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:—

“Quam notæ Belgis, sec. xiii. et xiv., variæ variarum nationum fabulæ fuerint, quæ ex Gallia septemtrionali, ubi originem ceperunt, translatæ sunt, pauca hæc testimonia demonstrabunt:— . . . . in exordio Sidraci:—12

‘Dickent hebbic de gone ghescouden,

die hem an boeken houden

daer si clene oerbare in leren,

also sijn jeesten van heeren,

van Paerthenopeuse, van Amidase,

van Troijen ende van Fierabrase,

ende van menighen boeken, die men mint

ende daer men litel oerbaren in vint,

‹viii›

ende dat als leghene es ende mere,

ende anders en hebben ghene lere,

danne vechten ende vrowen minnen

ende lant ende steden winnen . . . . . .’—

“Nec rarius tanguntur fabulæ de Carolo Magno, Speculum Historiale, IV. 1. xxix (cf. Bilderdijk, Verscheidenh, I. D. bl. 161–2):—

‘Carel es menichwaerf beloghen

in groten boerden ende in hoghen,

alse boerders doen ende oec dwase,

diene beloghen van Fierabrase,

dat nie ghesciede noch en was . . . .

die scone walsce valsce poeten,

die mer rimen dan si weten,

belieghen groten Caerle vele

in sconen worden ende bispele

van Fierabrase van Alisandre,

van Pont Mautrible ende andre,

dat algader niet en was . . . .’”

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:—

“Romanys off worthi Ferambrace,

That worthily our-commyn was

Throw the rycht douchty Olywer;

And how the duz Peris wer

Assegyt intill Egrymor,

Quhar King Lawyne lay thaim befor

With may thowsandis then I can say,

And bot elewyn within war thai,

And a woman; and wa sa stad,

That thai na mete thar within had,

Bot as thai fra thair fayis wan.

Y heyte, sua contenyt thai thaim than;

That thai the tour held manlily,

Till that Rychard off Normandy,

Magre his fayis, warnyt the king,

That wes joyfull off this tithing:

For he wend, thai had all bene slayne,

Tharfor he turnyt in hy agayne,

And wan Mantrybill and passit Flagot;

And syne Lawyne and all his flot

Dispitusly discumfyt he:

And deliueryt his men all fre,

And wan the naylis, and the sper,

And the croune that Ihesu couth ber; ‹ix›

And off the croice a gret party

He wan throw his chewalry.”13

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:—

“Roland with Brandwell, his bricht brand,

Faucht never better, hand for hand,

Nor Gawin aganis Golibras,

Nor Olyver with Pharambras.”

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—

“.i. chevalier de France ai lontans enamé:

Guis a nom de Borgoigne, moult i a bel armé;

Parens est Karlemaine et Rollant l’aduré.

Dès que je fui à Romme, m’a tout mon cuer emblé,

Quant l’amirans mes peres fist gaster la cité,

Lucafer de Baudas abati ens ou pré,

Et lui et le ceval, d’un fort espiel quarré,”

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.

“Richars de Normendie au courage aduré,

Qui cacha l’amirant devant Romme ens el pré.”

The allusion contained in l. 2614,28

. . . . “Richart de Normendie,

Cil qui m’ocist Corsuble et mon oncle Mautrie,”

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.

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.