◊ Contents

Transcriber’s Endnote

Hyperlinks to Pages and Lines

1881.

CONTENTS.

• INTRODUCTION …
  v
  • Popularity of the Carlovingian Romances …
    v
  • Popularity of the Ferumbras Poem …
    vi
  • The Provençal Ferabras …
    ix
  • The Fierabras Poem an Enlarged and Recast Portion of the Old Balan
    Romance …
    xi
  • The Poem of the Destruction de Rome …
    xiii
  • MSS. of the French Fierabras …
    xv
  • The English Sir Ferumbras, its Source, etc. …
    xvi
  • The Poem of the Sowdan of Babylon, its Sources, its Differences
    from the Original Balan Romance and from the Ashmolean Ferumbras …
    xxii
  • Dialect of the Sowdan …
    xxxiv
  • Metre and Rhymes of the Sowdan …
    xl
  • Date and Author of the Sowdan …
    xlv
  • MS. of the Sowdan …
    xlvii
  • Roxburghe Club Edition of the Sowdan …
    xlviii
• ADDITIONS …
  xlix
  • The Hanover MS. of the French Fierabras Compared With the Sowdan …
    xlix
  • The Hanover Version Compared With Sir Ferumbras …
    lii
• SKETCH OF THE STORY …
  liv
• THE ROMAUNCE OF THE SOWDONE OF BABYLONE AND OF FERUMBRAS HIS SONE
  WHO CONQUEREDE ROME …
  1
• NOTES …
  95
• GLOSSARIAL INDEX …
  133
• INDEX OF NAMES …
  141

INTRODUCTION. ◊

THE
exploits of Charles the Great, who by his achievements as
conqueror and legislator, as reformer of learning and missionary, so
deeply changed the face of Western Europe, who during a reign of
nearly half a century maintained, by his armies, the authority of his
powerful sceptre, from the southern countries of Spain and Italy to
the more northern regions of Denmark, Poland, and Hungary, must
have made a profound and unalterable impression in the minds of his
contemporaries, so that for centuries afterwards they continued to
live in the memory of the people. Evidence of this high pitch of
popularity is given by the numerous chansons de geste or romances,
which celebrate the deeds, or are connected with the name, of the
great and valiant champion of Christendom.

It is true that the sublime figure of Charlemagne, who with his
imaginary twelve peers perpetually warred against all heathenish or
Saracen people, in the romances of a later period, has been considerably
divested of that nimbus of majestic grandeur, which the composers
of the earlier poems take pains to diffuse around him.
Whereas, in the latter, the person of the Emperor appears adorned
with high corporeal, intellectual, and warlike gifts, and possessed of
all royal qualities; the former show us the splendour of Royalty
tarnished and debased, and the power of the feodal vassals enlarged
to the prejudice of the royal authority. Roland, in speaking of
Charlemagne, says, in the Chanson de Roland,
l. 376:—

and again the same Roland says of
the Emperor, in Guy de Bourgoyne,
l. 1061:—

This glorification of the great Christian hero took its rise in
France, but soon spread into the neighbouring countries, and before
long Charlemagne was celebrated in song by almost all European
nations. Indeed, there are translations, reproductions, compilations
of French Charlemagne romances to be met with in Italy, Spain, and
Portugal, as well as in Scandinavia and Iceland. Even in Hungary
and Russia these chansons of the Charlemagne cycle seem to have
been known.1

A full account of almost all Charlemagne romances will be found
in Gaston Paris’s exhaustive work of the Histoire poétique de
Charlemagne (Paris, 1865), and in Léon Gautier’s Epopées françaises
(Paris, 1867).

Of all the Charlemagne romances, that of Fierabras or Ferumbras
has certainly obtained the highest degree of popularity, as is shown
by the numerous versions and reproductions of this romance, from the
13th century down to the present day.

When the art of printing first became general, the first romance
that was printed was a prose version of Fierabras; and when the
study of mediæval metrical romances was revived in this century, the
Fierabras poem was the first to be re-edited.2

The balm of Fierabras especially seems to have been celebrated
for its immediately curing any wound; we find it referred to and
minutely described in Florian’s Don Quichotte, I. chap. 10. The
scene of Fierabras challenging to a combat the twelve peers of France,
and of his vaunting offer to fight at once with six (or twelve)
of them,3 must also have been pretty familiar to French readers, as
the name of Fierabras is met with in the sense of a simple common
noun, signifying “a bragging bully or swaggering hector.”4

Rabelais5 also alludes to Fierabras, thinking him renowned
enough as to figure in the pedigree of Pantagruel.

In 1833, on a tour made through the Pyrenees, M. Jomard witnessed
‹vii›
a kind of historical drama, represented by villagers, in which
Fierabras and Balan were the principal characters.6

That in our own days, the tradition of Fierabras continues to live,
is evident from the fact, that copies of the Fierabras story, in the
edition of the Bibliothèque Bleue, still circulate amongst the country
people of France.7 There is even an illustrated edition, published in
1861, the pictures of which have been executed by no less an artist
than Gustave Doré. And like Oberon, that other mediæval hero of
popular celebrity,8 Fierabras has become the subject of a musical
composition. There is an Opera Fierabras composed by Franz
Schubert (words by Joseph Kupelwieser) in 1823, the overture of
which has been arranged for the piano in 1827, by Carl Czerny.9

The different versions and the popularity of the present romance
in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany, having been treated in the
Introduction to Sir Ferumbras, we need not repeat it again here.10
As to the popularity of the Fierabras romance in the Netherlands,
the following passage from Hoffmann, Horæ Belgicæ (Vratislaviæ,
1830), I. 50, may be quoted
here11:—

That the Fierabras romance must have been well known and
highly popular in England and Scotland, may be gathered from the
numerous references to this poem in various Middle English works.

Thus the whole subject of the Fierabras romance is found in the
following passage, taken from Barbour’s Bruce, ed. Skeat, 3, 435 ss.,
where the King is described as relating to his
followers:—

In his poem of Ware the Hawk, Skelton (ed. Dyce, I. 162) cites
Syr Pherumbras as a great tyrant. He also refers to him in one of
his poems against Garnesche, whom he addresses with the following
apostrophe:—

The story of the combat between Oliver and Ferumbras is alluded
to by Lyndsay, in his Historie of ane Nobil and Wailȝeand Squyer,
William Meldrum, ed. Hall, ll. 1313–16:—

The tale of the fortified bridge of Mauntrible seems also to have
been very well known in England and Scotland. In the Complaint
of Scotland, ed. Murray, p. 63, we find the Tail of the Brig of the
Mantrible mentioned among other famous romances. In his lampoon
on Garnesche, Skelton describes his adversary as being more deformed
and uglier than

As has already been mentioned, amongst all the Charlemagne
romances the (originally French) romance of Fierabras is remarkable
as being one of the first that was rescued from the dust of libraries;
and it is worthy of note, in connection with it, that the first printed
version was not a French, but a Provençal one, which was published
not in France, the birth-place of the romance, but in Germany.

The manuscript of this Provençal version having been discovered
by Lachmann in the Library of Prince Ludwig von
Oettingen-Wallerstein,15
‹x›
somewhere about the year 1820, the poem was published
in 1829 by Immanuel Bekker.16

Raynouard, who drew attention to this edition of the poem in the
Journal des Savants, March 1831, supposed this Provençal version
to be the original.

Soon after Fauriel discovered at Paris two MSS. of the romance
in French, and a third French MS. was found in London,17 by Fr.
Michel, in 1838.

In 1852 Fauriel gave an account of the poem in the Histoire
Littéraire de la France, par les religieux bénédictins de congregation
de Saint-Maur . . . . . continuée par des membres de l’Institut, vol.
xxii. p. 196 et seq., where he also investigated the question of the
originality of the two versions, without arriving at a final solution;
as from the comparison of the French and the Provençal version, no
conclusion as to the original could be drawn in favour of either of
the two poems.18

As early as 1829 Uhland and Diez had expressed their opinion,
that in all probability the Provençal poem was to be looked upon as
a reproduction of some French source;19 and in 1839 Edelestand du
Méril, in France, had pointed out the French poem as the original
of the Provençal version;20 Guessard in his lectures at the Ecole des
Chartes, at Paris, had also defended the same opinion; when in
1860, the editors of the French Fierabras21 finally and irrefutably
proved the impossibility of considering the Provençal poem as
anything but a translation of a French original.
‹xi›

In 1865, Gaston Paris, in his Poetical History of Charlemagne,
pointed out that what we have now of the Fierabras romance must
be looked upon as a very different version from the old original
Fierabras (or Balan) romance, the former being indeed only a portion,
considerably amplified and in its arrangement modified, of the
old poem, the first portion of which has been lost altogether. Gaston
Paris had been led to this supposition by the rather abrupt opening
of the Fierabras, which at once introduces the reader in medias res,
and by the numerous passages of the Fierabras, which contain allusions
and references to preceding events; several of which, being
obscure and inexplicable from the context of the Fierabras itself,
can only be explained by assuming the existence of an earlier poem.

The main subject of the old Balan or Fierabras romance may be
given as follows:—“The Saracens having invaded Rome and killed
the Pope, Charlemagne sends, from France, Guy of Burgundy and
Richard of Normandy to the rescue of the city, and follows himself
with his main army. After a fierce combat between Oliver and
Ferumbras, the city is delivered from the Saracens, and a new Pope
established.”22
‹xii›

Of all the events related in the old Balan romance, there is but
one which is contained in the Fierabras poem, viz. the combat between
Oliver and Ferumbras, and even this has been greatly modified
in consequence of the composer’s transferring the scene of action from
Italy to Spain. All the other events related in the Fierabras, the
love of Floripas and Guy, the capture of the twelve peers, their
being besieged in the castle of Agremor, and their deliverance by
Charlemagne, and the ultimate wedding of Floripas and Guy are
altogether wanting in the original Fierabras [Balan] romance.

Therefore Gaston Paris was right in saying that the Fierabras
poem contained only the second part of the earlier poem, the first
part of which had not come down to us.

Now it seemed as though this view, which had been clearly
‹xiii›
demonstrated and generally adopted, would have to undergo a
thorough modification on the discovery of a new Fierabras Manuscript
in Hanover. Professor Grœber, having been informed of the
existence of that MS. by Professor Tobler, published from it, in 1873,
the poem of the Destruction de Rome,23 which in that MS. precedes
the Fierabras romance.24 In his Address to the Assembly of German
Philologists at Leipzig,25 the same scholar attempted to show that
this poem represented the first part of the earlier Balan romance.

This supposition, however, can only be accepted with reserve,
and needs a great modification, as by no means all the references to
previous events contained in the Fierabras receive explanation in
the Destruction, although all such previous events must have been
narrated in the original Balan. Moreover, one of these allusions
in the Fierabras is in direct contradiction to the contents of the
Destruction.

Thus ll. 2237 et seq. of the
Fierabras:26—

where
Floripas declares that she has seen Guy before Rome when
defeating Lukafer, widely differ from the account given in ll. 1355
et seq. of the Destruction, where Guy does not arrive at Rome until
after the departure of Laban’s army to Spain.

In the Destruction no clue is given which would enable us to
explain why Charles should be constantly applying to Richard in
the Fierabras (ll. 112 et seq.) for information about Fierabras, or why
Richard, in particular, should know more about Fierabras than any
one else. There is no mention in the Destruction of Richard chasing
‹xiv›
the Emir before him in the plain of Rome, to which event ll. 3708–9
of the Fierabras27 clearly refer.

The allusion contained in l. 2614,28

where Richard is said to have slain Corsuble and Mautrie, the uncle
of Floripas, is not cleared up by the Destruction, as in the three
passages, where Richard is mentioned there (ll. 246, 288, 541), he
does not play an active part at all, whereas from Mousket’s analysis
of the original Fierabras [Balan] romance, we know how important
a part Guy and Richard played in the old poem.29 There Richard
and Guy being sent off by Charlemagne as a first succour to the
oppressed Romans, succeeded in delivering Château-Miroir, which
had been seized by the Saracens. The story of the combat around
Château-Miroir, as related in the Destruction, ll. 593 ss., is thoroughly
different,30 as besides other variations, there is neither Richard nor
Guy concerned in it.

Therefore, as the contents of the Destruction are not identical
with Mousket’s analysis of the old Balan romance, and as several
passages alluding to events previously described are left unexplained
in the Destruction; and as there is even an instance of the Destruction
being in contradiction to the Fierabras, the poem of the Destruction
de Rome cannot be said to be identical with the first part of the
Balan romance.31
‹xv›

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, 7566^3.3.
• 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. 3334
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.

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›

The following is another example of
A (= the Ashmolean
Ferumbras) differing from F,
but agreeing with E:

Notwithstanding these resemblances of A to E, in passages where
A differs from F, E cannot have been the source of A, as there are
many instances where E and F show the same reading, whereas A
differs from both versions.

Thus, A, l. 340 et seq., it is Duke Reyner who blesses his son, and
not Charles, as E and F (l. 357) have it.

The names of Arrenor, Gwychard, Gayot, and Angwyree, given
in l. 814, differ from those which are mentioned in the corresponding
passage of E and F (ll. 1548–49).

There is no mention of Kargys being slain by Oliver (A 880) to
be found in E or F (l. 1670–76).

In A 1178, Lamasour advises the Soudan not to slay the prisoners;
in E and F (l. 1948) the same advice is given by Brulans.

The names of Lambrock and Colbrant (A 1616, 1618) are not
found in E and F, 2424.

A, ll. 1347–48, are wanting in E and F (2174).
‹xx›

Instead of a giant (A 1700) we find a giantess mentioned in E
and F (l. 2483).

Instead of Roland (A 1793) it is Naymes who speaks first in E
and F, 2570.

These few instances, the number of which might easily be increased,
will certainly suffice to show the impossibility of regarding
E as the original of A.

Only a short passage of the Didot MS. has been hitherto printed;38
therefore the arguments drawn from a comparison of A with that
printed passage cannot be considered as altogether irrefutable and
final. But as the Didot MS. belongs to the same family of MSS. as
E, we may at once presume, that as E cannot be taken for the
original of A, the possibility of the Didot MS. being the source of A,
is not very strong. Besides it may be stated, that no trace of the
two additional lines (ll. 19 and 2039) which the Didot MS. inserts
after l. 63 of a (or F) is found in A, although this version gives, in
ll. 52 ss., a pretty close translation of the corresponding passage in F
(ll. 50 et seq.). This may lead us to conclude that the Didot MS.
was not the source of A.

Comparing now A with what is known of the Hanover MS. of
Fierabras,40 we find A resembling to H in the following names:
Lucafer (only once Lukefer in A 2204), Maragounde (once Marigounde,
A 1364), Maubyn A = Maupyn H.—A 1700 and 2831,
which differ from F, equally agree with H. In the last case A agrees
also with E (although differing from F). Now as we know that H
together with D and E are derived from the same group z,41 we may
perhaps be justified in regarding a MS. of the latter group as the
original of A. But a more detailed comparison of A with H being
impossible at present, this argumentation wants confirmation.

The impossibility of regarding the Provençal version as the source
‹xxi›
of the Ashmolean Ferumbras, is proved by the fact that the long
additional account, the ‘episode’ as Professor Grœber calls it,42 is
wanting in A. Another proof is given by A, ll. 5763 et seq., where
A agrees with F, but widely differs from P.43

It seems superfluous to point out the inadmissibility of regarding
the French prose version as the original of A, the first edition of the
prose version being of a much later date than the Ashmole Ferumbras.
But also that version from which the prose romance has been copied
or compiled, cannot have been the original of A. For although the
phrase of A, 3888—“A skuntede as a bore”—seems to contain some
resemblance of expression with the reading of the prose Fierabras—“il
commença à escumer come s’il fust ung senglier eschaufé,” which
Caxton translates—“he began to scumme at the mouthe lyke a
bore enchaffed”—the reading of A, ll. 1307 ss., which greatly varies
from Caxton’s version (a translation of the French prose Fierabras),
renders inadmissible the supposition that the original of the French
prose version is the source of A.44

Having thus compared the Ashmolean Ferumbras, as far as can
be done at present, with all existing versions of this romance, we
arrive at the following conclusions.

