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›]