§ 4 The Contents of the Romance.
Before entering on an inquiry into the sources of the romance, it may be expedient to give a short account of its contents.
In Portugal once reigned a mighty king, whose name was Calamond. He had an only daughter, the fair and gentle Desonelle, who was loved by a young knight called Torrent, son of a Portuguese count. As he could not win her, save by distinguishing himself by valiant exploits, he undertook several adventurous expeditions. First he set out, by the order of the king, against a mischievous and dangerous giant, whom he found lying fast asleep on a hill. He roused the giant by sounding his bugle, and challenged him to fight. Instantly a fierce combat ensued, in which the awkward giant lost his life. In the giant’s castle the young hero delivered a maiden, Eleonore, daughter of the king of Gales, from captivity, and rescued at the same time four princes, whom the giant had taken some time before and imprisoned in an iron cage.
After a short rest Torrent returned into Portugal. He was kindly received by King Calamond, and splendid festivities were celebrated in his honour. The kings of Gales and of Provence showed their gratitude by bestowing on him rich presents, among them a precious sword wrought by Wayland Smith. Desonelle gave him one of her fine palfreys. Calamond, however, shrewd as he was, and envious of the hero’s fame, plotted his ruin. He caused him, by a counterfeit letter of Desonelle, to catch her a falcon in the forest of Maudlen, which was the haunt of a dangerous giant, Rochense, and of many wild beasts. Torrent and his squire set out immediately, but separated on entering the forest, to hunt in the thicket each by himself. Torrent soon encountered a huge dragon, and killed it by vehement strokes. The squire, having meanwhile fallen in with the giant, had been slain by him. The hero, called to the place by the tumult of battle, attacked the giant, and overcame him after a hard struggle. He cut off his head to bear with him as a trophy. He then went into the giant’s castle, where he found a great many jewels, and a bright sword called Mownpolyard. Having returned to the royal court, he ordered five priests to say masses for his squire’s soul. At this very time it happened that the king of Arragon sent messengers to the king of Portugal, in order to bring about a marriage between Desonelle and his youngest son. Calamond would not listen to the advice of his spouse, that he should no longer refuse Desonelle to Torrent, but he promised her to the prince of Arragon, and at the same time sent the hero once more against a giant, Slogus of Foulles in Calabre.
Torrent departed well armed, and after a prosperous voyage arrived in Calabre. There he soon met the giant, who was one-eyed like the Cyclops, and bore a huge cudgel as his only weapon. Torrent threw his spear into the fiend’s eye, and thus overcame him without any long struggle. The king of Calabre graciously welcomed the hero, and largely rewarded him for the service he had rendered his country. Having returned into Portugal, Torrent heard that in a few weeks Desonelle was to be married to the prince of Arragon. Arrayed in knightly dress, he rode right off to Calamond’s court, and challenged his rival to fight. After a short struggle he completely vanquished his antagonist, stretching him on the ground. The next day, as the king, surrounded by his noble guests, banqueted in the great hall of the castle, Torrent entered with the giant’s head in his hand, and harshly demanded the king’s daughter; he called all the lords to witness of Calamond’s perfidy.
The Emperor of Rome now interceded, and it was agreed at his suggestion that Torrent should fight once more against a giant named Cate; if he vanquished that adversary, he should obtain Desonelle and half Arragon. On an isle near the sea-shore the struggle began in presence of the assembled knights. Torrent struck the club out of the giant’s hand, put him to flight, and killed him as he ran away, casting stones at him. Then the Emperor decided, with the approbation of all his knights, that the hero had won both the land and the maiden.
Torrent obtained Desonelle, and rejoiced in the possession of her, but no solemn marriage was performed.
Twelve weeks after, he left his spouse, impelled by his venturous and ambitious mind; for the king of Norway asked him to fight against a wild giant who had carried off his daughter and was destroying his castles. Torrent bade his mistress farewell, leaving her two golden rings as talismans, and set off with fifty companions. Arrived at the coast of Norway, he and his companions entered a dense forest, in which a great many wild beasts lived. His companions, seized with fear, parted from him, and continued their voyage at sea. They told the king of Norway the false tale that Torrent had perished on shore. The king then set out himself to rescue his daughter. Torrent meanwhile encountered a giant named Weraunt, Cate’s brother, and slew him in a hard struggle, but was himself wounded. In the giant’s castle he saved Gendres, daughter of the Norwegian king, and conducted her to her father. On the road they were met by a large train of gallant knights, and were then convoyed in triumph to the king’s court. There Torrent soon recovered from his wounds, and was amply rewarded with honours and presents. He stayed above twelve months at the Norwegian court. The false companions of Torrent were drowned in the sea by the king’s command, but one squire escaped to Portugal, and reported the tidings that Torrent yet remained in Norway. Soon after, as Desonelle was delivered of twins, the hatred of Calamond suddenly broke out against her. By his order, Desonelle and her two children were put to sea in a small boat; but a favourable wind saved them from ruin, and drove the boat upon the coast of Palestine. As she, helpless, wandered about the downs, a huge dragon (griffin or gripe) appeared, and seized one of her children, and immediately after a wild leopard dragged away the other. With submission she suffered her miserable fate, relying on the help of the Holy Virgin.
