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.