[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.