The Ashmole Ferumbras is a pretty close translation of some
French version, which we are at present unable to identify. Its
original was neither of the same family (w) as the Fierabras, edited
by MM. Krœber and Servois, nor yet of that of the Escorial version.
Nevertheless, the original of Sir Ferumbras cannot have differed much
from the common original, from which these two groups of MSS. are
derived. To this original, called y by Grœber, the MS., from which
A has been copied, appears to have been more closely related than
to the Provençal version, from which it certainly is not derived. As
the liberties which the author of Sir Ferumbras took in translating
his original, consist only in very slight modifications, we may
conclude
‹xxii›
from his closeness of translation in general, that in those
passages of A which exhibit significant deviations from the known
French versions, these variations are not due to the composer of
the Ashmolean poem, but were already to be found in its original.
Therefore the Ashmole Ferumbras may be considered as representing
by itself the translation of an independent French MS., which perhaps
belonged, or at least was nearly related, to the type y.

I now come to the consideration of the Sowdan of Babylone,
which the simple analysis given by Ellis,45 shows to be an essentially
different work from the Ashmolean Ferumbras. Indeed, whilst the
Syr Ferumbras represents only a portion (viz. the second part) of the
original Fierabras [or Balan, as Gaston Paris has styled it],46 the
Sowdan approaches the original more nearly in that it contains the
long ‘introductory account’.47 For this first part of the Sowdan (as
far as l. 970), although it cannot be considered as identical with the
first portion of the old Balan romance, contains several facts, which,
however abridged and modified, show a great resemblance with those
which must have been the subject of the lost portion of the old
original. Whereas the Ashmolean Ferumbras is, on the whole, a
mere translation of a French original, the Sowdan must be looked
upon as a free reproduction of the English redactor, who, though
following his original as far as regards the course of events, modelled
the matter given there according to his own genius, and thus came
to compose an independent work of his own.

This point being fully treated in my Dissertation,48 I need not
again enter into discussion of it here. I only mention that the composer
of the Sowdan has much shortened his original, omitting all
episodes and secondary circumstances not necessarily connected with
the principal action, so that this poem does not contain half the
number of lines which his original had,49 and that the proportion of
the diffuse Ashmolean Ferumbras and the Sowdan is over five to
one.50
‹xxiii›

The subject of the ‘introductory account,’ or the first part of the
Sowdan, is nearly the same as that of the Destruction de Rome, differing
from this poem only in the omission of a few insignificant
incidents or minor episodes, and in greater conciseness, which latter
circumstances, however, enters into the general plan of the author.

Indeed, the author of the Sowdan seems to have known the
Destruction, as we see from a comparison of the two poems. Thus
the following instances show a great resemblance of expression of the
two versions:

Other instances of resemblance may be found in the following
passages:

S 49–50 = D 94–99;51 S 103 = D 202, 209; S 119 = D 385;
S 146 = D 445–46; S 150 = D 503–4; S 157 = D 509; S 300 =
D 967;
‹xxv›
S 303 = D 915; S 396 = D 977; S 312 = D 989; S 340
= D 1063; S 360 = D 1101; S 376 = D 1119, 1121; S 377 =
D 1133; S 380 = D 1136; S 699 = D 1379; S 723 = D 1384,
&c., &c.

Besides, there are some names which occurring in none of the
French versions, but in the Destruction, point to this poem as to the
original of the Sowdan. Thus Savaris52 (S 171) seems to be taken
from D 540.

Astragot or Estragot, S 346, 2944, 3022, the name of the giant by
whom Savaris is slain, and who is said to be the husband of Barrock,
occurs in D 1090.

The Ascopartes, a people subjected to the Soudan, are mentioned
in D 98, 426, but not in F or P.

King Lowes, in the context where it occurs (S 24) is clearly taken
from D 9.

Iffrez, S 165, is perhaps the same as Geffroi in D 1139, 1367,
1122.

[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, Fremond55),
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.

As to the following or second part of the Sowdan, on the whole
the same subject is treated of as in the Ashmole Ferumbras. But
there are many differences between the two poems.

In the Sowdan, l. 1411 et seq., Roland is captured by the Saracens
at the same time as Oliver, and both on being conducted before
Laban at once avow their names. In the Ashmole MS., ll. 909, &c.,
Oliver is led away to the Soudan together with Gwylmer, Berard,
Geoffrey, and Aubray, whereas Roland is among the French peers
whom Charlemagne sends on a mission to Laban to demand the
surrender of Oliver.57

The names of the twelve peers do not agree in both poems. In
the Sowdan we find the following list (cf. ll. 1653 et seq., and ll.
1730, 880):—Roland, Oliver, Duk Neymes of Bavere, Oger Danoys,
Tery Lardeneys, Folk Baliante, Aleroyse of Loreyne, Miron of
Braban, Bishop Turpyn, Bernard of Spruwse, Bryer of Mountez,58
Guy of Bourgoyne.59—Richard of Normandye, although a most important
personage, is not included amongst the Douzeperes. Nor is
Guenelyn mentioned as a peer of France. Four of these names, Folk
Baliant, Turpyn, Bernard of Spruwse, Aleroyse of Loreyne, do not
occur at all in the Ashmolean Ferumbras.60

The new game which Lucafer wants to teach Neymes, is differently
described in the two poems, there being no mention made in
the Ashmol. MS. (ll. 2231 et seq.) of the thread, needle, and coal, as
spoken of in ll. 1998–2000 of the Sowdan.
‹xxviii›

In the Sowdan, l. 2507, Laban, being engaged with his gods,
seizes the image of Mahound and smashes it. This incident is
omitted in Syr Ferumbras (ll. 3345).

In the Ashmole MS., ll. 5760 et seq., Ferumbras tries to persuade
his father to become a Christian, whilst Floripas urges Charles not to
delay in putting him to death. In the Sowdan, l. 3156 et seq., there
is no mention of either of them interfering either for or against their
father.

Ashm. MS., ll. 130 et seq., differs greatly from the corresponding
passage in the Sowdan (ll. 1647 et seq.). In the latter poem the
knights are pulled up from their dungeon with a rope, whilst in the
former they have their fetters taken off by means of a sledge-hammer,
anvil, and tongs, &c.

In the Sowdan, l. 3044, Richard of Normandy is left back as a
governor of Mantrible; in the Ashmole version, l. 4881 et seq.,
Raoul and Howel are ordered to keep that place, whereas Richard
accompanies Charlemagne (cf. l. 5499).

In the Ashm. MS., l. 5209, Neymes sees first Charles coming
with his host; in the Sowdan, l. 3083, it is Floripas who first
discovers the banner of France.

The prayer which Charlemagne, seeing Oliver in distress, addressed
to Christ, in the Sowdan, l. 1304 et seq., is not mentioned in
the Ashm. version.

The account of the duel between Oliver and Ferumbras differs
considerably in the two versions. In the Ashmolean MS., l. 580,
the incident of Oliver assisting Ferumbras to arm (cf. Sowdan, 1158)
is omitted, and it is not Oliver (as in the Sowdan, l. 1270) who is
disarmed, but Ferumbras, whom his adversary offers to accept his
own sword back (Ashm. MS., l. 680).

In the Ashmolean version, l. 102, Ferumbras offers to fight at
once with twelve of Charles’s knights; in the corresponding passage
of the Sowdan, l. 1067, he challenges only six.

In the Sowdan, l. 1512 et seq., Floripas advises her father not to
slay the captive peers, but to detain them as hostages that might be
exchanged for Ferumbras. In the Ashm. MS., l. 1178, it is not
Floripas, but Lamasour, who gives that advice to the amirant.
‹xxix›

As in many of the variations, mentioned just before, there are
many omissions in the Ashmole MS., which are related in the
Sowdan, it becomes evident that the Ashmolean version cannot have
been the original from which the Sowdan was copied, which is also
proved by several names occurring in the Sowdan, but which are
not to be found in Syr Ferumbras. Thus, for instance, the names
of Espiard, Belmore, Fortibrance, Tamper,61 do not occur at all in the
Ashmolean version, whereas other names have quite a different form
in the latter poem. For Generyse, S 1135, 1239, we find Garin,
A 216, 443; Barrock, S 2939, 2943, 3022 = Amyote, A 4663;
Alagolofur, S 2135, 2881 = Agolafre, A 3831, 4327; and Laban is
always spelt Balan in the Ashmolean poem, &c.

Now as there are some passages where the Sowdan, while it differs
from the Ashm. MS., corresponds with the French Fierabras, we
might be inclined to think that poem to be the original of the
Sowdan. Thus Charlemagne’s prayer and the name of Bishop Turpin,
which are omitted in the Ashm. MS., occur in the French Fierabras.
But there are several differences between the Sowdan and the French
poem.

In the Fierabras, l. 1933, the French prisoners, on being brought
before the Soudan, do not avow their true names as they do in the
Sowdan, l. 1498.

In the French poem, l. 704, Oliver tells his adversary his name
before the fight begins; in the Sowdan, l. 1249, he does not confess
his true name until they had fought for a considerable time.

In the Fierabras, l. 1043, Oliver drinks of the bottles of balm,
which is not mentioned in the Sowdan, l. 1190.

Again, Fierabras, ll. 1329 ss., where Ferumbras having disarmed
Oliver, tells him to take his sword back again, does not agree with
ll. 1279–82 of the Sowdan.

Instead of Floripas (S 1515), Brulans advises the Soudan not to
slay the prisoners in F 1949.

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.

Unfortunately the fragment printed from the Hanover MS. is too
short to allow of an exact comparison with that version. We only
know65 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 compiled71 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.

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›

I or y, the descendants of original u (which in Old English
[Anglo-Saxon] had already become y or i in consequence of i- mutation
or umlaut)—are found rhyming with original i:—ll. 449, 881,
kyn : him, 2060 : wynne; 1657, fille : stille; 1973, fire : desire, &c.
It must, however, be noted that the rhyme king : inne (l. 372) or
king : thing (ll. 173, 236) cannot be regarded as an East-Midland
peculiarity, because king, drihten, chikken, the i of which is a modification
of original u, are to be met with in all Middle-English dialects,
as has been shown by Professor Zupitza in the Anzeiger für deutsches
Altertum, vol. vi. p. 6.

Old English short a, which is liable to change into o, appears in
this
poem—

(1) always as o, before n- combinations (nd, nt, ng):—531,
stronge : istonge; 3166, bronte : fonte; 214, amonge : longe, &c.

(2) as a, before the single consonants m and n:—1120, name :
shame, 935 : same, 1739 : grame; 785, 1773, man : Lavan; 3125,
came : Lavan (cf. 2579, Lavan : tane); 2160, came : dame, &c.—The
fact that com (ll. 547, 1395, 3095, &c.) is used as well as cam
as sing. preterite indic. need occasion no difficulty if we remember
that the original short a (or o) of cam (or com) had already been
lengthened into ô in the O.E. period.73 Came and come as pret. sing.
are employed indifferently in Chaucer as well as in the Celestin (ed.
Horstmann, Anglia, i. 56), which is known to have been composed
in the East-Midland dialect.

O long, from O.E. â, in our poem has that broad sound which
is peculiar to the East-Midland dialect. We find it rhyming
with—

(1) original ô:—1025, wrothe : sothe; 801, goo : doo; 60, inowe :
blowe; 325, so : ido, &c.

(2) unchangeable a:—257, Aufricanes : stoones; 506, gon : than;
2049, agoon : Lavan, &c.

As many East-Midland works74 the Sowdan has three forms for
O.E. þâr:—thare, thore, there, all of which are established by the
rhyme:—1805, thore : Egremoure (cf. 2895, Egremoure : tresoure,
1003, Agremore : more); 126, thore : lore; 430, thare :
sware;
‹xxxvi›
2245, there : chere, 2404 : bere; 2604, there :
were
(wron),
208 : were (werian), &c.

We likewise find sore and sare75 (O.E. sâre):—1196, sore : more;
166, sare : care; 1377, sore : thore.

The O.E. diphthongs ea and eo and the O.E. ŷ (mutated from êa
or êo) appear as e in this poem:—1595, me : see, 632 : fee, 1339 :
free, 405 : be; 1535, depe : slepe; 1011, 1523, dere : here; 963,
yere : vere, 1257 : Olyvere; 996, nere : were; 596, 1528, nede : spede;
1702, eke : speke; 1726, leke : speke; 184, 215, 1208, shelde : felde;
2530, hevene : elevene, &c.

A brief summary of the grammatical inflexions employed in the
poem will also give evidence of a great similarity with the forms
used by other East-Midland writers, and will serve to show that the
language of the Sowdan agrees closely with that of Chaucer.

In the declension of substantives the only remnant of case-formation
by means of inflexions is the ending used to form the
Genitive Singular and the Plural.

The genitive singular of nouns ends in es (sometimes written -is
or ys) for all genders:—356, develes; 1209, stedes; 849, worldis;
1804, worldes; 3035, dammes; 1641, nedes; 1770, shippes; 1072,
faderis.

Substantives ending in -s in the nominative case, remain unchanged
in the genitive case:—1214, 1287, Ferumbras; 2006,
Naymes; 3207, Charles; 1639, 1350, Floripas.—Florip, l. 614, is
the genitive case of Floripe or Florip, l. 2027, 1571.

The nominative plural of all genders is formed by
-es
(-is,
-ys) or
-s:—919,
knightes,
1947, 2276, knightis; 1384, horses, 1401, horsys;
429, 2054, gatis; 192, wordes; 837, swerdes; 174,
hedes; 2289, ladies;
3271, soules; 26, bokes; 606, peres; 297, tours, &c. Examples of a plural case without
s are seen in thinge,
l. 2, 1709:—O.E. þing; honde, 987, O.E. handa,
as well as hondes, 1412, 2568; frende, 3212, O.E. frŷnd,
as well as frendes, 1011, O.E. frêondas. Other plurals which are equally easily
explained by their O.E. forms are:—eyen, 825,
O.E. êagan; shoone,
1381, O.E. scêon; fete,
1403, O.E. fêt, fote,
1427, O.E. fôtum, 2673, O.E. fôta. ‹xxxvii›

To mark the difference between the definite and indefinite forms
of adjectives is a difficult task; as the final
-e had in most cases
already become silent in the poet’s dialect, it seems probable that he
no longer observed the distinction.

The pronouns are the same as in Chaucer and in other East-Midland
poems:—I, me, thou, the; he, hym; sche, her and hir; it
and hit (cf. note to l. 41); we, us; ye, you.
The plural of the personal
pronoun of the 3rd person is thai and he (cf. note to l. 2698)
for the nominative case; hem, and in some doubtful passages (see
note to l. 88) thaym for the accusative case.

As in Chaucer, the pronoun of the 2nd person is often joined to
the verb:—hastow 1680, maistow 1826, shaltow 1669, woltow 1727,
wiltow 1151, artow 1967, kanstow 2335, &c.

Possessive pronouns:—myn and thyn are used before vowels and
before h; my, thy before consonants. Only once, l. 90, my is placed
before a vowel. His, hire and here; our, your; here and (twice,
623, 1244) thair.

The demonstrative pronouns are this, these or thes; that.

The definite article the or þe, is used for all cases singular and
plural. But we find besides, the following examples of inflexion:—tho,
2063, O.E. þâ, and the accusative sing. þon, 108. In l. 2052, tho
means ‘them, those’ = Lat. eos. Tha, l. 2639, seems to be a mistake
of the scribe, it is perhaps miswritten for þat (day), cf. l. 619.

Men, 115, 1351, and me, 287, are used as indefinite pronouns.
Everyche, every, everychone occur frequently. Note also ichoon
2774, ilka 2016; thilke 2644, eche 1865.

That or þat, who, whome are used as relative pronouns. The
interrogative pronouns are who and what.

Verbs. The plural imperative ends in -eth
or -th, which, however,
we find frequently omitted, as in l. 194, prove you, 2078
proveth; 2131 sende, 167 sendith; telle 1977, tellyth 1625, &c.