The king of Jerusalem, just returning from a voyage, happened to find the leopard with the child, which he ordered to be saved and delivered to him. Seeing from the foundling’s golden ring that the child was of noble descent, and pitying its helpless state, he took it into his palace, and brought him up as his own son (as it were) at his court. The child was named Leobertus.
The dragon or gripe with the other child was seen by a pious hermit, St. Antony, who, though son of the king of Greece, had in his youth forsaken the world. Through his prayer St. Mary made the dragon put down the infant; Antony carried him to his father, who adopted him and ordered him to be baptized. He was named Antony fice Greffoun (Antony, son of the griffin or gripe).
Desonelle wandered up and down, after the loss of her children, till she happened to meet the king of Nazareth hunting. He, recognizing her as the king of Portugal’s daughter, gave her a kind welcome and assistance. At his court she lived several years in happy retirement. Torrent returned at length into Portugal, notwithstanding all the entreaties of the Norwegian king that he would dwell in Norway somewhat longer. At his arrival, King Calamond took refuge in his stronghold, and greeted him from thence with scornful words. Torrent, after having summoned his friends from Arragon, Provence, and Calabre, conquered the castle, and took Calamond prisoner. The traitor was sent out to sea in a leaky boat, and perished.
In his stead, Torrent was elected king by all the noblemen of the empire, and took the crown. But forty days after this, he quitted his realm, having intrusted two knights with its government, and passed to the Holy Land at the head of a large force. There he fought fifteen years against the infidels, conquered several towns, and got immeasurable treasures as booty. The king of Jerusalem, hearing about Torrent’s deeds, and anxious for his own security, sent his son Leobertus, with an army of 50,000 men, against Torrent. A pitched battle began, but it was for a long time doubtful to which side victory would incline, till at last the two chiefs encountered. The son vanquishing his father decided the fate of the battle. Torrent was conveyed as a prisoner to Jerusalem, and thrown into a dungeon. There he lay above a year, till he was once overheard complaining his misfortunes by his son, who, touched with pity, prevailed upon the king to set Torrent at liberty. In this new state Torrent soon found an opportunity to show his valour and skill in arms, when a grand tournament was held at Jerusalem. There he proved sole victor over all the knights, and got the chief prize. The king of Nazareth, who had assisted at this joust, telling his folk at home who had won the prize, described the arms and escutcheon of the valiant knight. By these Desonelle recognized her beloved spouse. At her request the king called princes and knights from all parts of the world to a great tournament. The kings of Jerusalem, Greece, Leobertus, Antony fice Greffoun, and Torrent answered the call. Before an illustrious assembly of mighty princes and noble ladies, all of whom were surpassed by Desonelle in beauty and grace, the tournament began. Leobertus and Antony excelled in it, but the chief was Torrent, who performed wonders in the joust, vanquishing all valiant adversaries. The next morning Desonelle could no longer brook reserve, and was about to discover herself to Torrent; but overwhelmed with joy she fainted, when she had scarcely uttered the first words of greeting. It was not till midday that she was able to tell Torrent and the other knights her fates and those of her children. Then parents and children passionately embraced on recognizing each other. At Torrent’s request, all of them, with the kings of Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Greece, and many attendants, sailed for Portugal. There the nuptials of Torrent with Desonelle were celebrated with a great round of splendid festivities. Torrent was finally elected Emperor of Rome, and reigned a long time gloriously. He lies there buried in a fair abbey.
A benediction finishes the romance.
