(1) In Ãlfricâs _Passiones Martyrum_; see Horstmann, _Altenglische
Legenden_, Second series, Heilbronn, 1881, p. xli.
(2) In the South-English collection, _l.c._ p. xlviii.
(3) In the Northern collection, pp. lxi and lxiv. Herrigâs _Archiv_ 57,
p. 262 ff.
(4) In the Scottish collection of legends, said to be Barbourâs. Cf.
Barbourâs _Legendensammlung_, ed. C. Horstmann, Heilbronn, 82, ii.
p. 12.
(5) In the old Engl. translation of the _Legenda aurea_, see Horstm.,
_l.c._, p. cxxxv. Caxtonâs edition of the legend, No. 196.
(6) The complete text of the legend printed in Horstmannâs
above-mentioned collection, _Altengl. Legendensamml._, p. 211 ff.
(7) _St. Eustas_, by I. Partridge, see Gibbsâ above-mentioned edition,
and Horstm., _l.c._ p. 472 ff.
With this legend are connected, more or less, the following poems, which
it is necessary to speak of in turn:
(1) The Pseudo-Chrestien epic poem, _Guillaume dâEngleterre_.[6]
[Footnote 6: _Guill. dâEngleterre_, ed. Fr. Michel, _Chron.
Anglo-Norm._, III. 39-172. On the authorship of this poem see C.
Hofmann, _Sitzungsberichte der Münch. Akad._, 1870, II. p. 51, and
P. Meyer, _Romania_, VIII. p. 815 f.]
(2) The two Middle High German poems, _Die gute Frau_,[7] and (3) _Der
Graf von Savoyen_.[8]
[Footnote 7: _Die gute Frau_, ed. E. Sommer in Hauptâs
_Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, II. 389.]
[Footnote 8: _Der Graf v. Savoyen_, ed. F. H. v. d. Hagen,
_Minnesinger_, IV. 640, and Eschenburg, _Denkmäler altdeutscher
Dichtkunst_, Bremen, 1799.]
(4) The romances of _Isumbras_; (5) of _Octavian_; (6) last, _Syr
Eglamour of Artois_, and (7) _Sir Torrent of Portugal_.
The first five have been treated by Holland in his book, _Chrestien de
Troies_, Tübingen, 1854.
According to Hollandâs opinion, all of these are derived from the legend
of Eustache. He has not exactly inquired into each of them, but
restricts himself to a detailed account of their contents. AÂ critical
inquiry into these poems, except the romance of _Octavian_, has been
recently published by J. Steinbach: _Der einfluss des Crestien de Troies
auf die altenglische literatur_. Leipzig, 1886, p. 41 ff. As to the
French and the two German poems, it may be sufficient to refer to this
exhaustive essay, since it is only by the same legendary origin that
they are connected with _Sir Torrent_; otherwise they are quite
different.
But of the English romances of _Sir Isumbras_ and of _Octavian_ it is
necessary to treat more minutely. _Isumbras_ was edited first by
Utterson in his _Select Pieces of Early Popular Poetry_, London, 1817;
secondly by Halliwell in _The Thornton Romances_, from the Lincoln MS.
A. i. 17. AÂ critical edition of this poem has long been promised by
Prof. Zupitza.
In this romance the legend of Eustache can be most clearly recognized.
Its contents are, indeed, somewhat transformed according to the taste of
the later Middle Ages: the Roman captain is changed into a Christian
knight, who performs wonders in fighting against the infidels; he finds
his wife as queen of a heathen country; they end their lives as mighty
princes, and so on. The legendary style has been supplanted by the
romantic diction,[9] but the leading features remain the same. In his
above-mentioned essay, pp. 46-48, Steinbach concludes, from a detailed
comparison of the contents, that the author of _Isumbras_ did not derive
his story from the epic poem, _Guillaume dâEngleterre_, but from an
original which bore a still greater resemblance to the legend of
Eustache, and, at the same time, contained many of those additions which
are to be found in all versions of the legend. Whether this original was
composed in Latin, French, or Anglo-Norman, Steinbach does not pretend
to determine.
[Footnote 9: On this text see Sarrazin, _Octav._, p. xlv; he
speaks of âdie entstellte, spielmannsmässig zersungene Form, in
der die Thornton Ms uns die legende überliefert. . . . . .
dasselbe Pathos, dieselbe Sentimentalität und Frömmelei, aber auch
dieselbe anschauliche und lebhafte Erzählungsweise (sc. as in
Oct.).â]
To _Isumbras_ I join a few remarks on the romance of _Octavian_, which
was edited by Halliwell for the Percy Society, _The Romance of the
Emperor Octavian_, London, 1844; and by Sarrazin, _Zwei mittelengl.
