Emil Hausknecht

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 Groeber 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:—

“Veillard, dist Lucafer, vous ni savez juer,

Vous ne savez en France le grant charboun soffler.

Certes, ceo dist li dus, mais n’en oie soffler.

Et respont li payen: Mais te feray mostrer.

Ly payen vait le duc au grant fowel mener.

Quant Rollant l’ad veu, a Berard l’ad mostre

Ore porres boue jeu ver et esgarder.

Dahait qui ne laira ly et Naimes juer.

Lucafer se beysa pur un tison combrer,

Trestote le plus ardant quil i poet trover,

Par tiel air soffla le fu qil li fist voler.

Puis ad dist a Names ‘Ore vous covent soffler.’

Names prist le tison qui bien se sout aider,

Vers le payen s’en va pur le tison sofler,

Pur ceo le fist ly dus qa ly se volt meller,

Si suffla le tison qe le fist allumer,

Le barbe et le menton fist au payen bruler,

Tres parmy le visaie en fist la flame virer,

Qe par un sule petite qe nel fist souuiler.

Quant le voit ly payen, le sanc quida deueher.

Il jette a .ij. ses maines, qi le quide frapper,

Mais ly dus le ferry tres parmy le costes,

Qe les oilz de la teste ly fist en fu voler.

Puys l’ad pris par le flank, s’il voit en le fu ruer.

Lichiers, dist dus Names, Dex te poet mal doner,

Tu me quidoies ore come fole cy trover.”

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.