If we take a survey of the poem, we shall recognize in its conception a harmonious plan and a certain unity of action, which, as in most of the romances, is founded on the hero and the interest he affects us with (See Ten Brink, Engl. Literat., I. p. 317). In the centre of the action is placed Torrent’s love of Desonelle; for all the various combats that he undertakes against dragons and giants, against the prince of Arragon and King Calamond, are undertaken solely to gain him Desonelle. Even his expedition against the infidels and the fighting with his son are designed by Providence to make him find again his lost love. Halliwell (Preface, p. vii), therefore, is not right in deeming the romance ‘a rambling poem of adventures without much plot.’ The length and tediousness of the episodes may have prevented him from recognizing the unity of the whole. At the same time, however, it must be admitted that the poem cannot rank with the masterpieces of romantic poetry written in the same metre, like Amis and Amiloun, Ipomadon, Kyng of Tars, Octavian, either in the invention of plot or in the dissection of passions. The diction is so swelled with stereotyped phrases, and so surfeited with trivialities, that we may justly suppose the poem to have been composed at a period when romantic poetry had passed its best time, and had begun to decay. As to the authorship of the poem, it was probably composed by a monk. It is an easy thing to show peculiarities in the course of the story which are essentially monkish. As the romance begins and ends with a benediction, in the same way each deed and each adventure of the hero is introduced and finished by long prayers. Moreover, the poet points frequently to a direct interposition of Heaven (ll. 675, 1568, 1948); he describes the anguish and sorrow that Desonelle feels about her children’s baptism (ll. 1892-1896 and 2074-76); he mentions emphatically Communion and Confession (1272 and 2139), Masses (756 and 813); he finally praises the Emperor for founding churches and abbeys (l. 2658). On the other side, we find very few of those marks which characterize the works of minstrels: the poet seldom predicts the fates of his heroes to excite the attention of his auditors; he mentions only by the way the performances of the gleemen, and nowhere speaks of the rewards that they get.
Passing to a special inquiry into the origin of the story of Torrent, I cannot persuade myself that it is of the poet’s own invention, as that would be the only instance of a Middle-English romance not being taken from foreign originals (except, of course, Chaucer’s Sir Thopas, which was written to ridicule this whole branch of poetry), whilst slight alterations or additions were frequently introduced by the translators. A French original of the romance is supposed by Halliwell to have existed (Preface, vi). He says, ‘It is probably, like the second copy of the romance of Horn, a modernized version of an older English romance, which was itself translated from the French. I have not been able to discover any traces of the French original, but there are some singular allusions to its origin in the poem itself. I allude to the frequent references to the Book of Rome.3 This term was applied to the French language, in which most of the old romances were originally written.’ As for me, I don’t think that we can much rely upon references of this kind, because they are common to all of these Middle-English romances. Of a somewhat greater weight is perhaps the fact that one or two of the proper names are French; and even the oath, ‘par l’amour de dieu,’ is worth mentioning. After all, there is no evident proof as to the French origin. But there is no doubt that the story of Torrent in its principal features—the adversities of a family separated by misfortunes, the mother robbed of her children by wild beasts, at last united again—proceeded from the old Eustache legend.4-5 Therewith another motive is combined, that of the woman innocently condemned, on which motive a large stock of legends is founded; for instance, those of Crescentia, Sibilla, Oliva, Genovefa, Griseldis and Octavian legends. Upon this motive and its old origin from India, see Streve, ‘The Octavian legend,’ Erlangen Dissert., 84.
I will consider first the legend of Eustache in its original version. According to the Greek Martyr Acts, which were probably composed in the eighth century, this saint was before his baptism a captain of Trajan, named Placidus. As he one day hunted in the forest, the Saviour appeared to him between the antlers of a hart, and converted him. Placidus changed his name into Eustache, when he was baptized with his wife and sons. God announced to him by an angel his future martyrdom. Eustache was afflicted by dreadful calamities, lost all his estate, and was compelled to go abroad as a beggar with his wife and his children. As he went on board a ship bound for Egypt, his wife was seized by the shipmaster and carried off. Soon after, when Eustache was travelling along the shore, his two children were borne away by a lion and a leopard. Eustache then worked for a long time as a journeyman, till he was discovered by the Emperor Trajan, who had sent out messengers for him, and called him to his court. Reappointed captain, Eustache undertook an expedition against the Dacians. During this war he found his wife in a cottage as a gardener,—the shipmaster had fallen dead to the ground as he ventured to touch her,—and in the same cottage he found again his two sons as soldiers: herdsmen had rescued them from the wild beasts, and brought them up. Glad was their meeting again! But as they returned to Rome, they were all burnt in a glowing bull of brass by the Emperor’s order, because they refused to sacrifice to the heathen gods.
