The Romaunce of the Sowdone of Babylone and of Ferumbras His Sone Who Conquerede Rome. Various

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ wel longe hadde þis chas ylest 1764 Moult fu grans cele chace 1058 and oþre reliques riche ynow wherof y have plentee 1806 Et les dignes reliques dont il i ad plenté 1227 for to wyte wat þay be and hure covyne yknowe 2067 Lor couvine et lor estre enquerre et demander. 1316 By an old forsake ȝeate of þe olde antiquyte 2144 Par une gaste porte de viel antequité 1773 sittynge on a grene erber 2562 . . siét sous cel arbre ramé. 1974 Florippe his doȝtre þe cortoyse in chambre þar she was In þe paleys yhurde noise and þyder þan she gas 2712 Floripas la courtoise a le nois escoute Puis issi de la cambre, … Entresi c’au palais . . 2007 þow ert asotid 2733 . . vous voi assoté. 2538 a gret repref it were 3136 . . il nous est reprouvé 3665 brydel and paytrel and al þe gere wiþ fyn gold yharneyssed were 4117 Li estrier furent d’or, rices fu li poitrés 3672 and þe king him gan ascrie 4126 … si s’est haut escriés. 3791 a gret dul þay made þere 4236 . . demainent grant dolour 4541 with an hard crestid serpentis fel 4832 vestu ot la pel d’un dur serpent cresté 5753 on þan ston a cracchede and in a spatte in dispit of god, etc. 5910 en despit de Ihesu ens es fous ecraca.

      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:

A.	E.
175	Ne lyre he noȝt þys day til evene	175	ke il puisse tant vivre que cis jours soit passés
2131	Adoun þay gunne falle, knellyng on þe erthe stille … & kussedem everechone, etc.	2833	Issi agenoillierent par bones volentez … Ils baissent les reliques …

      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 СКАЧАТЬ