The -n of the infinitive mood is often dropped, as in
Chaucer:—274, 1588, sene : bene; 1124, see : tre; 658 :
cite; 600, be : cite; 1225 : contre; 1411, flee : cite;
3065, fleen : men; 1282, sloo : mo; 792, sloone : one, &c.

The final -(e)n of past participles of strong verbs is in most
cases
‹xxxviii›
dropped, as in Chaucer:—3176 forlorne: borne, 32 born, 3011 wonne,
21 wonnen, 2756 comen : nomen, 155 come, 2476 holpe, 1362 bygote,
1026 blowe, &c.

Weak verbs form their past participles in -ed,
-d, -et, -t, much as
in Chaucer:—lerned 3042, eyde 1648, toolde 670, bogt 111, delte
526, displaied 133.

The prefix i- or y- occurs sometimes, icome 784, come 155,
istonge 533, itake 49, taken 1430, &c.

The present participles end in -inge and ande, as is often the case
in East-Midland works:—2831 prikande : comande, 435 cryande,
924 makande, 3225 mornynge : kynge, 2399 slepynge : honde, where
evidently slepande is the true reading.

As in Chaucer the 2nd person preterite of strong verbs is sometimes
formed by -est or -ist,
letist 2167; but we find also regular
forms, as in slough 1259, where, however, the O.E. e (slôge) is
already dropped.

The -en or -n of the preterite plural and of past participles is
commonly dropped, ronnen 3007, ronne 2959, took 477, tokene 2621,
slough 78, sloughen 401, ido 327: so, &c.

The -d in the past participles and in the preterite of weak verbs
is sometimes omitted, as often happens in East-Midland works.
Thus we find comforte 2242 and comforted 312, commaunde 57 and
commaunded 228, graunte 607, liste 1132, list 1966, discumfite 1464,
&c. On the same analogy we find light 1125, 1189, and lighted
3109, worth 1203, and worthed 1163.

As regards the final -e’s, it may be remarked that the scribe has
added many final -e’s, where the rules would not lead us to suspect
them, and has often given a final -e to words which in other passages
of the poem, although similarly used, have no e:—note 245, 274, not
255, 313; howe 19, how 275; undere 61, under 713; bute 247, but
8; cooste 202, coost 3062; crafte 424, craft 2335; ashamede 1295,
ashamed 558, &c.

This is due either to carelessness on the part of the scribe, or
perhaps to the fact that in the speech of the copyist the final e’s had
already become altogether silent, so that finding many words ending
in -e and not knowing its meaning, he considered it as a mere
‹xxxix›
“ornament in writing” (Ellis, Pronunciation, i. 338), and sometimes
added, sometimes omitted it.

With respect to the composer of the Sowdan himself, there may
be some doubt left whether in his speech the final e had become
altogether silent, or was still pronounced occasionally. From the
following instances it may be concluded with certainty that the poet
very frequently did not sound the final e:—757 boghtẹ :
noght, 3154 hat : fat, 961 wrongẹ : distruccion, 556
onlacẹ : was; cf. also 1383, 1611, 2163; 2795 spékẹ we of
Ríchard, 2999 fought, 2093, 859 bringẹ, 9, 2547 keptẹ,
834 wentẹ, 142 comẹ, 713 wodẹ.

In other cases there is no certainty whether the final e is quite
silent or must be slightly pronounced or slurred over, so as to form
trisyllabic measures. It must be noted, however, that in supposing
trisyllable measures in all these doubtful cases, the number of this
kind of measure will increase to a great amount in the Sowdan.
Therefore I rather incline to think the final e silent also in the
following instances:—2090 défendẹ this place, 1201 brékẹ
both báke, 861 cómẹ from ál, 2119 askẹ consaile, 1597
wólẹ these traítours, 1783 whéns comẹ yé, 2317 pássẹ
that brígge, 1100 rónnẹ bytwéne, 2997 fóught so lónge, 175
brokẹ nothinge, 1658 béddẹ with ríght, 713 grénẹ
wodẹ síde, 571 hómẹ to Rómẹ that nýght, 1610 the fáls
jailoúr feddẹ yoúr prisonére, 2152 fáls traitóurs of Fránce,
921 chárged the yónge with ál, 380 aboútẹ midnýghte,
726 sóne to hím, 160 únneth not óne [Chaucer still pronounces
unnethë].

Nevertheless there seems to be some instances where the final e
is to be sounded, as in ll. 298, 2790, 1332, 1619, 2740, 592, 2166,
2463, 1405, 2386, 895, 332, 91.

Final en also seems sometimes not to constitute a separate syllable:—1365
waít
uppon mé, 459
brék
our wállis, 45
slép
with ópyne ýȝe, 485
cóm
by the cóst, 2313
díd
it aboút, &c.

In all these cases n had very probably already fallen off in the
speech of the poet, as the following examples lead us to suppose:—178
wynne : him, 1582
dye : biwry, 2309 shewe  :
trewe, 2107 slépe to
lónge, 861 cóme from ál, &c.

As regards the final es of nouns, the poet seems to have observed
the same rules as those followed by Chaucer; viz. es is sounded
when
‹xl›
joined to monosyllabic stems; it does not increase the number of
syllables (and therefore is often spelt-s instead of-es), when the stem
has two or more syllables:—197, 277 goddës, 665 nailës, 445 tentës,
2068 tentïs, 174, 1799 hedës, 2032, 2868 swerdës, 2327 wallës, 1209
stedës, 1770 shippës, 2702 somers, 2687, 2591 felowes, 2660 felows,
2412 maydyns, 647, 1597 traytours, 2036 orders, 45 lovers, 2612,
3098 develes, 1072 faderis, 203, 862 sowdons, 881 sarsyns.

The final es of adverbs seems no longer to constitute a separate
syllable:—2213 hónged’ els bý, 2786 éls had’ hé, 2109 éllis I may
sínge, 1525 élles wol’ hé, 2061 théns, 1783 whens.

METRE AND VERSIFICATION.
◊

THE
poem is composed in four-line stanzas. The arrangement of
the rhyme is such that the 1st and 3rd lines rhyme together, and the
2nd and 4th together, which gives the following rhyme-formula:
a b a b. The rhyme-endings employed in one stanza do not occur
again in the next following.

But it must be noticed that there seem to occur some instances
of eight-line stanzas, one of which, beginning at l. 1587, is built on
the model employed by Chaucer. Others are arranged differently.
Those beginning at ll. 1059 and 1219 show the rhyme-formula
a b a b a c a c, in that of l. 1411 the 2nd and 4th lines are
rhymed together, and the 5th and 7th, whilst the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 8th,
all end with the same rhyme. The formula for the stanzas beginning
at ll. 807, 879, 1611 is a b a b c b c b. In the stanza of l. 939 all
the pair lines are rhymed together, and the odd ones also, which is
the only instance in the poem of eight consecutive lines having only
two rhyme-endings, as generally eight lines show four different rhyme-endings,
and three only in the passages cited above. But the whole
stanza of l. 939 seems not to be due to the author; he has very
probably borrowed it from some other poem.76

Turning now our attention to the fact that the lines occurring
between the Initials or Capital Letters, which are met with in some
passages in the MS., are often divisible by eight, we might feel
‹xli›
inclined to regard this as an additional reason for considering the
stanza employed in the Sowdan as an eight-line one. Indeed, the
portion from the Initial of l. 1679 to the next one of l. 1689 might
be taken for one single stanza. The 24 lines from l. 575 (beginning
with an Initial) to the next Initial in l. 598 might equally be considered
as three stanzas, whilst there are 5 times 8 lines = 5 eight-line
stanzas from the Initial of l. 2755 to the next Initial in l. 2795.

In all these instances the supposition of eight-line stanzas would
suit the context, as is the case also with other passages. Thus in the
following cases it might seem as though eight lines taken together
were more closely connected and made better sense than four lines,
e. g. ll. 583–598, 1703–1710, 1679–1686, 939–962, 1043–1050,
244 ss., 455 ss., 631 ss., 1059 ss.

But, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that there are
also a great many cases where, as regards the sense, four lines can be
considered as an independent whole, when, e. g., the speech spoken
by a person is contained in four lines, and the words of another
person replying to the first follow in the next four lines. Very often
also these next four lines contain only a part of the second person’s
reply, so that the remainder of his reply falls into the following
stanza. This ‘enjambement’ or continuation of the sense, and sometimes
of the syntactical construction from one stanza to another, need
not, of course, prevent us from admitting the supposition of eight-line
stanzas; as, upon the whole, it is met with in all poems composed
in stanzas, and as it is frequently used in Le Morte Arthur
(Harleian MS. 2252, ed. Furnivall), which is written in eight-line
stanzas; but as there is no instance known of an eight-line stanza
containing four different rhyme-endings, which at this supposition it
would be the case with the Sowdan, the eight-line stanzas containing
either three rhyme-endings, as in Chaucer, or two, as in Le Morte
Arthur, and as in some passages of the Sowdan (ll. 1691, 1695, 1699,
1711, 1715), we find Initials placed after four lines, I believe a
stanza of four alternately rhyming lines to be the one intended by
the composer—a metre which, according to Guest, History of Eng.
Rhythms, ii. 317—‘must have been well known and familiar during
the fifteenth century.’ The few eight-line stanzas quoted above, may
‹xlii›
then be owing either to the inadvertence of the poet, who somewhat
carelessly employed one of the two rhyme-endings of one stanza a
third and fourth time in the following one, or, perhaps also, he intentionally
retained that rhyme-ending, and he inserted eight-line stanzas
amongst those of four verses as a mere matter of variation. It is
perhaps not impossible that the retention of this rhyme-ending was
not greatly felt.

As regards the rhymes themselves, they are both monosyllabic or
masculine rhymes, and dissyllabic or feminine ones. Frequently they
are used alternating with each other, as in the stanzas beginning with
l. 2755.

Sometimes we find four feminine rhymes occurring in an unbroken
succession, as in ll. 1263–66. But it must be noticed that
the number of masculine rhymes is predominant. Thus the stanzas
beginning with ll. 3047, 3063, 3123, 1123, 791, 1035, 1271, 1275,
2019, 1311, 1351, 1463, &c., contain only masculine rhyme-endings.

The rhymes are not always full and true; there occur many
imperfect ones.

(1) A word in the singular number is often rhymed with a word
in the plural number, which therefore has an additional s (or es):—797,
thinge : tidyngys; 2647, fyght : knyghtes; 2087, light :
knightes; 1455, cosynes : kinge; 2272, laye : dayes; 2395, 885,
Ogere : peres; 2456,
alle : walles; 2682, nede : stedes; 944, mone :
stoones; cf. also 2376, wile : beguiled. In l. 68, poundis : dromonde;
the rhyme becomes perfect in reading pounde, as in l. 2336, instead
of poundis.

(2) Single n is found rhyming with n- combinations.

α. n : nd—cf. 814, ychoon : Mahounde; 912,
pavilone : Mahounde; 1201, crowne : Mahounde. The rhyme, 162,
Rome : houne, may be explained in the same manner, for houne
stands for hounde, as it is spelt in ll. 237, 2377, 935, 1756.77

β. n : ng—cf. 2349, Mapyne : endinge; 86,
Apolyne : tithinge; 370, inne : kinge; 1455, cosynes :
kinge; 3249, Genelyne : kinge; 3171, serpentyne : endinge;
959, distruccion : wronge.
‹xliii›

In 614, love : vowe, the second rhyme vowe does not contain
the consonant v.

(3) Rhymes imperfect as concerns the consonants.

m : n—cf. 76, Rome : one; 1672, 364 : done; 2443, 366, come :
done; 747, some : soudone; 1323, came : than; 1488, came : ranne;
2128, tyme : pyne; 177, him : wynne; 2375, him : tene; 447, 859,
him : kyn; 2004, hyme : skyne; 2353, him : inne.

f : v—cf. 341, twelve : selve; 415, wife : alive; 1762, gyfene :
lyvene; 1912, gife : lyve. But in all these cases the rhymes are
really perfect, they seem only imperfect in consequence of the copyist
writing indiscriminately f and v. Thus the rhyme of l. 341 reappears
in l. 1867, self : twelf. In l. 2336 we find gefe, which is written geve
in l. 198; lefe, l. 764; safe, l. 864, are spelt with v in ll. 1340,
1529, 2808.

l : n—cf. l. 363, consaile : slayne. Quite similar is l. 1251,
felde : sende.

p : k—l. 820, stoupe : stroke. A similar rhyme occurs in Guy,
l. 10903, scapid : nakid.

d : t—l. 2868, gyrde : sterte; 1151, plete : dede.

d : p—l. 283, tyde : depe. But this rhyme is very probably
owing to the scribe. For depe we ought to read wide.

A single consonant rhymes with a double consonant. The only
certain instance occurs in l. 311, tyde : chidde. For in ll. 312, 317,
dele : welle, we might read wele, as this word is frequently spelt in
the poem; cf. ll. 385, 2618, 1173, 1651, &c. For dedde in l. 2980
(rede : dedde) we may substitute dede, which occurs in l. 2510. The
rhyme glad : hadde, 2687, becomes perfect if we read gladde, which
is the usual spelling of the word in the poem; cf. ll. 439, 570, 918,
&c. Besides, I believe hadde to be monosyllabic. Ferre : nere
l. 1575; in l. 117 we find fere.

The rhyme, l. 2654, sloughe : drowe can easily be restored in
reading slowe, which occurs frequently, as in ll. 2401, 2683, 304,
2208, &c. The rhyme ane : shafe, 555, seems to be due to some
clerical error.

(4) Rhymes imperfect as concerns the vowels.

a : e—2803, gate : lete; perhaps we are justified in
reading late,
‹xliv›
cf. Havelock, 328; l. 2752, made : dede. The rhymes thare : were,
1383; bare : there, 671; Agremare : there, 33, are really perfect
ones, as we know the poet to have used thare, there, and thore indiscriminately;
cf. ll. 208, 2604, 430, 1805, 1003; l. 1436, ladde :
nede; 2365, ladde : bedde, the author probably pronounced ledde.
For lefte, l. 2335 : craft, we may read lafte, as is shown by l. 424,
lafte : crafte. In ll. 1781, 544, tene : than, the rhyme will be
improved by reading then.

a : o (cf. p. xxxv)—504, thane : gone; 1143, 1079, Rolande : honde;
133, sowdone : Lavan (where we might read sowdan, as in l. 1491);
627, sowdane : towne; 2527, 1684, Roulande : londe.

i(y) : e. This rhyme also occurs in Chaucer; cf. Ellis, Pron. i.
272; see also Guy, p. xiv.—l. 21419, him : hem; 1299, dynte :
lente; 523, strike : breke; 1643, mylde : shelde; 1263, togedere :
thidere; 1277, wepenless : iwis; 344, shitte : mette; 2538, hende :
wynde (read wende), &c.; l. 82, vilane : remedye (read vilanye, as in
ll. 179, 2577); but 1015, vilane : me, cf. Guy, xi, ν—813, sle :
curtesye; 895, we : lye; cf. Ellis, Pron., i. 271.

The monophthong y is rhymed with a diphthong, the second part
of which is y:—l. 441, Sarsynes : Romaynes; 2761, Apolyne :
agayne; 2105 : slayne; 2175 : eyne; 2280, dye : waye (cf. 1582);
589, fyne : Bourgoyne.

o: ou (ow).—l. 1023, wrothe : southe (which is written sothe in
ll. 2014, 2024, 2246, 2719); 779, fonde : grounde; 260, clarione :
soune; 879, lione : crowne; 2780, malison : towne, &c. Cf. also
1264, endured : covered.

o: e.—463, oost : best. The rhyme is restored in reading rest
instead of oost.

o: i.—l. 966, sonne : begynne.

ue: ewe.—l. 2312, vertue : fewe. But this rhyme cannot be objected
to, as “final French u (as in due) was diphthongized into eu
in Chaucerian English.”78

Other irregularities are:—l. 112, douȝte : rowte; 1987, use :
house; 1131, thou : lough; 1200, moost : goist; 1730,
dethe : sleith;
‹xlv› 2136, pas : grace; 1611, was :
mace (in which cases e is silent); 931, 1144, peris : fiers.