This legend, which reminds us at once of the story of Job, has been incorporated in almost all mediæval collections of legends, and upon it are founded some mediæval poems, which are enumerated by H. Knust in his splendid work Dos Obras Didácticas y dos Leyendas, Madrid, 1878; cf. R. Köhler, Zeitschrift für rom. phil. III, p. 272 ff., Varnhagen, Anglia, III, p. 399 ff.; two latin versions are edited by the same, Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum XXIV, p. 241 ff., and XXV, p. 1 ff.
English legends of Eustache are to be found
(1) In Ælfric’s 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. Herrig’s Archiv 57, p. 262 ff.
(4) In the Scottish collection of legends, said to be Barbour’s. Cf. Barbour’s 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. Caxton’s edition of the legend, No. 196.
(6) The complete text of the legend printed in Horstmann’s above-mentioned collection, Altengl. Legendensamml., p. 211 ff.
(7) St. Eustas, by I. Partridge, see Gibbs’ 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 d’Engleterre.6
(2) The two Middle High German poems, Die gute Frau,7 and (3) Der Graf von Savoyen.8
(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 Holland’s 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. A 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. A 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 d’Engleterre, 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.
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 Koelbing’s 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, I 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, Octavian’s 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 father’s. I therefore believe that Sarrazin’s 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 Calamond’s 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.
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 it12 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.
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
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. A young knight who seeks the hand of a princess engages to win her by valiant exploits. The princess’s father opposes his wooing, jealous as he is of the hero’s renown. The knight vanquishes all the giants and other monsters against which he is told to fight, and at length gains his spouse. A 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, doesn’t 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 king’s 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.
5. Crystyabelle has one child by Eglamour; Desonelle has two by Torrent.
6. Crystyabelle is driven away into Egypt, where she is graciously received by the king. Desonelle finds refuge in the court of the king of Nazareth.
7. Degrabelle, the son of Crystyabelle, is saved and brought up by the king of Israel; the sons of Desonelle by the kings of Greece and Jerusalem.
8. The father of Crystyabelle is not punished like Calamond in Torrent, immediately after the hero’s return, but he dies at the end of the poem, throwing himself down from the battlements.
9. Degrabelle is sent, when fifteen years old, into Egypt by his adoptive father to sue for a spouse. In a joust he gains the hand of his mother and marries her. On the very wedding-day the mother recognizes her son by his escutcheon, and the marriage is instantly dissolved. Quite differently does the story run in Sir Torrent. Leobertus, fifteen years old, marches by order of the king of Jerusalem against his father, and takes him prisoner, but at length solicits his release.
10. The tournament, which in both poems compasses the reunion of the separated family, is brought on in a different manner. In Eglamour Degrabelle himself proposes the hand of his mother as the prize in the next tournament, to which his father comes. In Torrent Desonelle, hearing of the victories of the strange knight, supposes him to be her spouse from his arms, and at her request a tournament is arranged. (Her hand seems to have been likewise the prize, as may be gleaned from l. 2440.)
11. At the very end of the poems two slight differences are to be noted: in Eglamour, Degrabelle marries Organata, daughter of the king of Sidon, whereas the sons of Torrent return into Greece and Jerusalem. Eglamour is crowned prince of Artois; Torrent is elected Emperor of Rome.
From this comparison we may conclude that Torrent is not directly founded upon Eglamour, or vice versâ; the differences are too great to justify the supposition that either is drawn from the other. Especially is the opinion of Halliwell, which I mentioned above, to be rejected: Sir Torrent cannot be founded on Sir Eglamour, simply because it agrees more closely with the old legendary tale than Syr Eglamour does, and has preserved some essential features not to be found in Eglamour, in which these are supplanted by others. Desonelle, for instance, has two children according to the old legend, Crystyabelle one; Torrent must fight and suffer in heathen lands like Eustache, whereas Eglamour appears as a mere knight-errant. Further, neither in the Eustache legend nor in Torrent do we find the history of the son who marries his mother, which motive the poet may have taken from the legend of Pope Gregory, or perhaps from the tale of Syr Degaré.
But how can the resemblance of the leading features and the discrepancies in particulars be explained? I think the most probable conjecture is, that an old poem, now lost, existed, with which the authors of Sir Eglamour and of Sir Torrent were acquainted; but not having a MS. of it, or knowing it by heart, both of them made up their minds to rewrite the story in a well-known metre, changing, omitting, adding whatever they liked, even filling up the gaps in their memories by invention. Both of them recollected the first half of the story better than the second.
