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). [p-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 20[39]) 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 [p-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]