A line or verse generally contains four accented syllables, separated
from each other by one or by two unaccented syllables, so that
there are some instances of trisyllabic feet, as in ll. 817, 834, 2035,
2301, 2791, 3020, 3073, 2313, &c. In ll. 692, 695, two accented
syllables are put close together without being separated by an unaccented
one, which is altogether wanting. In some passages we find
lines of three accented syllables alternating with those of four accents,
as in ll. 575–582, 763–770, 839–846, 871–878, 2287–2290,
&c. But in most cases lines with four accents follow each other in
an unbroken succession, as in ll. 1–372, 995–1010, 1026–1029,
1067–1107, 1147–1154, 1731–1734, &c.

A few instances of verses with more than four accented syllables
are also to be met with in the Sowdan. They are either due to the
author and therefore intended, as in l. 37, where the poet almost
literally imitates his original,79 or they may be considered as due to
some clerical error, in which case the metre generally can be restored
by a slight emendation.

A verse has generally an iambic effect, that is to say, the first foot
begins with an unaccented syllable, which is followed by an accented
one. Frequently, however, the first accented syllable is preceded by
two unaccented ones, as in ll. 41, 75, 127, 151, 367, 849, 1060,
1815, 1819, 2289, 2758, &c. There are some instances of the first
foot consisting of a single (accented) syllable only, the unaccented
one being altogether wanting, as in ll. 2120, 2288, 2374, 2394, &c.

DATE OF THE POEM AND NAME OF THE AUTHOR.
◊

GEORGE
Ellis attributes the present poem to the end of the fourteenth
or beginning of the fifteenth century. “I think,” he says in
his Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances, ed. Halliwell,
p. 380, “it would not be difficult to prove from internal evidence,
that the present translation80 cannot be earlier than the end of the
fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century.”
‹xlvi›

Having seen from the summary of grammatical peculiarities that
there is a great similarity between the language of Chaucer and that
of the composer of this romance, we might be inclined to consider
the latter as a contemporary of Chaucer. From some passages of the
Sowdan, which seem to contain allusions to Chaucerian poetry, we
may conclude that the poet must have known the Canterbury Tales.
Thus ll. 42–46:—

appear to be imitated from the Prologue of the Canterbury Tales,
ll.
10–12:—

Further on we remark in ll.
939–40:—

some traces of resemblance with the Knight’s Tale, ll.
1123–26:—

which may still be compared with the first lines of the
Prologue of
Queen Anelida and False Arcite:—

Now the Prologue of the Canterbury Tales and the Knight’s Tale,
being written in couplets, or lines arranged in pairs, were certainly
composed after 1385,82 or rather after 1389.83 From the
treatment of
‹xlvii›
the final e’s, which, contrary to Chaucer’s usage, seem to have been
silent in a great number of cases in the poet’s speech, we may further
conclude that the Sowdan must be somewhat later than the Canterbury
Tales. Therefore the poet of the Sowdan cannot have been
merely a later contemporary of Chaucer; I rather think it to be more
probable that he must have lived some time after him. This would
bring us to the beginning of the fifteenth century as the date of the
romance.

As to the name and profession of the poet nothing is known, and
we have no clue whatever from the poem.

MS. OF THE SOWDAN.
◊

The present edition of the Sowdan is printed from the unique
MS. of the late Sir Thomas Phillips, at Middle Hill, Worcestershire,
which is now in the possession of the Rev. John E. A. Fenwick,
Thurlestane House, Cheltenham. Sir Thomas Phillips purchased the
MS. at Mr. Heber’s sale.84 The oldest possessor’s name which we
find noted, is on the reverse of the last leaf of the Manuscript, where
is written, “This is John Eteyes (or Ebeye’s) boke, witnes by John
Staff”—in a hand circa temp. Eliz. or Jac. I. By some notes made
by former possessors on the first fly-leaf of the MS., and by the
autograph names which we find there, we learn that Geo. Steevens
bought the MS. “at Dr. Farmer’s Sale, Friday June 15, 1798, for
1: 10. 0.” On May 20th, 1800, it was “bought at the Sale of
Geo. Stevens, for 3. 4. 6.” by “O. Grah^m Gilchrist.”

A transcript of the MS. made by Geo. Stevens had been presented
by him to Mr. Douce. This copy was re-transcribed by Geo.
Ellis, who, in 1811, published some extracts with an analysis of the
romance in the Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances.85 The
same copy has been followed by Halliwell, who in his Dictionary
of Arch. and Prov. W., has several quotations86 from the present
romance, which he styles as “MS. Douce, 175.”
‹xlviii›

The poem of the Sowdan was first printed by the Roxburghe
Club in 1854.87 The text of the present edition differs from that of the
editio princeps in so far as punctuation is introduced, which is altogether
disregarded by the MS. and the Roxburghe Club edition. In
some passages words which have been written as one in the MS. are
separated in the text; thus a laye, l. 2694; a ras, l. 645, are printed
instead of alaye, aras. Sometimes also words written separately in
the MS. are united by a hyphen, as be-falle, 14; i-wiss, 71; i-sought,
725; with-oute, 841; a-bide, 818; a-ferde, 1337, &c. These slight
deviations from the MS., which are always indicated in the footnotes,
seemed advisable on account of the great help they afford the
reader in understanding the text. More important emendations and
corrections of evident scribal blunders and other mistakes are given
in the foot-notes, and will be found explained in the Notes.

The Index of Names will be useful to those who wish to compare
the Sowdan with any other version of the romance.

The Glossarial Index contains besides the obsolete terms all those
words the spelling or the signification of which essentially differs
from that now accepted. Words which show only slight orthographical
variations from their modern form have not been included, as the
reader will have no difficulty in identifying them.

In conclusion I have the pleasant duty of acknowledging the
invaluable assistance which Professor Zupitza at all times readily
and freely gave me. My best thanks are also due to Mr. Furnivall
and to Mr. Napier for their kind advice and suggestions, and to
Mr. Herrtage for collating a transcript of the poem with the MS.

EMIL
HAUSKNECHT.

Berlin,
January, 1881.

FOOTNOTES.
◊

1
Histoire Poét., p. 133–4.

2
Gautier, Epopées, ii. 308.

3
Cf. the French Fierabras, l. 84; Sir Ferumbras,
l. 102; Sowdone, l. 1067.

4
Thus in Scarron, Gigant, iii.

5
Pantagruel, ii. chap. 1.

6
See the most interesting account of this piece and its curious manner of
representation in Histoire Littéraire de la France, xvii. 720–21.

7
Gautier, Epopées, ii. p. 308; and Histoire Poétique, p. 99.

8
See Huon de Bourdeaux, edd. Guessard and Grandmaison, p. xxxviii.

9
See G. Nottebohm, Thematisches Verzeichniss der im Druck erschienenen
Werke von Franz Schubert. Wien, 1874.—Op. 76.

10
Cf. besides, Histoire Poétique, pp. 97, 143, 155, 214, 251; Epopées
françaises, ii. pp. 307–9; and the Préface of the French edition of Fierabras.

11
See also Mone, Uebersicht der niederländischen Volksliteratur älterer
Zeit. Tübingen, 1836. p. 56.

12
Cf. Warton, Hist. of Eng. Poetry, 1824, vol. i. pp. 147–8.

13
It is worthy of notice that the account of the Fierabras
romance as given by Barbour, may be considered, on the whole, as
identical with the subject of the French Fierabras or the English
Syr Ferumbras, but not with the Sowdan, as there is no mention
made of the combat before Rome, nor any trace of what makes up the
first part of the Sowdan. But the spelling Lawyn for Balan
agrees with the spelling of the same name in the Sowdan. As to the
relics mentioned in the passage above, they differ from all other
versions.

14
In the Sowdan the Bridgeward is called Alagolofre; cf.
Index of Names.

15
This MS. consisting of 71 parchment leaves in 4to, with coloured initials
at the beginning of each rhyme-strophe, had formerly been in the possession
“Majoris Monasterii congregationis Sancti Mauri,” at Paris. Having passed
through many hands during the French Revolution, it finally came to the
Library of Wallerstein.

16
Der Roman von Ferabras, provenzalisch. Berlin, 1829.

17
British Museum, MS. Reg. 15. E. vi.

18
Cf. also the Préface of the French Fierabras, p. iv.

19
See Leben und Werke der Troubadours, by Friedrich Diez, Zwickau,
1829, p. 613 note, and Berliner Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1831.

20
In a footnote to his Histoire de la Poésie scandinave, p. 183, where he
says:—“Le roman de Ferabras, publié à Berlin par M. Bekker, est . . . évidemment
traduit du français, et en a conservé trop de formes et d’expressions
pour avoir la moindre valeur grammaticale.”

21
Fierabras chanson de geste, edd. Krœber and Servois, in the collection
of the Anciens Poètes de la France.

22
For a more detailed analysis, see Histoire Poét., p.
251, and cf. the account given of the old Fierabras or Balan
romance by Philippe Mousket, ed. Reiffenberg, Bruxelles, vol. I. v.
ll. 4664–4716, which runs as follows:—

4664	Puis fu Roume par force prise
	et la gent destruite et ocise
	et li apostoile ocis
	Castiaus-Mireors ars et pris
4668	et toute la cité bruie.
	li dus Garins et sa mesnie
	entrerent en Castiel-Croisant,
	quar Sarrasin, Turc et Persant
4672	amenerent trop grant compagne
	et devers Surie et d’Espagne;
	si furent crestien dolant,
	et manderent tot maintenant
4676	soucours al bon roi Charlemainne
	ki sa fieste en France demainne,
	et li rois en cele besogne
	lor tramist Guion de Bourgogne,
4680	ki nouviaus chevaliers estoit
	et des jovenes enfans avoit
	devant çou la couronne prise.
	et soucoururent sans faintise
4684	lor bon roi en la tiere estrange
	u il n’orent ni lin ni lange.
	en France estoient revenu
	et soujourné et bien péu,
4688	mais à cel soucours le tramist
	li rois, ki moult s’entremist,—
	et si tramist de Normendie
	Ricart à la ciere hardie,
4692	si reprirent li Mireour:
	et dus Garins vint à l’estour,
	ki tint Pavie en quité
	s’ot bien Castil-Croisant gardé,
4696	et Karles ot sa gent mandée,
	si vinrent de mainte contrée,
	quar il lor faisoit tant de biens,
	qu ’à ses amis ne faloit riens.
4700	si trest vers Rome li bons rois
	et fist as paiens moult d’anois.
	dont se combati Oliviers
	a Fierabras ki tant fu fiers;
4704	d’armes l’outra, si reconquist
	les .ii. barius qu’à Rome prist,
	si les gieta enmi le Toivre
	por çou que plus n’en péust boivre;
4708	quar c’est bausmes ki fu remés
	dont Ihesu Cris fu embausmés.
	puis furent mort tot li paien
	et mis en Roume crestiien,
4712	si ot autre apostoile fait
	et Karles s’en revint à hait,
	si gratia Dieu et St. Piere,
	que recouvrée ot sa kaiere,
4716	soujourner vint dont à Parise . . .

23
Romania, ii. 1873, pp. 1–48.

24
Cf. Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Sprache und
Literatur, edd. Lemcke, vol. xiii. p. 111.

25
Printed in Verhandlungen der 28sten Versammlung
deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner in Leipzig. Leipzig, 1873, p.
209 et seq.

26
Corresponding to ll. 1410 et seq. of the Ashmole
Ferumbras.

27
Cf. Sir Ferumbras, ll. 8192–3.

28
Cf. also l. 2784 and Sir Ferumbras, ll. 1860 and 2059.

29
See above, p. xi, footnote, and Histoire Poétique, p. 251.

30
Cf. Grœber, Verhandlungen, pp. 217–18.

31
The following differences between the Destruction and the narration of
Philippe Mousket are worthy of note:—

(i) the combat around Château-Miroir is described in a different manner
in the two poems.

(ii) the scene of action, which at the end of the Destruction is transferred
to Spain, remains, according to Philippe Mousket, in the neighbourhood of
Rome for the whole time.

(iii) Guy of Burgundy and Richard of Normandy play a most important
active part before Rome, according to Ph. Mousket, whereas in the Destruction
this is not the case.

Now, as to the last two items, they must have been in the original such as
they are related by Ph. Mousket. For only thus some obscure passages of
Fierabras, of which even the Destruction affords no explanation, are cleared
up. Thus, Fierabras, l. 1049,

“Près fu du far de Rome, ses a dedens jetés”—

which is in contradiction to the Destruction, is explained by ll. 4705–6 of
Mousket’s account (see above). Only Mousket relates that Floripas has seen
Guy before Rome (Fierabras, l. 2240; Ashmole Ferumbras, l. 1413), and that
Richard took part at the combat there. Therefore the account as given by
Ph. Mousket, agreeing with what must have been the contents of the old
original, is based on a version older than the Destruction, which exhibits
significant differences.

These differences between Mousket and the Destruction, as well as the fact
that several references to preceding events contained in Fierabras remain unexplained
by the Destruction, were some of the reasons which led me in my
Dissertation, pp. 41–49, to consider the Destruction as a poem written by
another author than that of the Fierabras. In order to clear up the allusions
to preceding events contained in the Fierabras, the very beginning of which
necessarily requires some explanatory account—a circumstance which also
gave rise to the ‘episode’ of the Provençal version—the Destruction was
composed as a kind of Introduction to the Fierabras, whereby it happened
that some allusions remained unexplained.

32
For a description of this magnificent MS., see Sir
Ferumbras, p. vi, footnote.

33
Cf. Warton, Hist. of Eng. Poetry, ii. 197–8.

34
Edited for the E. E. T. S. in 1879, by S. J. Herrtage, B.A.

35
Cf. Gautier, Epopées Françaises, i. 221.—“Rien n’est plus fréquent, dans
la Chanson de Roland et dans nos poèmes les plus anciens, que la répétition
double, triple et même quelquefois quadruple, de certains couplets. Cette
répétition n’a pas lieu dans les mêmes termes, ni surtout avec les mêmes rimes.
Tout au contraire, la même idée est reproduite en vers différents, munis
d’assonances ou de rimes différentes.”

36
The variations of this MS. are printed in the Jahrbuch der roman. and
engl. Sprachen, vol. ix. pp. 43 ss.

37
This edition, although printed from the MS. a, may
be said to represent a group (w) of four MSS., called a b c
d (see above xv). Another group (z) is formed by the MSS. E
and D. Both groups belong to the same type y. Cf. Grœber, Die
handschriftlichen Gestaltungen der chanson de geste Fierabras,
Leipzig, 1869, p. 27, where we find the following stemma:

38
Epopées Françaises, ii. 307, and Cat. rais. des livr.
de la bibl. d’Ambr. F. Didot, I, 361.

39
Grœber, Handschriftl. Gestaltungen, p. 6.

40
Jahrbuch, xiii. p. 111, and Zeitschrift für
romanische Philologie, iv. p. 164.

41
“Die Vergleichung weniger aus allen Hss. bekannten Versen macht
gewiss, dass H mit D und E aus der nämlichen Quelle z geflossen ist.”
Jahrbuch, xiii. 113.

42
Handschriftl. Gestalt., p. 10.

43
See the note to l. 5763 of Sir Ferumbras, and cf.
Fierabras, 5955.

44
The number of instances where A varies from C’s
version might easily be increased. Thus we find A 340 differing
from C 52/111 and from F 357; A 814 differing from C 79/3
and from F 1548; A 1616 differing from C 102/10 and from F
2424; A 1238 differing from C 92/5 and from F 2083; A 4652
differing from C 171/26 and from F 4900, &c.

45
Specimens of Early English Metrical Romances, ed.
Halliwell, p. 379 et seq.

46
Histoire Poétique, p. 251; cf. also Revue critique
d’Histoire et de Littérature, ii. 1869, p. 121 et seq.

47
Cf. Mr. Shelley’s Paper in Warton, Hist. of Eng.
Poetry, ii. 197–8.

48
pp. 17 et seq.