That this poem was an English one seems to be shown by a good many verbal coincidences in both poems; these I accordingly suppose to have belonged to the lost original. They are, indeed, too frequent to be counted simply amongst the large stock of conventional phrases which are to be met with in every poem of this kind. Here they are:—
| Eglamour. | Torrent. |
|---|---|
| The boke of Rome thus can telle. 408, 561, 886 | As the boke of Rome tellys. 187, 924, 1450, 1924 |
| Ther ys a jeaunt here besyde, 478 That sorowe doyth ferre and wyde. On us and odur moo. | There ys a gyante here besyde, In ale thys covntre fare and wyde, No man on lyve levythe hee. 960 |
| And alle prayed for that knyght. 573 | For hym all̴ they pray. 108 |
| Alle that in the cyté ware. 598 | All̴ that in) the sytte were. 1047 |
| Alle that cuntrey was fulle fayne, 640 That he homeward was comyn ageyne. | Gentilmen were blith and ffayn), 1098 That he in helth was comyn) agayn). |
| Aftur sopur, as y yow telle, He wendyd to chaumber with Crystyabelle. 670, 671 | After mete, as I you tell̴, To speke with mayden Desonell̴ To her chamber he went. 1358-60 |
| That lady was not for to hyde, 673-75 She sett hym on hur beddys syde, And welcomyd home that knyght. | The damysell̴ so moche of pride, Set hym on) her bed-syde, And said ‘welcom) verament.’ 1363 |
| So gracyously he come hur tylle, 679 Of poyntes of armys he schewyd hur hys fylle, 680 That there they dwellyd alle nyȝt. | Such gestenyng he a-right, That there he dwellid all̴ nyȝt With that lady gent. 1364-66 |
| A golde rynge y schalle geve the, 715 Kepe yt wele my lady free, Yf Cryste sende the a chylde! 717 | Thes gold rynges I shall̴ yeve the, Kepe them well̴, my lady ffre, Yf god a child vs send! 1396-1398 |
| Doghtur, into the see schalt thou, 803 Yn a schypp alone, And that bastard that to the ys dere! | There fore thou shalt in to the see And that bastard with-in the! 1793 |
| Sche prayed hur gentylwomen so free, Grete wele my lord, whon ye hym see! 826, 827 | She said ‘knyghtis and ladyes gent, Grete well̴ my lord sir Torrent, Yeff ye hym) euer sene! 1837-39 |
| Hur yonge sone away he bare. 842 | A way he bare her yong son). 1871 |
| Thys chylde ys comyn of gentylle blode, Where that ever that he was tane. 863 | This chylde is come of gentill̴ teme, Where euer this beest hym) ffond. 1923 |
| Kepe we thys lady whyte as flowre, And speke we of syr Egyllamowre. 950 | Leve we now that lady gent, And speke we of sir Torrent. 2080-81 |
| The knyght swownyd in that tyde. 975 | Swith on sownyng there he fell̴. 2093 |
| Be the XV yerys were comyn and gone, The chylde that the grype hath tane, Waxe bothe bold and stronge. 1018-20 | And be the VII yere were gone, The child that the liberd had tane, Found hym his fill̴ off ffyght. 2233-35 |
| Yn yustyng ne in turnament 1021 Ther myght no man withsytt hys dynte, But to the erthe them thronge. 1023 | With heve tymbyr and ovyrryde 40 Ther myght no man) hys dent abyde, But to the erthe he them strake. 42 |
| Be thre wekys were comyn to ȝende, Yn the londe of Egypt can they lende. 1057 | But ore thre wekes were com̅yn) to end, To Portynggall̴ gan he wend. 373 |
| Gentilmen that herde of thys crye, Thedur come they redylye. 1195-96 | Gret lordys that herith this crye, Theder come richely. 2431-32 |
| Syr Egyllamour knelyd on his kne, ‘A Lorde God ȝylde hyt the! 1288-89 | Torent knelid vppon) his knee 2575 And said ‘God yeld you, lordys ffree! |
| In swounynge than felle that lady free, ‘Welcome, syr Eglamour, to me! | She said ‘welcom), my lord sir Torent! And so be ye, my lady gent! In sownyng than fell̴ she. 2505 |
| Eglamour, Linc. MS. Note on 1267: | |
| Grete lordis thane told scho sone. | Gret lordys told she sone. 2539 |
Perhaps some more light will be thrown on this question when we get the much-wanted critical edition of Sir Eglamour; but I fear that the ‘secret history attached to the source of these romances’ will even then remain to be unravelled. What I have proposed has no title to a better name than a conjecture.