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, 75663.3.
- 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.
| Ashmole Ferumbras. | French Fierabras. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 312 | Hit ys rewarded ous two betwyne þat Olyuer schal wende and take þe batail | 301 | ‘Nous jujon Olivier, si l’avons esgardé Qu’il fera la bataille au paien deffaé.’ |
| 330 | Mercy, quaþ he to kyng Charles | 333 | ‘As piés le roy se jete, merchi li a priié.’ |
| 369 | þat paynede crist | 377 | ‘— dont vos Diex fu penès.’ |
| 388 | Er y remuvie me of þis place | 392 | ‘Ains que je m’en remue ...’ |
| 399 | y chalenge wiþ þe to fiȝt | 402 | ‘— je te voel calengier’ |
| 457 | Parfay, ansuerde erld O. | 449 | ‘Par foi, dist Oliviers ...’ |
| 533 | þat he ne . . maden ȝelde his body to him creaunt | 548 | ‘se Roland s’i combat, ne faice recréant’ |
| 537 | wiþ my swerd trenchaunt | 553 | ‘ . . . à m’espée trencant’ |
| 538 | Sarsyns, said erld O. | 554 | Sarrazins, dist li quans ... |
| 551 | long man in fourchure | 579 | Il ot l’enfourcéure grant |
| 558 | a ful gret pite, etc. | 586 | j’ai de toi grand pité, etc. [‹xviii›] |
| 751 | haue mercy of me, iantail knyȝt | 1494 –5 | — merci li a crié: Gentix hom . . |
| 781 | to remurie þe of þis place | 1515 | ja par moi n’i seriés . . remués |
| 817 | he was encombred with F. | 1552 | Mais de F. est . . . encombrés |
| 922 | þey went forth on a pendant | 1696 | Cil s’entornent fuiant le pendant d’un laris |
| 947 | wan hure spere gunne to faile | 1712 | Quant les lances lor falent |
| 984 | At avalyng of an hulle | 1734 | À l’avaler d’un tertre |
| 1008. 1012 | to rescourre þe barons | 1757 | . . les barons rescous . . |
| 1016 | wel longe hadde þis chas ylest | 1764 | Moult fu grans cele chace |
| 1058 | and oþre reliques riche ynow wherof y have plentee | 1806 | Et les dignes reliques dont il i ad plenté |
| 1227 | for to wyte wat þay be and hure covyne yknowe | 2067 | Lor couvine et lor estre enquerre et demander. |
| 1316 | By an old forsake ȝeate of þe olde antiquyte | 2144 | Par une gaste porte de viel antequité |
| 1773 | sittynge on a grene erber | 2562 | . . siét sous cel arbre ramé. |
| 1974 | Florippe his doȝtre þe cortoyse in chambre þar she was In þe paleys yhurde noise and þyder þan she gas | 2712 | Floripas la courtoise a le nois escoute Puis issi de la cambre, . . . Entresi c’au palais . . |
| 2007 | þow ert asotid | 2733 | . . vous voi assoté. |
| 2538 | a gret repref it were | 3136 | . . il nous est reprouvé |
| 3665 | brydel and paytrel and al þe gere wiþ fyn gold yharneyssed were | 4117 | Li estrier furent d’or, rices fu li poitrés |
| 3672 | and þe king him gan ascrie | 4126 | . . . si s’est haut escriés. |
| 3791 | a gret dul þay made þere | 4236 | . . demainent grant dolour |
| 4541 | with an hard crestidserpentis fel | 4832 | vestu ot la pel d’un dur serpent cresté |
| 5753 | on þan ston a cracchede and in a spatte in dispit of god, etc. | 5910 | en despit de Ihesu ens es fous ecraca. |
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›]