49
Dissertation, p. 18.

50
Introduction to Sir Ferumbras, p. xiv.

51
The French text will be found in the Notes, which see.

52
For these names, the Index of Names may be referred
to.

53
In some passages the Destruction shows also the
spelling Balan, but Laban is more common.

54
See note to l. 1000.

55
See note to l. 2842.

56
Dissertation, p. 20.

57
See note to l. 1663.

58
Cf. note to l. 1723.

59
Mr. Herrtage, in his note to the Ashmol. MS., l. 259,
reproduces—from the Roxburghe Club edition, Introd. p. vi.—the
list of the twelve peers in the French version of the Grenville copy,
10531, which he erroneously takes for that of the Sowdan.

60
But there is one “Alorys þe erld of Brye,” mentioned in
the Ashm. MS., ll. 935, 2842, 4076, &c.

61
There is one Templer mentioned in the Ashm. MS., l. 2673. But he is
not identical with Tamper of the Sowdan, ll. 2641, 2667.

62 Greek σινδων. Cf.
Dissertation, pp. 45–46.

63
See note to l. 2535.

64
There being only a small fragment printed of the Didot
MS. (Epopées Fr. ii. 307), a comparison of the Sowdan with this
version is impossible at present. But as the Didot MS. belongs to the
same group as E, what results from a comparison of S with E may
be assumed for the Didot MS.

65
See Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, iv. pp.
164, 170.

66
Jahrbuch für romanische und englische Sprache und
Literatur, xiii. p. 111.

67
This example is not very striking, as the spelling
Ferumbras may simply have been retained from the first part of the
poem; see above, p. xxxi.

68
Syr Ferumbras, Introduction, p. xiv, footnote.

69
See Handschriftliche Gestaltungen, p. 14, and
Dissert., p. 29.

70
Histoire Poétique, p. 157.

71
And to which only a few very insignificant additions were made by the
author; see Hist. Poét., p. 99, bottom.

72
See Morris’s Preface to Genesis and Exodus, Skeat’s Introduction to
Havelock the Dane, and Mall’s edition of Harrowing of Hell (Breslau, 1871).

73
See Sweet, Anglia, iii. 152.

74
Cf. Mall, Harrowing of Hell, p. 18.

75
Cf. Schipper, Alexiuslegenden, 98/121.

76
See note to l. 939.

77
“This elision of a final d in such words as hond,
lond, sheld, held, &c., is by no means uncommon in ancient
poetry, and arises simply from pronunciation.”—Morris, Specimens of
Early English, 320/261.

78
Cf. Mr. Nicol’s Paper in the Academy of June 23, 1877,
vol. xi. p. 564, col. 1, and Seventh Annual Address of the President
to the Philol. Soc., p. 2.

79
See the note.

80
Although l. 25 says that the story of the Sowdan “is
written in Romance,” this cannot induce us to consider our poem as a
mere translation. It is, on the contrary, a free reproduction of a
French original.

81
Cf. also Lindsay’s History of Squyer Meldrum, l. 390:

“Like Mars the God Armypotent.”

82
Cf. Prioress’s Tale, ed. Skeat (Clarendon Press
Series), p. xx; and Furnivall’s Trial Forewords, p. 111.

83
Cf. Chaucer, ed. Morris, i. 205, footnote.

84
Bibliotheca Heberiana, Part xi. p. 162. MSS. Lot 1533.

85
Ed. Halliwell, p. 379 et seq.

86
For instances, see the following words:—Atame,
alayned, ameved, assorte, avente, forcer, &c.

87
London. Printed by William Nicol, Shakspere Press, MDCCCLIV.

ADDITIONS.
◊

SINCE
the Introduction was written, I have had an opportunity of
seeing the Hanover MS. of the French Fierabras. The kind offices
of Professor Koner exerted on my behalf secured me the consent of
the Administration of the Royal Hanoverian Library to have the
MS. sent to Berlin, and their most generous permission to consult it
freely in the Reading Room of the University Library.

Having now compared the Sowdan more closely with the Hanover
MS., I must state that the final result arrived at in my investigation
concerning the original of the Sowdan (cf. p. xxxii) is in no way
altered.

As already stated above (p. xxxii), and as the subsequent
examination and the passages of H quoted below will serve to
confirm, the Hanover version is, generally speaking, the same as the
printed version of the Fierabras, differing only in slight variations of
readings.

The names in which S differs from F, but agrees with H, are
already spoken of on p. xxxi. But there are several others in the
spelling of which H agrees with F, but differs from S. Thus we
find Balans or Balant in H for Laban in S; Guarin, H, leaf 80,
back, F 438 = Generyse, S 1135; Agolafres, H, leaf 81 = Alagolofer,
S 2135; Amiotte, H leaf 83, back = Barrokk, S 2939, etc.

As to the subject-matter, there are no instances where S, differing
from F, agrees with H. In all points in which S differs from F we
find it also differing from H.

Thus the game of blowing a burning coal, in the description of
‹l›
which S slightly differs from F, is related in H with nearly the same
words as in F. As, besides the small fragment printed by Grœber in
the Jahrbuch, xiii, and some few remarks in the Zeitschrift für
rom. Phil., nothing is known of the Hanover MS., the following
passages printed here may serve to show how little H differs from
F. The game of the coal (S 1996–2016, F 2907–2934) is thus
described in H, leaf
58:—

The distribution of the relics, in which S (cf. note to l. 3238)
differs from F 6195 et seq. is related as follows in H, leaf
100:—

The miracle (F 6101–6123)88 of the glove, in which Charles had
placed fragments of the thorns, remaining suspended in the air for over
an hour, the description of which is omitted in the Sowdan (cf.
Dissert., p. 29), is related as follows in H, leaf
99:—

H, leaf 37, agrees with F, l. 1043, in making Oliver drink of the
bottles of balm, which is not mentioned in the Sowdan, l. 1190
(cf. p. xxix). ‹lii›

Similarly we find S 2604 differing from H, leaf 62, where we
read Basyns (= Basin, F 3313) instead of Bryer.

Again H, l. 40, agreeing exactly with F, l. 1329 et seq., differs
from S 1279–82 (cf. p. xxix).

Instead of Floripas, S 1515, it is Brulans, H, l. 49, and F 1949,
who advises the Soudan not to slay the prisoners.

The names of the twelve peers are the same in H as in F (cf. p.
xxvii); and the whole scene of the peers being sent one after the
other on a mission to Laban (cf. note to l. 1665 of the Sowdan) is
described exactly alike in F 2263–2282 and in H, leaf 51, back, with
the only difference that the names of the peers are given in a
different order in both versions, Richard of Normandy, who is sent
off as the sixth in F, being the second in H.

These variations of S from H clearly exemplify the impossibility
of regarding the Hanover MS. as the original of the Sowdan. But
as on the whole these differences are not of a very significant nature,
and as, moreover, part of these variations may perhaps be attributed
to the favourite habit of the author of going his own way in the
arrangement of the subject-matter and in some minor points, whereas
in the essential course of the events he strictly adhered to his source
(see above p. xxxviii, and cf. note to l. 2535); and as besides there
are several names, the spelling of which differs in F, agreeing in S
and H, I think there can be no doubt that the original of the second
part of the Sowdan was a version similar to the Hanover MS.

If now we compare the Hanover version with the Ashmole
Ferumbras more closely than has been possible on page xx, there
are some instances where A, whilst differing from F, agrees with H.

Nevertheless, the following passage in which A agrees with F,
but differs from H, will at once show the impossibility of regarding
H as the original of A.
‹liii›

In other instances A is found differing from H as well as from F.
Thus the name of Enfachoun, A 4652, which is Effraons in F 4900,
does not occur at all in H, which in the passage corresponding to F
4900, as well as in that corresponding to F 4913, reads Affricons li
Geans.

Again, in the story of Myloun, in which A, l. 2008 et seq., differs
from F, we find H disagreeing from F, 2734 et seq.,
and from A:—

But in most cases in which F differs from A, H agrees with F.

Thus we find Ferumbras challenging only six French knights in
H, lf. 26, as in F, 84, 105, instead of twelve in A, l. 102.

In A, l. 5204, Floripas, swooning away, is upheld by Oliver,
whereas in F, 5373, and in H, lf. 90, it is Guy who keeps her from
falling.

For Howel of saint Miloun, A 5574, we read Huon de saint Lis
in F 5792, and Hugon de saint Lis in H, lf. 95, bk.

As in F 2912 it is to Berard that Roland speaks in H, lf 57, bk.,
and not to Olyver, as in A 2234.

That Maubyn scales the walls by means of a ladder of leather
(A 2406) is not mentioned in F 3061, nor in H, lf. 59, bk.

In A 1386 Floripas gives Oliver, who is wounded, a warm draught,
which heals every wound; in F 2209, as well as in H, lf. 51, it is by
a bit of the mandrake plant that he is healed.

The maid-attendant mentioned in A 1238 (chamberere) is a man-attendant
in F 2083 (chamberlenc) and in H, lf. 49, bk. (chamberlayn).

There is no trace of the additional lines of A, ll. 4867–4875, to
be found in H, lf. 86 bk., nor in F, 5094.

Among the relics spoken of in A, there is nowhere a mention
made of the signe. In H we find the signe always mentioned
‹liv›
together with the crown and the nails, just as in F. In the passage
quoted above from H, lf. 100, and in the line which corresponds to
F 6094, we find ensigne instead of signe; but ensigne certainly must
be looked upon as a clerical blunder. In the other passages in which
we find “the winding sheet, or shroud, of the Lord” mentioned in H
it is also called signe:—

That the signe cannot be the “inscription of the cross” (cf.
Introduction, p. xxx) is proved by an additional line of the Hanover
MS., in which the Archbishop is said to have covered the heads of
the French with the signe:—

Abstaining now from citing any more passages where H agrees
with F, but differs from A, I think the few quotations above will
suffice to show the impossibility of regarding the Hanover MS. as
the original of the Ashmole Ferumbras, notwithstanding that there
are some resemblances of A to H (cf. p. xx). Therefore the result
arrived at on p. xxi as to the original of the Ashmolean version is in
no way altered by the detailed comparison of A with H.