Versionen der Octaviansage_, in Koelbingâs _Altengl. Bibliothek_, Band
III. As for its contents, cf. Sarrazin, as above, p. xviii ff.
Concerning the origin of the story, he agrees in general with Holland,
only he shows a still nearer connection between _Isumbras_ and
_Octavian_, taking the former for a mere imitation of the latter. This
opinion, however, cannot be proved. As I cannot enter into detail,
IÂ only observe that the contents of _Octavian_ are a great deal more
complicated and copious than those of _Isumbras_, which is simple in its
plot and style, and shows the nearest resemblance to the old Eustache
legend, whilst _Octavian_ is a refined and adorned version of the
legendary tale with considerable change in the plan. Isumbras, of
course, bears a strict resemblance to Eustache, but not to the Emperor
Octavian, who has but little of the character of a suffering saint, as
he does not become an outlaw himself, nor is to lose his earthly goods.
Even those of his adventures which are conformable to the original--the
separation from his family, the rape of the children, the final
reunion--are exhibited in a different manner.
The principal contents of the romance of _Octavian_ bear internal
evidence of its later origin, as it treats chiefly of the adventures and
exploits of Florent, Octavianâs son; especially in the second half of
the story, exploits of Florent so prevail that the romance might justly
bear his name on the title instead of his fatherâs. IÂ therefore believe
that Sarrazinâs opinion, that _Isumbras_ is nothing but a bad imitation
of _Octavian_, is wrong; and I am rather inclined to think the two poems
were composed independently from each other, after French originals, as
is evidently the case with _Octavian_, and probably with _Isumbras_. See
Halliwell, _Thornt. Rom._, p. xviii. Sarrazin, moreover, supposes,
p. xlv, both poems to be due to the same author, in consequence of the
conformity of the dialect and style, and of some literal coincidences.
But the fact that both of these romances are written in the same dialect
is not sufficient to prove the identity of the authors, nor is the
style, which is nearly stereotyped in all of these romances. As to the
literal coincidences, only three of the nine passages quoted by Sarrazin
seem to me to be of any importance. See _Octavian_, notes on ll. 382,
397, 481. But even these only show that the writer of _Octavian_ knew
_Isumbras_, or _vice versâ_.
As to the relation between _Octavian_ and our poem, these two romances
have no other affinity than the same legendary origin, and the motive of
the woman innocently persecuted, which may very well have been
introduced independently by two different authors. In all other
particulars they are quite different.
The heroes bear little resemblance to their legendary models; in
_Octavian_ the Emperor of Rome; in _Torrent_ the young, hardy knight who
encounters marvellous struggles to win the hand of his spouse. Also in
the treatment of the other motive, each romance has taken its own
course. In _Octavian_, Florence is calumniated by her mother-in-law; in
_Torrent_, Desonelle is persecuted by her father. The causes are
consequently quite different: there the jealousy of the mother-in-law
against the mighty Empress; here Calamondâs hatred against Torrent.
These differences, now only alluded to, cause a great number of others,
and produce a general difference of the two poems, which renders the
opinion of a nearer connection between them altogether illusory.
Of all the poems mentioned above, the last, _Syr Eglamour of Artois_, is
most nearly related to _Sir Torrent_, a fact found out by Halliwell,[10]
who, however, thought that there was no necessity for him to prove a
similarity which would be at once detected by the reader; still, he
takes it for certain that the romance of _Torrent_ is younger than and
partly founded on _Sir Eglamour_. As he gives no proof for this opinion,
it will be worth while to enter once more into this question, in order
to see whether he is right or not.
[Footnote 10: _The Thornton Romances_, p. xxii f. âThe romance of
_Torrent_ is partly founded upon the story related in _Sir
Eglamour_. The names are changed, but the resemblance is too
striking to have been the result of chance. The treachery of the
sovereign, the prowess of the knight, the indiscretions and
misfortunes of the lady, and the happy conclusion of her
misfortunes, these form the leading incidents of each romance
. . . . there is, perhaps, a secret history attached to the source
of these romances that remains to be unravelled.â]
Upon it, the MSS. do not help us. The earliest MS. that can have
contained _Sir Eglamour_ is the parchment one of the Duke of
Sutherland,[11] written about the end of the 14th century. The other
four MSS. of it[12] are still later. The only MS. of _Sir Torrent_
belongs to the 15th century, so that neither of these romances can be
traced very far back.
