«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 [p-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 know[65]
that some names, the spelling of which in the «Sowdan» differs from
that in the other versions, have the same form in the Hanover MS. as
in the «Sowdan». Thus we find the following names agreeing in both
versions: «Lucafer», «Maragonde», «Maupyn». Only instead of «Laban»
which is used in the «Sowdan», we read «Balan». In the fragment printed
by Grœber,[66] we find the name of the Soudan’s son [p-xxxii] with the
same spelling as in the «Destruction», «Fier»en«bras», which is nearer
to «Fer»um«bras» than «Fier»a«bras».[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,
[p-xxxiii] it becomes evident that the Provençal poem has not been the
original of the «Sowdan».
If now we compare the «Sowdan» with Caxton’s version, which we know to
be simply a translation of the French prose romance of «Fierabras»;[70]
the few following instances of differences between «C» and «S» will
show at once, that also that version from which the prose romance was
copied or compiled[71] cannot have been the original of the «Sowdan».
There are several variations in the names contained in the two
versions. Thus we find «Ballant» in «C» for «Laban» in «S»;
«Fyer»a«bras» in «C» for «Fe»rum«bras» 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. [p-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. [p-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 works[74] 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»; [p-xxxvi] 2245, «there» : «chere», 2404 : «bere»; 2604,
«there» : «were» (w[^æ]ron), 208 : «were» (werian), &c.
We likewise find «sore» and «sare»[75] (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». [p-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 [p-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
[p-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 «waítẹṇ uppon mé», 459 «brékẹṇ our wállis», 45 «slépẹṇ
with ópyne ýȝe», 485 «cómẹṇ by the cóst», 2313 «dídẹṇ 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
[p-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 [p-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.