SKETCH OF THE STORY.
◊

Laban, the Soudan of Babylon, who was residing at Agremore in
Spain, went to the chase in a wood near the sea (p. 2). Being tired
of hunting he sat down under a tree, and, perceiving a ship drawing
near unto the shore, he sent one of his men to hail the vessel and to
inquire for news. The interpreter of the vessel informs the soudan
that the ship, freighted with a rich cargo at Babylon
designed as a
‹lv›
present to Laban, had been driven by violent storms to the shore
near Rome, where the ship had been robbed, and many of its people
had been slain by the Romans. He solicits the Soudan to revenge
this insult. Laban promises to make them pay dearly for it (p. 3).
He convokes a war-council, and assembles a hundred thousand men
and seven hundred sail. Himself goes, with Ferumbras his son and
Floripas his daughter, in a dromond richly adorned (p. 4). They disembark
in the haven of Rome, slay all Christians, and burn towns,
abbeys, and churches. The pope of Rome assembles his council (p. 5).
Duke Savaris is to meet the Saracens. With ten thousand men he
draws near the Soudan’s pavilion on the shore (p. 6); they slay ten
thousand Saracens. The Romans, though masters of the field,
cautiously retire within the walls of the city. Lukafer of Baldas,
having scoured the country, brings ten thousand Christian maidens
to the Soudan, who orders them to be put to death (p. 7). Lukafer
demands Floripas for his wife, in return for which he promises her
father to bring Charlemagne and his twelve peers to the foot of his
throne. Floripas agrees to accept him when he has fulfilled his
promise. The next morning Lukafer assaults the city, but the
ditches being too deep (p. 8), the Saracens are obliged to retire.
On the following day the assault is renewed, the ditches are, on
Mavon’s advice, filled with faggots. After a sharp conflict, where
there were ten thousand Saracens slain by the stones of the Romans,
the heathens are obliged to withdraw (p. 9). This second repulse
makes the Soudan almost mad with vexation; he chides his gods.
But Lukafer told him that he had learned from a spy that Savaris
would, on the following day, come out again to fight with them. He
now intended, when Savaris was engaged in the battle, to unfold a
banner made exactly like that of the Romans, and to attempt, by this
stratagem, to be admitted within the gates. And so it turned out:
the Romans mistaking him for Savaris returning from his sally, he
entered the main tower, and slew all therein. Savaris, noticing the
artifice of the enemy, and seeing his troop reduced to seventy-two
men, turned back, but found the gate shut (p. 10). Estragot, a
black giant of Ethiopia, slays him with his steel-mace. The Pope
having summoned his council, a senator suggested the necessity of
‹lvi›
sending messengers to Charlemagne to ask his aid. They all assented,
and three messengers (p. 11) left the city by a postern at midnight;
they passed the enemy’s camp without being noticed by any wight.
On the next morning Laban attempted a third assault; he commanded
every man to throw pikes and bills over the walls to kill the
Romans, and ordered the ships to go up the water with their boats
bound to the mast, that they might fight in close combat. Near the
tower there stood a bulwark, or “bastile,” which was a strong defence
to the wall. It was thrown down by stones hurled from an engine.
Laban, growing proud from this event, summoned the Romans to
surrender. Instead of an answer a Roman hurled a dart at his
breast-plate, but his hauberk shielded him. The Soudan, more than
mad, charged Ferumbras to destroy them all (p. 12), and enjoined
Fortibrance and Mavon to direct their engines against the walls.
The great glutton Estragot, with his heavy mace, smote on the gates
and brake them in pieces. But as he was entering one of the gates,
they let the portcullis fall, which crushed him to the ground, where
he lay crying like a devil of hell. The Romans rejoiced, but the
Saracens grieved. They withdrew to their tents, leaving behind the
corpse of Estragot, whose soul went up to Mahound (p. 13). The
Pope called all his people to St. Peter’s and proposed to them to
attempt a sally with twenty thousand men, to attack the enemy
before day-break within their camp, and to leave ten thousand for
the defence of the city. In the morning the Pope displayed the
banner of Rome, and after a prayer for the preservation of the city,
they marched out. But Ferumbras, going his rounds (p. 14), noticed
their coming, sounded the alarm, and drew up his troops. Then
began a fierce struggle. Ferumbras slew Sir Bryer of Apulia (p. 15)
and the worthy Hubert. Nine thousand heathens were killed and
eight thousand Romans. Lukafer destroyed eighteen Romans; he
also slew Gyndard, a senator of Rome, who had killed ten Saracens.
Then came the Pope with a great escort and his banner before him.
Ferumbras, supposing him to be the sovereign (p. 16), burst open the
thick crowd and threw him down to the ground. But having
opened his ventail, he saw his tonsure, and recognized the Pope.
“Fie, priest,” he said, “what doest thou here in the
battle-field?
‹lvii›
It would be a shame for me to slay thee. Go home and think of
thy choir-service.” The Pope, being glad to get off so easily, retired
to Rome with five thousand men, fifteen thousand being killed.
Charlemagne, having learned from the messenger the great disaster
which had befallen the Romans, said he would not desist until he
had chased the Soudan and Ferumbras out of Christendom (p. 17).
He gave ten thousand pounds of francs to his nephew, Guy of
Burgundy, and sent him off with orders to advance against the
Soudan by forced marches. Himself would follow as soon as possible.
In the mean time Laban reminded Lukafer of his vaunting promise
to bring him Charlemagne and his twelve peers in return for his
daughter Floripas. Lukafer said he would do all he had promised.
With ten thousand men he attacked the city on one side, the other
being assaulted by Ferumbras. The combat continued as long as
daylight lasted. At night they retired to their tents (p. 18). Then
treason was planned by Isres, who by inheritance possessed the guard
of the chief gate of the town. He went to the Soudan and offered
to betray the city on condition that his life and property should be
spared. The Soudan promised it. Ferumbras with twenty thousand
men went with Isres, but on entering the gate he caused the traitor’s
head to be struck off by the portcullis and to be carried on the point
of a spear through the city. “Treason,” cried the people (p. 19), when
Ferumbras advanced into Rome. All the streets were soon covered
with dead men. Ferumbras went to St. Peter’s, seized the relics, the
cross, the crown, and the nails, burned the whole city, and carried
away all the treasures and the gold to Agremore in Spain, where the
Soudan went back to stay. Three months and three days they spent
there in great festivities, making offerings to their gods, and burning
frankincense in their honour. They drank the blood of beasts and
milk, and ate honey, and snakes fried with oil (p. 20). When Sir
Guy, approaching, drew near Rome, he found the whole city in
flames. He grieved much that he had arrived too late, and resolved
to wait there for Charlemagne, and then to tell him how Laban had
burnt the city, and had sent the relics to Agremore, his principal town
in Spain. Soon king Charles advanced to rescue Rome with his
twelve peers and three hundred thousand soldiers (p. 21).
Roland
‹lviii›
led the vanguard, Oliver the rear, and the king was with the main
body. The provisions were conveyed by sea. Guy, seeing the army
come, went to meet the king, and told him the mischief done by the
Soudan, who, moreover, had made a vow to seek Charles in France in
order to afflict him with grief. “He will find me near,” said
Charles, “and shall pay dearly for it. Unless he consents to be
baptized (p. 22), he shall never see Babylon again.” They all took
ship without delay. Propitious winds drove them into the river
Gase, where they landed, thirty miles from Agremore, and laid waste
the country. Laban, hearing this news, was astonished at Charles’s
presumption (p. 23). He assembled all his barons, and charged them
to bring him alive that glutton that called himself king of France,
and to slay the rest of his army. Ferumbras went forth with many
Saracens. He meets with Roland. They deal each other heavy strokes.
Oliver cuts off a quarter of Lukafer’s shield. The combat lasted
the whole day. Well fought the twelve peers (p. 24). Ferumbras
charges Oliver. King Charles, seeing this, rides at Ferumbras, and
strikes his helm with a heavy mace. Ferumbras cannot approach
him on account of the crowd. Charlemagne slew thirty Saracens
with his sword Mounjoy. Lukafer of Baldas encountering Charles
told him that he had promised the Soudan to bring him Charles and
the twelve peers. Charles strikes him on his helmet (p. 25), but
Lukafer is rescued by a great throng. Roland, drawing Durnedale,
cleared a space around him, and hammered the heads of the Saracens.
So did the other peers, and thirty thousand Saracens were slain. At
night the pagans quit the field. Ferumbras vows never to desist
until he has conquered Roland and Oliver (p. 26) and been crowned
king at Paris. Charles went to his pavilion and thanked God
and St. Mary of France. He praised the elder knights for having
won the victory, and exhorted the young ones to take example by
them. They all make merry and go to supper. The Saracens
address a prayer to the red Mars Armipotent (p. 27), to grant the
Mahometans the victory over the Christians (p. 28). In order to
recruit the late losses in his army, the Soudan sent for his vassals,
and assembled more than three hundred thousand Saracens at
Agremore. He addressed them (p. 29) in order to
increase their
‹lix›
ardour, ordered a solemn sacrifice to his gods, and charged Ferumbras
to march with thirty thousand of his people against the Christian king
(whom he wished to teach courtesy), and to slay all his men except
Roland and Oliver (p. 30), if they would renounce their gods.
Ferumbras led out his troops; until arriving near Charles’s camp, he
ordered them to halt in a wood, and advanced with only ten of his men
to the camp of Charlemagne, and offered to fight at once against six
of his peers. If he should conquer them, he would lead them away to
his father’s hall; but if he should be conquered, he would be Charles’s
man. The king sent for Roland and ordered him to undertake the
combat. Roland refuses (p. 31), because Charles had praised the
old knights: they might show their prowess now. Charles, vexed,
smites Roland on the mouth, so that the blood springs from his nose,
and he calls him a traitor. Roland draws his sword, but the other
barons separate them and try to conciliate them. Meanwhile Oliver,
who being sorely wounded kept his bed, on hearing of this dispute,
had armed himself and went to Charles. He reminds the king of his
long services, in reward for which he demands the battle. Charles
remonstrates with him. But Oliver insists (p. 32). He rides to the
forest, and finds Ferumbras alighted under a tree, to a branch of
which his steed was tied. “Arise,” he said, “I am come to fight
with thee.” Ferumbras, without moving, demands his name. “I am
Generyse, a young knight lately dubbed.” Ferumbras observes:
“Charles is a fool to send thee; go and tell him to send me Roland
and Oliver and such four other douzeperes. For little honour were
it to me to fight with thee.” “Spare thy words,” replies Oliver,
“and take thy arms” (p. 33). Ferumbras is wrath and seizes his
helmet, which Oliver assists him to lace. Ferumbras thanks him,
courteously bowing to him. They mount their steeds, and rushing
together like fire of thunder, they have their lances broken. They
draw their swords. Ferumbras smites Oliver on his helmet so that
the fire flies. Oliver strikes at the head of Ferumbras, breaks away
the circle of his helmet, and the sword glancing off down his back,
he cuts off two bottles of balm (p. 34), which he throws into the
river. Ferumbras tells him that they were invaluable to a wounded
man, and that he should atone for their loss with his
life. He
‹lx›
strikes at Oliver, who wards off the blow with his shield, but his steed
is killed under him. Oliver quickly starts up and tries to kill his
adversary’s horse, but Ferumbras rides off and ties it to a hazel.
“Yield thyself to me,” says Ferumbras, “believe on Mahound, and I
will make thee a duke in my country, and give thee my sister” (p. 35).
“Ere I yield to thee,” answered Oliver, “thou shalt feel my strokes.”
They fight for a considerable time; the blood runs from both their
bodies. By mutual consent they stop to take breath. Ferumbras
again asks Oliver his name and kin. “Thou must be one of the
twelve peers, as thou fightest so well.” “I am Oliver, cousin to
Charlemagne.” “Thou art welcome here,” says Ferumbras; “thou
slewest my uncle (p. 36); now thou shalt pay the penalty.” The
fight continued the whole day. At last Oliver, smiting Ferumbras
upon the helmet, had his sword broken. He ran to the steed at the
tree and seized a sword that was hanging there, but in turning on
Ferumbras, he received a blow that made him kneel down (p. 37).
But he returns Ferumbras a fearful stroke. Charles, seeing Oliver on
his knees, prayed to Christ that he might grant the victory over the
pagan. An angel announced to him that his prayer was heard. Charles
thanks God (p. 38). The fight begins again. Ferumbras breaks
his sword on Oliver’s helmet. He runs for another and asks Oliver
to surrender. But Oliver aims at him a blow which cuts his
hauberk, so that his bowels are laid bare. Ferumbras implores his
mercy, and consents to be christened, his gods having proved false.
He requested him to take his hauberk (p. 39), to fetch his horse,
and to carry him to his own tent. But the Saracens who lay
concealed in the wood rush out. Oliver, being surrounded, sets
down Ferumbras under an olive-tree, and defends himself with his
sword, dealing the Saracens many a hard blow. Then Roland
rushed into the throng of the enemy and slew many (p. 40). His
horse being killed by arrows and darts, he fights on foot, but his
sword breaking, he is taken and led away. Oliver rides to rescue
him, but his horse being also killed, he is overpowered and bound.
Both were conducted to Lukafer of Baldas (p. 41). Charles sees
them, and calls for a rescue. Many enemies were slain by the
French barons, but the Saracens had fled with their
prisoners, and
‹lxi›
Charles is obliged to turn back. Under a holm tree they find
Ferumbras, whom the king is going to put to death. But on his
requesting to be baptized Charles took pity on him (p. 42), led him
to his tent, and ordered a surgeon to attend him. He soon recovered,
and bishop Turpin baptized him by the name of Floreyn. But he
continued to be called Ferumbras all his life. Afterwards he was
known as Floreyn of Rome on account of his holiness. Roland and
Oliver being brought to the Soudan, Laban enquires their names.
They confess their names (p. 43). The Soudan swears they shall
both be executed the next morning before his dinner. But Floripas
advises him to detain them as hostages, and to remember his son
Ferumbras, for whom they might be exchanged. The Soudan,
finding her counsel good, orders his gaoler Bretomayn to imprison
them, but to leave them without food (p. 44). At high tide the sea
filled their deep cells, so that they suffered much from the salt water,
from their wounds, and from hunger. On the sixth day Floripas,
who was gathering flowers in her garden, heard them lament. Moved
to compassion, she asks her governess Maragound to help her in
getting food for the prisoners. Maragound refuses, and reminds
Floripas of her father’s command. Floripas, thinking of a trick,
called to her governess to come to a window (p. 45) and see the
porpoises sporting beneath. As Maragound is looking out, Floripas
pushes her into the flood. She then asks Bretomayn to let her see
the prisoners. The gaoler threatened to complain to her father, but
Floripas, having seized his key-clog, dashed out his brains. She then
went to tell her father she had surprised the gaoler feeding the
prisoners (p. 46) and promising to deliver them, wherefore she had
slain him. The Soudan gives the prisoners into her guard. She
now proceeded to the prison, asked the prisoners what they wanted,
and promised to protect them from any harm (p. 47). She let down
a rope, and with her maidens drew up both, and led them to her
apartments. There they ate, took a bath, and went to bed. The
Soudan knew nothing of his prisoners being in Floripas’s chamber.
Meanwhile Charlemagne tells Guy that he must go to the Soudan to
demand the surrender of Roland and Oliver, and of the relics of
Rome. Naymes of Bavaria represents that a messenger
to the Soudan
‹lxii›
(p. 48) would certainly be slain; and that they ought to be anxious
not to lose any more besides Roland and Oliver. Then said the
king: “By God, thou shalt go with Guy.” Ogier the Dane remonstrates,
but is ordered to go too. So are Thierry of Ardane, and Folk
Baliant, Aleroys, and Miron of Brabant. Bishop Turpin kneels down
to implore the king’s mercy, but he must go too, as well as Bernard
of Spruwse (p. 49) and Brier of Mountdidier. The knights take leave
and start. About the same time the Soudan having assembled
his council, Sortibrance and Brouland (p. 50) advise him to send
twelve knights, and to bid Charles to give up Ferumbras and to
withdraw from his country. The knights are despatched; near
Mantrible they meet with the Christian messengers. Duke Naymes
enquires whither they intend to go (p. 51). Having heard their
message, the delegates of Charlemagne cut off their heads, which
they take with them to present to the Soudan at Agremore. Laban
was just dining when Naymes delivers his message: “God confound
Laban and all his Saracens, and save Charles, who commands thee
to send back his two nephews and to restore the relics” (p. 52). They
then produce the heads of the Soudan’s messengers. The Soudan
vowed a vow that they should all ten be hanged as soon as he had
finished his dinner. But Floripas recommended him to put off his
resolution until a general council of his barons had determined on
the best way to procure the liberation of Ferumbras. Thereupon the
Soudan gives the prisoners into her guard. Floripas leads the knights
into her tower (p. 53), where they were glad to find Roland and
Oliver. They told each other how they had fared. After washing, they
dined off venison, bread, and wine. The following day Floripas asks
Naymes his name, and enquires after Guy of Burgundy, whom she
had loved for a long time (p. 54), and for whom she would do all
she could for their benefit, and would be baptized if he would
agree to love her in return. Naymes tells Guy to take her for his
wife; but Guy refuses, as he never will take a wife unless she be
given him by Charles. But Roland and Oliver persuade him, so
that he at last consents. Floripas, holding a golden cup of wine
(p. 55), kissed him, and requested him to drink to her after the fashion
of her country; she then would drink to him in return.
They all
‹lxiii›
make merry, and prepare to assail the Soudan at supper on the following
day. Meanwhile Lukafer comes to the Soudan and asks leave
to see the prisoners, in order to know how Floripas guards them.
Finding the door locked (p. 56), he burst it open with a blow of his
fist, and told them he was come to speak to them, and to enquire
after Charlemagne. Duke Naymes answers. Lukafer then asks what
amusements they have after dinner. Naymes says: “Some joust,
some sing, some play at chess.” “I will teach you a new game,” says
Lukafer (p. 57). With a thread he fastened a needle on a pole and
put a burning coal upon it. He blew it at Naymes’s beard and burnt
it. Naymes waxed wroth, and snatching a burning brand from the
fire he smites at Lukafer, and throws him into the fire, where he was
burnt to charcoal. Floripas applauds this, but points out their
danger, and advises them to arm. At supper time she goes to her
father (p. 58). As they were sitting at table, the twelve peers
rushed in and slew all whom they met. Laban, pursued by Oliver,
jumps out of a window on to the sea-shore and escaped without
injury. They killed all in the castle, and then drew up the bridges
and shut the gates. Laban vowed a vow that he would hang them
all and burn his daughter. He sent to Mantrible for troops (p. 59)
and engines and besieged Agremore. Floripas recommends the peers
to enjoy themselves. In the morning the Soudan attacks the castle,
but is repulsed (p. 60). He accuses his gods of sleepiness and shakes
them to rouse them out of sleep. Brouland tells him, as the castle is
strong and well stored with provisions, the peers will hold it very
long; but if he would send orders to Alagolofer, the bridge-keeper
at Mantrible, not to allow any one to pass without leave (p. 61), they
would get no assistance from Charles and die from hunger. Espiard,
the Soudan’s messenger, is despatched to Mantrible, and commands
the giant not to suffer any one to pass the bridge (p. 62). Alagolofer
drew four and twenty chains across the bridge. Meanwhile the
Soudan assaults the castle again, but the twelve peers slew three
hundred Saracens (p. 63). Laban threatens to hang them, and
utters imprecations against Floripas, who returns them. He then
calls for Mavon, his engineer, and orders him to direct a mangonel
against the walls. Mavon knocked down a piece of
the battlements.
‹lxiv›
Roland and Oliver lament; they are comforted by Floripas (p. 64).
Guy kills Marsedage, the king of Barbary, by throwing a dart at
him. The Saracens stop the attack to bury Marsedage, and bewail
him seven nights and seven days. Then the Soudan more closely
blockades the castle (p. 65). The provisions being exhausted,
Roland complains of Charles’s forgetfulness; but Floripas cheers him
up, saying she possessed a magic girdle, which was a talisman against
hunger and thirst for those who wore it. They all successively put
it on, and felt as if they had feasted (p. 66). Laban wondered at
their endurance, but at last remembering the girdle, he induced
Mapin to attempt to steal it at night. Mapin entered the chamber
of Floripas (p. 67) through a chimney. He finds the girdle and puts
it on, but Floripas perceives him and cries out. Roland hurries to
her assistance, cuts off Mapin’s head, and throws him out through
the window into the sea without noticing the girdle. Floripas, seeing
her girdle lost, is much grieved; Roland comforts her. They agree
to attempt a sally to obtain food (p. 68). In the morning Naymes
and Ogier remain in the castle, while the others start and surprise
the Saracens sleeping in their huts. They slew three hundred, and
carried off as much food as they could bear (p. 69). The Soudan is
enraged and is going to burn his gods, but, appeased by his wise men,
he sacrifices again, and is assoiled by the priests. Laban holds
council (p. 70). A new assault begins, but so many of the assailants
were slain by the showers of stones hurled down by the peers that
the ditches are filled with dead bodies. The Saracens retire. But
soon a second attack ensues. There being no stones, Floripas gave
them her father’s silver and gold to cast amongst the assailants. The
Soudan in alarm for his treasure gives up the assault (p. 71). He is
enraged with his gods, and smites Mahound so that he fell on his
face; but the priests induce him to kneel down and ask forgiveness
(p. 72). Meanwhile Roland exhorted Richard of Normandy to go
on a message to Charles, that he might come to their rescue. They
all would, the following morning before day-break, make an attack
on the Saracens, and meanwhile he should steal off in the darkness.
In the morning they sally out. Floripas and her maidens draw up
the bridges after them. Richard went off towards
Mantrible (p. 73).
‹lxv›
The others slay many Saracens; but Guy, overpowered by the
Babylonians, is taken prisoner. Laban asks his name. Guy tells
him. He is to be hanged. Three hundred Saracens crowding near
the gate of the castle, attempted to prevent the other peers from
entering. A fearful struggle begins (p. 74), in which Sir Bryer is
killed. At last the Saracens take to flight. The peers retire inside
the castle, taking the corpse of Bryer with them. Floripas enquires
after Guy, and on hearing of his capture, begins to lament despairingly.
Roland promises to rescue Guy (p. 75). On the following
morning Laban orders Sir Tamper to erect a gallows before the
castle, where Floripas could see it. Guy is led bound. Roland
calls his companions to arms. They rush forth (p. 76). Oliver
cuts down Sir Tamper, Roland kills a king of India, takes his sword
and horse, and gives them to Guy, having unbound him. They slay
many Saracens, and put the rest to flight. Retiring towards the
castle, they see Admiral Costroye, and the Soudan’s standard-bearer,
escorting a great convoy, destined for the sultan, across a field near
the high road (p. 77). Roland calls to them to share the provisions
with them. Costroye refuses, and is slain by Roland. Oliver kills
the standard-bearer, and the convoy is conveyed into the castle (p. 78).
Floripas thanks Roland for bringing back Sir Guy, and proposes
that he shall choose himself a mistress from amongst her maidens.
But Roland refuses to take any that is not a Christian. The Soudan,
on hearing such bad news, again defies his gods, and threatens to
throw them into the flames (p. 79). But bishop Cramadas kneels
before him and appeases him. The Soudan makes an offering of a
thousand besants to his gods. When Richard arrived as far as
Mantrible, he found the bridge barred by twenty-four chains, and
Alagolofer standing before it. Determined not to leave his errand
unperformed, he knelt down and commended himself to God. A
hind appears (p. 80) and swims across the river; Richard follows
her, and passing over in safety, hurries on to Charlemagne. Meanwhile
Genelyn, the traitor, had advised Charles to retire to France,
because the twelve peers were all slain. The king believed him, and
marched homeward, lamenting for his peers. Richard overtakes
him, and is recognized by
Charles, who asks him about the others.
‹lxvi›
Richard tells the king how they are besieged within the castle of
Agremore, and are waiting for his assistance. Charles, vowing
vengeance on Genelyn (p. 81), turned and marched to Agremore.
Richard informed him of the giant who kept the bridge, and how
he had passed the river by a miracle. He proposed a plan that
twelve knights, disguised as merchants, with their arms hidden
under their clothes, should pay the toll, and the bridge being let
down, they should blow a horn as a signal for the others to approach.
They start and arrive at Mantrible (p. 82). Alagolofer asks whither
they are going. Richard says they are merchants on their way to
the Soudan, and they are willing to pay the toll. Alagolofer refuses
to let them pass, and tells them about the ten knights, who had
passed there and done so much mischief to the Soudan; therefore
he will arrest them all. Sir Focard draws his sword and smites at
him, Richard blows his horn, and Charles advances (p. 83). Alagolofer
fights them with a great oak club. Richard seizes a bar of brass
and knocks him down. Four men get hold of him and throw him
into the river. They loosened the chains; but the Saracens assembling
on the walls of the city, many Christians were slain. Alagolofer’s
wife, Barrock the giantess, comes on with her scythe and mows
down all whom she meets. Charles dashes out her brains (p. 84),
and with fifteen knights enters the outer gate of the town, thinking
his army would follow him. But the gate was instantly closed upon
him, and his men came too late. Charles was in great danger; but
Genelyn, seeing him shut in, exclaimed that the king and the twelve
peers were dead, and proposed to retire, as he wished to be king
himself. They were going to return, but Ferumbras (p. 85) calls
him a traitor; he rallies the French, and with his axe bursts open
the gate. He chased the Saracens and rescued the king. Mantrible
is taken with all its engines and treasures. Richard found two
children of seven months old (p. 86), and four feet high. They
were sons of Barrock, begotten by Astragot. Charles caused them
to be baptized, and called the one Roland and the other Oliver. But
they soon died for want of their mother’s milk. The king appoints
Richard governor of the city, and hurries on to Agremore with his
army and with Ferumbras (p. 87). Laban, being told by
a spy
‹lxvii›
that his city was taken and the bridge-ward killed, swears to avenge
him. He calls a council, and charges his barons to take Charles
alive that he might flay him. Charles approaches. Floripas first
recognizes the banner of France and tells the others (p. 88). Roland
and all his companions sally forth to meet Charlemagne. Laban
draws up all his people in battle-order. The French make a great
slaughter of the Saracens. Charles encounters the Soudan; he
unhorses him, and would have cut off his head, but for Ferumbras,
who requested that his father might be baptized. The Saracens,
seeing Laban a prisoner, fly; but the Christians pursue them.
Three hundred escaped to Belmarine. Charles leads Laban to
Agremore. Floripas welcomes her father (p. 89), but he is enraged
at seeing her. She then bids Charlemagne welcome, and presents
the holy relics to him. Charles kisses them, and says a prayer; he
then thanks Floripas for her assistance to his knights, and for having
preserved the precious relics. He orders Turpin to prepare a vessel
wherein to baptize the Soudan, and to wash off his sin in the water
(p. 90). Turpin leads Laban to the font, but the Soudan strikes at
him, spits on the vessel, utters invectives against all Christians, and
curses Ferumbras. Charles commands Naymes to cut off his head.
He is executed; his soul goes to hell, there to dance with devils.
Floripas was baptized with all her maidens, and was wedded to Guy.
Charles divided Spain between Guy and Ferumbras (p. 91), and charges
Sir Bryer of Bretayne to take care of the relics, and to bring all his
treasure to Paris. After taking leave of Guy and Floripas, Charles
sails to Monpilier, where he thanks God for the victory (p. 92), and
for the relics. He presents the cross to Paris, the crown to St. Denis,
the three nails to Boulogne. Charles well remembered the treachery
of Genelyn, and ordered him to be drawn and hanged at Montfaucon
in Paris (p. 93).

