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.