[Footnote 11: Cf. Koelbingâs _Englische Studien_, vii. p. 191 ff.]
[Footnote 12: Cf. _The Thornton Romances_, p. xxv ff., and
p. xxxvi.]
_Sir Eglamour_ was printed several times in the beginning of the 16th
century, and edited anew by Halliwell from the Cambridge MS. in his
well-known collection. To judge from the numerous readings of the
Lincoln, Cotton, and Cambridge MSS. which he has quoted, the Lincoln MS.
shows best the original dialect, and offers in several passages a
reading preferable as to rhyme and meaning.[13] Even slight differences
in the contents occur now and then.[14]
[Footnote 13: See the following passages which Halliwell has
quoted in the notes: _Eglam._ 54, 96, 107, 111, 122, 128, 139,
153, 177, 195, 213, 247, 337, 347, 399, 445, 572, 605, 614, 737,
740, 765, 858, 883, 945, 985, 1081, 1143, 1206, 1216.]
[Footnote 14: See _Eglamour_, notes on ll. 1064, 1082, 1267.]
The metre and probably the dialect are the same in both romances; they
are composed in the tail-rhymed twelve-line stanzas, and written in a
North Midland dialect. In both of them the style is alike swelled with
the habitual phrases; only the long prayers and pious reflections so
frequent in _Torrent_ are not to be met with in _Eglamour_. On the other
hand, the poet is wont to predict the fates of his heroes (ll. 204,
951); he often demands attention (ll. 15, 39, 343, 634, 904); he never
omits, in describing the festivals, to mention the performances of the
minstrels, and to praise the liberality of the lords. These
characteristics render it probable that the author of _Eglamour_ was a
minstrel, not a clerk or monk, as I suppose the author of _Sir Torrent_
to be.
I now pass on to compare the contents of the two poems. The principal
features of the plot are the same in both. AÂ young knight who seeks the
hand of a princess engages to win her by valiant exploits. The
princessâs father opposes his wooing, jealous as he is of the heroâs
renown. The knight vanquishes all the giants and other monsters against
which he is told to fight, and at length gains his spouse. AÂ few weeks
after their marriage, he sets out again on adventurous expeditions.
While he stays abroad, his wife is delivered of twins. Her father sends
her to sea in a leaky boat; she lands on a foreign shore, where her
children are carried off by wild beasts; but they are saved in a
marvellous manner, and brought up at royal courts, whilst she herself
lives for a long time at a foreign court. As the hero, when he comes
home again, doesnât find her, he goes into the Holy Land to fight with
the infidels. After various adventures he finds his wife and children
after a tournament at a foreign court. They return home gladly, and
celebrate their nuptials by great festivals. The cruel father is duly
punished.
On entering into details, however, we find considerable discrepancies
between the two romances. First, the names are altogether different.
(Eglamour = Torrent. Crystyabelle = Desonelle. Prynsamour = Calamond.
Organata = Gendres. Degrabelle = Antony fice Greffoun.) The stage of the
plot is in _Eglamour_ Artois, Rome, and Egypt; in _Torrent_ Portugal,
Norway, and Calabre. Only the Holy Land is mentioned in both. There the
children are carried off by wild beasts, saved by princes and brought
up; there the hero fights against the infidels.
The differences of the plot itself are the following:
1. Eglamour confesses his love to Crystyabelle before his deeds;
a squire is the go-between in his suit; Eglamour finds love in return.
In _Torrent_ Desonelle does not know that she is adored by the hero till
after his first exploit. See ll. 109, 448.
2. Accordingly, Eglamour, setting out on adventures, receives two
greyhounds and a sword of St. Paul from Crystyabelle as presents,
whereas Torrent gets an ambler from his lady love, but not till after
his first deed.
3. Prynsamour charges Eglamour with three deeds by which he is to gain
Crystyabelle. Torrent is obliged to undertake not less than five
combats.
4. In _Torrent_ the combats of the hero are enlarged and adorned by
additions not to be found in _Eglamour_. The latter does not release the
daughters and sons of kings, nor does he find precious swords in the
castles of the giants, nor is he deceived by a kingâs counterfeit
letter, which causes Torrent a dangerous struggle and the rivalry of a
foreign prince. Only in _Eglamour_ (ll. 40-48) some knights are
mentioned who came to win Crystyabelle by jousting, but were all
vanquished by Eglamour.
The greatest differences are found in the second halves of the stories.