The Romaunce of the Sowdone of Babylone
and of Ferumbras his Sone who
Conquerede Rome:
◊

From the unique MS. of the
late Sir Thos. Phillipps.

	Od in glorye of myghteste89 moost,	1	God has ordained all
	That al thinge made in sapience		things wisely.
	By vertue of woorde and holy goost,
	Gyvinge to man grete excellence,	4	He has subjected the
	And alle, þat is in erthe, wroght		earth to man, and man
Subiecte to man and ma to the,			to God.
That he shoulde witħ herte and thought
To loue and serve, and noo but the:		8	The man who keeps His
For ȝyfe ma kepte thy commaundemente			commandments and loves
In al thinge and loued the welle			Him well, will feel
And hadde synnede in his entente,			His grace. But many
Tha shulde he fully thy grace fele;		12	who offended Him have
But for the offences to God I-doon90			felt His vengeance. I
Many vengeaunces haue be-falle.			will tell you of one;
Where-of I wole yo telle of oo,			it would take too long
It were to mocħ to telle of alle.		16	to tell of all. Listen
While þat Rome was in excellence			to me, and ye shall
Of alle Realmes in dignite,			hear how Rome, the
And howe it felle for his offence,			former mistress of all
Listinythe a while and ye shal see,		20	nations, came to fall
Howe it was wone and brente			by its sins, and was
Of a Sowdo, that heathe was,			destroyed by a heathen
And for synne howe it was shente;			Soudan. King Lewis has
As Kinge Lowes witnessith þat cas,		24	borne witness to

‹p002›
LABAN, THE SOUDAN OF BABYLON, HEARS

As it is wryten in Romaunce		that story, which,
And founden in bokes of Antiquyte		written in Romance
At Seinte Denyse Abbey in Fraunc[e],91		and found in very
There as Cronycles remembrede be,	28	old chronicles at
Howe Laban, the kinge of hie degre,		St Denys in France,
And sy and Sowdo of hie Babilo,		relates how Laban, the
Conquerede grete parte of Christiante,		king of Babylon, who
That was born in Askalo.	32	was born at Ascalon,
And in the Cite of Agremare92		conquered a great part
Vppo the Rivere of Flagote		of Christendom. He was
At þat tyme he soiorned the†		holding his court in
Fulle roially, wel I wote,	36	the city of Agremore,
With kinges xij and Admyralles xiiij,		on the river Flagot,
With many a Baro & Kniȝtis ful boold,		with 12 kings and 14
That roialle were and semly to sene;		admirals, and many
Here worþynesse al may not be told.	40	worthy barons and
Hit bifelle by-twyxte March and Maye,		[lf 1, bk] knights,
Whan kynde corage begynneth to pryke,		when, in the time
Wha ffritħ and felde wexen gaye,		between March and May,
And every wight desirith his like,	44
Wha lovers slepe withe opy yȝe,
As Nightyngalis on grene tre,
And sore desire þat thai cowde flye,
That thay myghte withe here louere be:	48
This worthy Sowdo in this seso		he went to the chase
Shope him to grene woode to goo,
To chase the Bore or the Veneso,
The Wolfe, the Bere and the Bawson.	52
He roode tho vppo a fforeste stronde		in a wood near the sea.
With grete rowte and roialte,
The fairest, þat was in alle þat londe,
With Alauntes, Lymmeris and Racches free.	56
His huntes to chace he commaunde,
Here Bugles boldely for to blowe,
To fere the beestis in þat launde.

‹p003›
OF THE CAPTURE OF A SARACEN SHIP BY THE ROMANS.

The Sowdo woxe wery I-nowe;	60	Being weary with
He rested him vndere an holme tre		hunting, he sat down
Sittynge vppo a grene sete		under a holm tree, and,
Seynge a Dromonde com seilyng in þe see		seeing a dromond
Anone he charged to beky him with honde	64	sailing on the sea, he charged
To here of him tidinges newe.		one to enquire for news
The maister sende a man to londe,		concerning the ship. The
Of diuers langages was gode and trewe,		interpreter of the vessel being
And saide “lorde, this Dromonde93	68	sent ashore, informed the
Fro Babyloyne come is,		soudan, that this
That was worþe thousande poundis,		dromond, freighted at
As94 it mete with shrewes I-wis,		Babylon, with a cargo
Charged with perle and precious stones	72	of rich furs, spices,
And riche pelure and spicerye,		oil, brass and pearls,
With oyle and bras qweynte for the nones		intended as a present
To presente yow, my lorde worthy.		to the soudan, had been
A drift of wedi vs droffe to Rome,	76	driven by stress of
The Romaynes robbed vs anone;		weather to Rome, where
Of vs thai slowgh ful many one.		they had been robbed by
With sorwe and care we be bygone.		the Romans.
Whereof, lorde, remedye	80	[leaf 3]
Ye ordeyne by youre Barons boolde,		Therefore he solicited
To wreke the of this vilane;		that the soudan would
Or certes oure blis is coolde.”		take revenge on those
The Soudon hirynge this tyþinge,	84	who had done such
With egre chere he made a vowe		villainy to him.
To Mahounde and to Appolyne,		The soudan, hearing
That thai shulde by it dere I-nowe,		these tidings, made
Er that he wente fro theyme.95	88	a vow to Mahound and
“Where be ye, my kinges boolde,		to Apolyn, that they
My Barons and my Admyral?		should dearly pay for
Thes tidinges make myn herte coolde,		it.
But I be venged, dyen I shalle.	92	‘Ferumbras, my son,’ he
Sire Ferumbras, my sone so dere,		said, ‘and my daughter
Ye muste me comforte in this case;		Floripas, ye must

‹p004›
THE SOUDAN STARTS FROM AGREMORE

My ioye is alle in the nowe here		be my comfort in this
And in my Doghter Dame Florypas.	96	case.
Sortybraunce, my Counselere,		Order Sortibrance,
Lete clepe him forthe to counsaile me,		my counsellor, to be
And Oliborne, my Chauncelere		called for, and my
And noble Clerke of hie degre,	100	chancellor Oliborn,
And Espiarde, my messangere,		and Espiard my
To goon to Assye and to Aufrike,		messenger, that he
To kinges, princes fer and ne,		may go to Africa and
Barons, Admyralls and Dukes frike,	104	to Asia and to all
Comaundinge hem vppo her legeaunce		the princes, who owe
To come in al hast vnto me,		me allegiance, and
Wel Armed with shelde and launse,		command them hastily to
To Egremoure þo riche Cite.”	108	assemble with shield
In shorte tyme this message was wroghte		and lance at Agremore.’
An hundred thouusande on a rowte		In a short time 100,000
That robbery was righte dere boght,		men had assembled.
Was never none derrer withouten douȝte.	112	On the advice of Lukafer,
The kinge of Baldas, sir Lukafe,		king of Baldas,
Of Aufryke lorde and governoure,		the soudan also
Spake to the Sowdo,that men myghte here,		brought together 700 sail
And saide “sir, for thyn honou,	116	and a dromond for himself,
Do sende for shippes both fe and nere.”		for Ferumbras of
Carrikes, Galeis and shippes shene,		Alexandrie, for the
vij hundred were gadered al in fere		Asiatic king of
And a Dromonde for the Sowde kene.	120	[leaf 4] Chaunder and
Sir Ferumbras of Alisaundre		for Floripas. There
In the Dromonde with him was,		were two masters in
Of Assy the kinge of Chaunde,		that vessel, and two
And his faire dogħter Floripas.	124	idols placed on the
Two maistres were in the Dromounde,		main top, with round
Two goddes on hye sete thore		maces, therewith to
In the maister toppe, withe macis rounde,		menace the Christians.
To manace with the Criste lore.	128	The sails of red
The sailes were of rede Sendelle,		sendal-silk were
Embrowdred witħ riche araye,

‹p005›
TO INVADE ROME WITH A GREAT ARMY.

With beestes and breddes every dele,		richly embroidered
That was right curious and gaye;	132	with figures of
The Armes displaied of Laban		animals and birds.
Of Asure and foure lions of goolde.		Four golden lions, the
Of Babiloyne the riche Sowdo,		arms of the soudan of
Moost myghty man he was of moolde,	136	Babylon, were also
He made a vowe to Termagaunte,		displayed thereon.
Whan Rome were distroied & hade myschaunce,		Laban made a vow to
He woolde turne ayen erraunte		Termagant, to destroy Rome,
And distroye Charles the kinge of Fraunce.	140	and after that Charlemagne.
Fortħ thai sailed on the flode,		Having disembarked in
Tille thai come to the haven of Rome:		the haven of Rome,
The wynde hem served, it was ful goode.		they slew all
Ther londed many a grymlye gome.	144	Christians, and burned
Thai brente and slowen, þat Cristen were,		towns, abbeys and
Tow, Abbey and holy chirche.		churches.
The hethen hade such power there,		The Pope of Rome,
That moche woo gan thai there wircħ.	148	hearing of the heathens
Tidinggis came to Rome anone		laying waste the whole
Unto the Pope, that þt tyme was,		country,
That the heþen came to bren and slone.
This was to hem a sory cas.	152
He lete cal his counsaile to-geder		assembled his council.
To wete, what was beste to do.
Anone as thai were come þede,
He asked of hem al ful sone:	156
“Lordinges, it is vnknowne96 to you,
That this cursed hathen Sowdo
Brennyth and stroyeth oure pepul nowe,
Alive he leveth vnneth not one.	160
Seint Petir be oure governoure		[leaf 5]
And save this worthi Cite of Rome,
And Seinte Poule be oure gydoure
From this cursed hethe houne97!”	164
Ifreȝ he bispake him tha,		Jeffrez, a senator

‹p006›
SAVARIS LEADS THE CHRISTIAN TROOPS

Of Rome he was a Senatoure,		of Rome, advised that
And saide “senditħ some worthy man		worthy men should be
To Charles kinge of hye honoure.	168	sent to Charles of
He wolde you helpe with al his mygħte,		Douce France to implore
That noble kinge of Dowse Fraunce.”		his assistance.
“Certes” quod Savaris “þat weren no rigħte,		But Duke Savariz,
It were right a foule myschaunce,	172	thinking this to be
To sende to þat worthy kinge.		a wretched piece
We have oure hedes yet al hole,		of timidity, as they
Oure sheldes be not broke no-thinge,		had not tried
Hawberke, spere, ner poleyne, ner pole.	176	anything for themselves,
Where-of shul we play to him,
That no thinge yet have assaide?
Mecħ uylanye we myght wynne,
That for noght were so sone afrayed.	180
Ten thousande men delyuere me tyte		asked for 10,000 men
Tomorue next in-to the feelde,		to be put under his
And I shall prove with al my myghte		command.
To breke there bothe spere and shelde.”	184
Vnto the Senatours it semed welle,
His counsaile goode and honurable.
This worthi Duke was armed in stele
In armes goode and profitable;	188
He bare a Chek of goulis clere,
An Egle of goolde abrode displayed.
With him many a bolde Bachelere
Tho spake Savaryȝ witħ wordes on hye	192	The next morning the
And saide “my felowes alle,		duke addressed his men,
This daie prove you me worthy,
And faire you al shal befalle.
Thenke yat Criste is more myghty	196
Than here fals goddis alle;
And he shal geve vs the victorie,
And foule shal hem this day bifalle.”
Fortħ than rode þat faire Ooste	200	and directed them to
With right goode chere and rando,		the soudan’s

‹p007›
AGAINST THE SARACENS AND CONQUERS THEM.

