 2412 maydyns, 647, 1597 traytours, 2036 orders, 45 lovers, 2612, 3098 develes, 1072 faderis, 203, 862 sowdons, 881 sarsyns.

The final es of adverbs seems no longer to constitute a separate syllable:—2213 hónged’ els bý, 2786 éls had’ hé, 2109 éllis I may sínge, 1525 élles wol’ hé, 2061 théns, 1783 whens.

METRE AND VERSIFICATION. [◊]

THE poem is composed in four-line stanzas. The arrangement of the rhyme is such that the 1st and 3rd lines rhyme together, and the 2nd and 4th together, which gives the following rhyme-formula: a b a b. The rhyme-endings employed in one stanza do not occur again in the next following.

But it must be noticed that there seem to occur some instances of eight-line stanzas, one of which, beginning at l. 1587, is built on the model employed by Chaucer. Others are arranged differently. Those beginning at ll. 1059 and 1219 show the rhyme-formula a b a b a c a c, in that of l. 1411 the 2nd and 4th lines are rhymed together, and the 5th and 7th, whilst the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 8th, all end with the same rhyme. The formula for the stanzas beginning at ll. 807, 879, 1611 is a b a b c b c b. In the stanza of l. 939 all the pair lines are rhymed together, and the odd ones also, which is the only instance in the poem of eight consecutive lines having only two rhyme-endings, as generally eight lines show four different rhyme-endings, and three only in the passages cited above. But the whole stanza of l. 939 seems not to be due to the author; he has very probably borrowed it from some other poem.[76]

Turning now our attention to the fact that the lines occurring between the Initials or Capital Letters, which are met with in some passages in the MS., are often divisible by eight, we might feel [‹xli›] inclined to regard this as an additional reason for considering the stanza employed in the Sowdan as an eight-line one. Indeed, the portion from the Initial of l. 1679 to the next one of l. 1689 might be taken for one single stanza. The 24 lines from l. 575 (beginning with an Initial) to the next Initial in l. 598 might equally be considered as three stanzas, whilst there are 5 times 8 lines = 5 eight-line stanzas from the Initial of l. 2755 to the next Initial in l. 2795.

In all these instances the supposition of eight-line stanzas would suit the context, as is the case also with other passages. Thus in the following cases it might seem as though eight lines taken together were more closely connected and made better sense than four lines, e. g. ll. 583–598, 1703–1710, 1679–1686, 939–962, 1043–1050, 244 ss., 455 ss., 631 ss., 1059 ss.

But, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that there are also a great many cases where, as regards the sense, four lines can be considered as an independent whole, when, e. g., the speech spoken by a person is contained in four lines, and the words of another person replying to the first follow in the next four lines. Very often also these next four lines contain only a part of the second person’s reply, so that the remainder of his reply falls into the following stanza. This ‘enjambement’ or continuation of the sense, and sometimes of the syntactical construction from one stanza to another, need not, of course, prevent us from admitting the supposition of eight-line stanzas; as, upon the whole, it is met with in all poems composed in stanzas, and as it is frequently used in Le Morte Arthur (Harleian MS. 2252, ed. Furnivall), which is written in eight-line stanzas; but as there is no instance known of an eight-line stanza containing four different rhyme-endings, which at this supposition it would be the case with the Sowdan, the eight-line stanzas containing either three rhyme-endings, as in Chaucer, or two, as in Le Morte Arthur, and as in some passages of the Sowdan (ll. 1691, 1695, 1699, 1711, 1715), we find Initials placed after four lines, I believe a stanza of four alternately rhyming lines to be the one intended by the composer—a metre which, according to Guest, History of Eng. Rhythms, ii. 317—‘must have been well known and familiar during the fifteenth century.’ The few eight-line stanzas quoted above, may [‹xlii›] then be owing either to the inadvertence of the poet, who somewhat carelessly employed one of the two rhyme-endings of one stanza a third and fourth time in the following one, or, perhaps also, he intentionally retained that rhyme-ending, and he inserted eight-line stanzas amongst those of four verses as a mere matter of variation. It is perhaps not impossible that the retention of this rhyme-ending was not greatly felt.

As regards the rhymes themselves, they are both monosyllabic or masculine rhymes, and dissyllabic or feminine ones. Frequently they are used alternating with each other, as in the stanzas beginning with l. 2755.

Sometimes we find four feminine rhymes occurring in an unbroken succession, as in ll. 1263–66. But it must be noticed that the number of masculine rhymes is predominant. Thus the stanzas beginning with ll. 3047, 3063, 3123, 1123, 791, 1035, 1271, 1275, 2019, 1311, 1351, 1463, &c., contain only masculine rhyme-endings.

The rhymes are not always full and true; there occur many imperfect ones.

(1) A word in the singular number is often rhymed with a word in the plural number, which therefore has an additional s (or es):—797, thinge : tidyngys; 2647, fyght : knyghtes; 2087, light : knightes; 1455, cosynes : kinge; 2272, laye : dayes; 2395, 885, Ogere : peres; 2456, alle : walles; 2682, nede : stedes; 944, mone : stoones; cf. also 2376, wile : beguiled. In l. 68, poundis : dromonde; the rhyme becomes perfect in reading pounde, as in l. 2336, instead of poundis.

(2) Single n is found rhyming with n- combinations.

α. n : nd—cf. 814, ychoon : Mahounde; 912, pavilone : Mahounde; 1201, crowne : Mahounde. The rhyme, 162, Rome : houne, may be explained in the same manner, for houne stands for hounde, as it is spelt in ll. 237, 2377, 935, 1756.[77]

β. n : ng—cf. 2349, Mapyne : endinge; 86, Apolyne : tithinge; 370, inne : kinge; 1455, cosynes : kinge; 3249, Genelyne : kinge; 3171, serpentyne : endinge; 959, distruccion : wronge. [‹xliii›]

In 614, love : vowe, the second rhyme vowe does not contain the consonant v.

(3) Rhymes imperfect as concerns the consonants.

m : n—cf. 76, Rome : one; 1672, 364 : done; 2443, 366, come : done; 747, some : soudone; 1323, came : than; 1488, came : ranne; 2128, tyme : pyne; 177, him : wynne; 2375, him : tene; 447, 859, him : kyn; 2004, hyme : skyne; 2353, him : inne.

f : v—cf. 341, twelve : selve; 415, wife : alive; 1762, gyfene : lyvene; 1912, gife : lyve. But in all these cases the rhymes are really perfect, they seem only imperfect in consequence of the copyist writing indiscriminately f and v. Thus the rhyme of l. 341 reappears in l. 1867, self : twelf. In l. 2336 we find gefe, which is written geve in l. 198; lefe, l. 764; safe, l. 864, are spelt with v in ll. 1340, 1529, 2808.