Tille than come ful nyȝe the cooste.		pavilion near the
Of the Sowdons Pavylo		shore.
Ferumbras was of hem ware	204	[leaf 6] Ferumbras,
And sprange out as a sparkil of glede;		that doughty
Of Armes bright a sheelde he bare,		warrior, becoming
A Doughty ma he was of dede.		aware of them, led
xv thousande came oute there	208	15,000 men against the
With him at þat same tyde,		Romans.
Ayen the Romaynes for to were,
Witħ bobaunce, booste and grete pride.
The stoure was stronge, enduryn longe:	212
The Romaynes hade there the feelde;
The Sarysyns thai slougħ amonge,
Ten thousand and mo with spere and sheelde.		10,000 and more of the
Sauariz was wise and ware	216	Saracens were slain,
And drowe towards þat Citee.		and the Romans, though
His baner displaied witħ him he bare		victorious, were led
To releve with his meyne.		back to Rome by the
The Pope with his Senatours	220	cautious Savaris.
Thanked god þat tyme of glorie,		The Pope thanked God
That gafe hem þat day grete honours,		for the victory.
Of hethen that dai to have the victorie.		Lukafer of Baldas
Lukafere, kinge of Baldas,	224	having scoured the
The countrey hade serchid and sought,		country,
Ten thousande maidyns faire of face		brought 10,000 maidens
Vnto the Sowdan hath he broghte.		to the soudan, who
The Sowdo commanded hem anone,	228	ordered them to be
That thai shulde al be slay.		slain,
Martires thai were euerycho,		saying, he would
And therof were thai al ful fayne.		not have his people
He saide “my peple nowe ne shalle	232	polluted by them, and
With hem noughte defouled be,		he would destroy every
But I wole distroie ouer all		Christian seed.
The sede over alle Cristiante.”		Lukafer said to the
Tho spake lukefere the kinge,	236	soudan:
That hethe hounde Baldas,

‹p008›
THE NEXT DAY LUKAFER ASSAULTS THE CITY,

And saide “Sir Sowda, graunte me one thinge,		“Grant me thy daughter
Thi doghter Dame Floripas.		and I will bring thee
The kinge of Fraunce I shal the bringe	240	Charlemagne and all his
And the xij dosipers alle in fere.”		twelve peers.”
The Sowdan saide in þat tokenyn,		Laban assented; but
“I graunte the here, that is so dere.”		Floripas said, she
Tho sayde Floripe “sire, noo haste,	244	would only consent to
He hath note done as he hath saide.		be his darling,
I trowe, he speketh these wordes in waste,		[leaf 7]
He wole make bute an easy brayde.
Whan he bryngith home Charles the kinge	248	when he had taken
And the xij dosipers alle,		Charles and the
I graunte to be his derlynge		douzepeers.
What so evere therof by-falle.		The next morning the
Than on the morowe the Sowda	252	soudan ordered Lukafer
Callid to him Lukafe of Baldas,		to assault the City
To assaile the Cite anone:		with 30,000 men.
“And loke thou tary not in this cas!
Thritty thousande of my menie,	256
Of Gallopes, Ethiopes and Aufricanes,
Take hem to the walles witħ the.
Betitħ dow wallis, towris and stones.”
Lukafe blewe his clario	260
To Assemble the Sarasyns þat tide,
Where-of thai knewe right welle the soune,
Thai made hem redy for to ride,
But whan thai come to the yate,	264
The Dikes were so develye depe,		The Saracens, finding
Thai helde hem selfe Chek-mate;		the ditches too deep,
Ouer cowde thai nothir goo nor crepe.		cannot pass, and are
Lukafe in al the haste	268
Turned to the Sowdan agay		obliged to return.
And saide “sir, it is alle in waste,
We laboure nowe alle in vayne.
To depe and brode the Dikes bene,	272
The Towres so stronge be witħ alle,

‹p009›
BUT THE HEATHENS ARE OBLIGED TO WITHDRAW.

That by Mahounde I can note see,
How that we shulde wyne ther to the walle.”
Who was woode but the Sowdo?	276
He reneyed his goddis alle.
He clepede his Engynour sir mavone,		The soudan calls for
To counsaile he did him faste calle.		his engineer Mavon,
He tolde him the case of þat myschefe,	280
How it stode at that ilke tyde.
Mavon Gafe him counsel in breefe		who advised him to fill
To fille the Dikes þat were depe.98		the ditch
Every man to woode shal goo,	284
Fagotis to hewe and faste bynde,		with fagots.
And fille the Dikes faste anoo
With alle, that we may ther fynde.
“Gramercy, Mavo,” quod Laban tha,	288	Laban thanks his wise
“Mahoundis benysone thou shalt haue,		engineer.
Of alle myn Ooste the wiseste man,		[leaf 8]
With counsaile men for to saue.”
Alle this was done the seconde daye,	292	The following day, the
Men myght go even to the walle;		ditch being filled with
On every party the ooste laye,		fagots, the city
Thai made assaite99 then generalle.		was assaulted from all
The Romaynes ronne to the toures,	296	quarters. The Romans
Thai were in ful grete dowte;		ran to the towers, and
Thai hade many sharpe shoures,		a sharp conflict
Thai were assailed sore a-bowte.		ensued.
Wifis and maidyns stones thai bare	300	Women and maidens
To the walles than ful faste,		carried stones which
Thai were in grete drede and care;		the
The men over the wallis did caste.		men threw over the
Thai slowen many a Sarasy,	304	walls.
x thousande100 pepul of he and moo.		10,000 Saracens were
The daie passed to the fyne,		slain and
The hethen withdrowe hem tho.		the heathens obliged to
Whan these tidinges came to laban,	308	withdraw.

‹p010›
LUKAFER ENTERS THE MAIN TOWER OF ROME.

His goddes he gan chide.		Laban chides his gods
He waxe both blake, pale and wan,		and nearly grows mad
He was nyȝe woode þat same tyde.		with vexation. But
Tho Lukafer comfortede him welle	312	Lukafer told him that,
And saide “sir, be not dismayed,		having espied that
For I have aspied everydele,		Savaris would, the
Howe thai shalle alle be betrayede.		following day, come
Sauariz wole to morowe witħ us fighte,	316	out again to fight
His baner knowe I ful welle;		with them, he would
I shal have an othere, I yo plighte,		have a banner made
Like to this every dele.		exactly like his, which
Whan he is moste besy in bataile,	320	when Savaris was much
Than wole I with banere displaiede		engaged in the battle,
Ride in to Rome without faile,		he would unfold and
Thus shal thai al be betrayede.”		enter Rome.
The Sowda was glad of this tidinge,	324
Hopinge it shulde be so;
And even as it was in purposynge,		And so it
Right so was it aftir I-do.		turned out; the Romans
Wenynge it hade be Sauarye,	328	mistaking him for
Relevinge fro the hethen stou,		Savaris, returning from
Wenynge doth ofte harme withoute lye,		his sally, he entered
He entred to the maister Toure.		the main tower,
The firste warde thus thay wonne	332	[leaf 9]
By this fals contrevede engyne.
Thus was moche sorowe bygo,
Thai slougħ all, that were ther-Inne.		and slew all therein.
Wha Sauariz saugħ this discomfitu	336	Savaris becoming aware
Of the Romaynes in that tyme,		of the artifice of the
And howe harde tha was here aventu,		enemy,
Of sorowe þat myghte he ryme
Of x thousande me lefte no moo	340	and seeing out of
But sexty me and twelfe,		10,000 Romans no more
And whan he sawe this myschief tho,		than seventy-two left,
He turned homewarde agayn him selue.		turned back, but found
By tha he founde the gate shite	344	the gate shut,

‹p011›
THE POPE DESPATCHES MESSENGERS TO CHARLEMAGNE.

With Sarisyns, that hade it wone;
And Estragot with him he mette
With bores hede, blake and donne.
For as a bore an hede hadde	348
And a grete mace stronge as stele.
He smote Sauaryz as he were madde,		and was slain by
That dede to grounde he felle.		Estragot, a black giant
This Astrogot of Ethiop,	352	of Ethiopia.
He was a kinge of grete strengtħ;
Ther was none suche in Europe
So stronge and so longe in lengtħ.
I trowe, he were a develes sone,	356
Of Belsabubbis lyne,
For ever he was thereto I-wone,
To do Criste men grete pyne.
Whan tidinggis came to the [P]ope,	360	After the death of
That Duke Sauaryz was dede slay,		Savaris, the Pope
Tha to woo turned alle his hope;
He dide calle tha to counsaile		summoned his council
Alle the Senatouris of Rome,	364	again.
What þinge þat myght hem most availe,
And what were beste to done.
Tho by-spake a worthy man of counsaile,
An Erille of the Senatouris:	368	An earl of the
“The best counsaile, þat I can		senatours suggested
		the necessity of
Sending vnto Charles the kinge101		dispatching messengers
Certifiynge him by your myssangeris		to Charlemagne,
The myschief þat ye are Inne,	372	imploring him to come
That he come with his Dosyperys		to their deliverance.
To reskue Cristiante fro this heþen.”		[leaf 10]
All thai assentede anone therto;		They all assented.
The lettres were made in haste.	376	Three messengers,
Thre messageres we ordey102 therto,		with letters
That went forthe at the laste.		written in haste,

‹p012›
THE SARACENS THROW DOWN A BASTILE OF ROME.

At a posterne thai wente oute		left the city by a
Pryvely aboute mydnygħt,	380	postern at midnight,
And passed through alle the route.		and passed the enemy’s
Of hem was war no wigħt.		camp without being

Vt let we nowe the messangeris goo, noticed by any wight. And speke we of Laba, 384   Howe he dide saile the Cite anoo, Laban

And commaundid, þat every man		commanded every
Shulde withe Pikeys or witħ bille		man to throw pikes and
The Wallis over throwe,	388	bills over the walls,
That he myght the Romaynes kille,		to kill the Romans.
Playnly on a rowe,
By water he ordeynede the shippes goo,		He ordered the ships
The bootis bownden to the maste,	392	to go up the water,
That thai myght fight with hem anoo,		with their boats bound
Honde of honde, þat was here caste.		to the mast, that they
To the Toure a bastile stode,		might fight in close
An engyne was I-throwe—	396	combat.
That was to the Cite ful goode—		Near the tower there
And brake dow towres both hie and lowe.		stood a bastile which
Tho sorowede alle the Citesyns		formed a principal
And were ful hevy tha.	400	protection to the city.
Tho wox prowde the Sarasyns,		It was laid low by
And than bispake sire laban		stones hurled from an
And saide “yolde youe here to me,		engine.
Ye may not longe endure,	404	Laban, growing proud,
Or ellis shall ye al slay be,		summoned the Romans to
By mahounde I you ensure.”		surrender.
A Romayne drife a darte him to		Instead of an answer, a
And smote him on the breste plate,	408	Roman hurled a dart at
Ne hadde his hawberke lasted tho,		his breast-plate, but
Mahounde had come to late.		his hauberk shielded
Tho was the Sowdo more þa wod,		him.
He cried to Ferumbras,	412	The soudan, more than
“For Mahoundes loue, þat is so good,		mad, charged Ferumbras
Destroye vp bothe man and place.		to destroy them all,

‹p013›
ESTRAGOT IS CRUSHED BY A PORTCULLIS.

Spare no thinge that is alyve,
Hows, Toure ner Walle,	416	[leaf 11]
Beest, ner man, Childe nere Wife,
Brenne, slo and distroye alle.”
Tho Ferumbras ordeynede anone
To bende the Engynes to the tow	420
And bete dow botħ Toure and stoo.
He cleped fortħ Fortibraunce and Mavo		and enjoined
And saide “be youre Engynes goode?		Fortibrance and Mavon
Shewe forth here nowe your crafte	424	to direct their
For Mahoundis love, þat gevith man foode,		engines against the
That ther be no Toure lafte.”		walls.
Tho the grete gloto Estagote103		The great glutton
With his myghty mace sware	428	Estragot, with his
On the Gatis of Rome he smote		heavy mace,
And brake hem alle on thre thare.		smote on the gates
In he entrid at the Gate		and brake them in
The Porte-Colis on him thai lete falle.	432	pieces.
He wende, he hade come to late,		But as he was
It smote him through herte, lyuer and galle.		entering one of the
He lai cryande at the grounde		gates, they let the
Like a develle of Helle;	436	portcullis fall,
Through the Cite wente the sowne,		which crushed him to
So lowde than gan he yelle.		the ground,
Gladde were al the Romaynes,		where he lay crying
That he was take in the trappe,	440	like a devil.
And sorye were al the Sarsyns		The Romans were glad,
Of þat myschevos happe.		but the Saracens
Sory was the Soudo tha		grieved.
And Ferumbras and Lukafe.	444	They withdrew to
Thai drowe hem tille her tentes tha,		their tents, leaving
Thai left him ligginge there.		behind the corpse of
Mahounde toke his soule to him		Estragot, whose soul
And broght it to his blis.	448	went up to Mahound.
He loued him wel and al his kyn,

‹p014›
THE POPE ATTEMPTS A SALLY.

Of þat myghte he not mys.
Anone the [P]ope dide somo alle;		The Pope called all
The peple of the Cite came,	452	his people to St.
To Seinte Petris he dide hem calle,		Peter’s,
And thidere came every man.
He saide on hie “my Children dere,		and proposed to them
Ye wote wel, howe it is;	456
Ayenst the Sarisyns, þat nowe be here,
We mowe not longe endure I-wis.
Thay brekene oure walles, oure Toures alle		[leaf 12]
With caste of his Engyne.	460
Therefore here amonge yo alle
Ye shalle here counsaile myne.
Thai bene withdrawe to here Oost,104
And on-armede thay ben alle.	464
Therfore, me thenketh, is beste		to attempt a sally
To-morowe erly on hem to falle.		with 20,000 men, to
We have xxxti thousande men;		attack the enemy
Twenty thousande shal go witħ me,	468	before day-break
And in this Cite leve ten		within their camp,
To governe the comynalte.”		and to leave 10,000
The Senatouris assentede sone		for the guard of the
And saide, beter myghte no man seyne.	472	city. The senators
On the morowe this was it done105;		assented.
God bringe hem wele home agayne.		In the morning
The Pope did display than		the Pope displayed
The hie baner of Rome,	476	the banner of Rome,
And he assoiled every ma
Througħ gracious god in Dome.
He praide of helpe and socou		and after a prayer
Seinte Petir and Poule also	480	for the preservation
And oure lady, þat swete floure,		of the city,
To saue the Cite of Rome from woo.		they marched out.
Forth thai ride towarde the Oost.		But Ferumbras, going
Ferumbras romede a-boute;	484	his rounds,