[This text] includes characters that require UTF-8 (Unicode) file encoding:

ȝ yogh
ll̴ double l with joining line, here shown as tilde
ŷ æ̂ vowels with less common diacritics (rare)

If any of these characters do not display properly, or if the apostrophes and quotation marks in this paragraph appear as garbage, you may have an incompatible browser or unavailable fonts. First, make sure that the browser’s “character set” or “file encoding” is set to Unicode (UTF-8). You may also need to change your browser’s default font.

The main text is shown stanza by stanza. Sidenotes are shown in their original position; linenotes and numbered footnotes (rare) are grouped at the end of each stanza. Headnotes that originally came at mid-stanza have been moved to the following stanza break.

Errors and anomalies are marked in the text with mouse-hover popups. Typographic details are given at the [end of the e-text]. The word “invisible” means that there is an appropriately sized blank space or extra indentation, but the character (usually an open single quote) is missing. Unusual spellings in the Sidenotes are probably attributable to Frederick Furnivall; they are not individually noted.

All brackets are in the original. Line numbers in brackets are explained in the Introduction.

[Introduction]
[Torrent of Portyngale]
[Fragments]
[Notes]
[Glossary]
[Index of Names]

Links: Throughout the book, links to line numbers generally lead to the nearest multiple of 5 (printed number). Stanza numbers in the Notes were added by the transcriber to aid in cross-linking. In Sections 2 and 3 of the Introduction, all line numbers are active links. To reduce visual chaos, link highlighting has been turned off. This may be overridden by your personal browser settings.

Early English Text Society.
Extra Series, No. LI.
1887.

TORRENT OF PORTYNGALE.

RE-EDITED

FROM THE UNIQUE MS. IN THE CHETHAM LIBRARY,
MANCHESTER,

BY

E. ADAM, Ph.D.

LONDON:
PUBLISHT FOR THE EARLY ENGLISH TEXT SOCIETY
BY N. TRÜBNER & CO., 57 & 59, LUDGATE HILL.

MDCCCLXXXVII.

DEDICATED
TO MY TEACHER AND HELPER,
PROF. E. KÖLBING, Ph.D.

Extra Series.
LI.

RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED, LONDON & BUNGAY.

[INTRODUCTION.]

§ [1.] The MS. and Halliwell’s edition, p. v.

§ [2.] Metre and Versification, p. vi.

§ [3.] Dialect, [p. x];

short vowels, [p. xi];

long vowels, [p. xii];

inflexions, [p. xiii].

§ [4.] a. The contents of the Romance, [p. xvi];

b. its character, [p. xx];

c. Origin of the story of Torrent, [p. xxi];

d. Legend of Eustache or Plasidas, [p. xxii];

e. Sir Isumbras, [p. xxiv];

f. Romances of Octavian, [p. xxv];

g. Sir Eglamour, [p. xxvi];

h. Comparison of Torrent and Eglamour, [p. xxvii];

i. the 2 Romances independent, [p. xxx].

§ [5.] Arrangement of this Edition, p. xxxii.

[§ 1.] The manuscript from which the following romance of Sir Torrent of Portugal is taken, is a folio volume on paper, of the fifteenth century, preserved in the Chetham Library at Manchester.

A description of this volume is given by Halliwell in his Account of the European MSS. in the Chetham Library at Manchester, Manchester, 1842, page 16, and by Prof. Koelbing in his Englische Studien, vii. 195. The only edition of this romance that we have hitherto had was done by Halliwell. As he had, besides his own transcript, another copy made by Madden, his text is a pretty accurate one, and therefore the results of Prof. Koelbing’s collation, printed in his Englische Studien, vii. 344 ff., concern, for the most part, things of little importance, except one very curious passage, l. 88, where Halliwell renders the quite correct reading of the MS., p la more de dewe = par l’amour de dieu, by Pericula more bedew[n]e. Also, from l. 1720, the counting of the lines is wrong by 100 lines.

A few short fragments of a printed edition were found by Halliwell in the Douce Collection, Bodleian Library, Oxford, and added to his work as an Appendix. They contain the following passages of the MS.:

A seventh fragment, of which not much more than the rhyming words are preserved, was omitted by Halliwell, and was printed for the first time in Prof. Koelbing’s collation.

This Chetham MS. contains the romance in a very debased and corrupt form, so that the original reading in many passages can hardly be recognized.[1] The scribe, who copied the poem from an older MS., lived (no doubt) at a far later period than the poet; he did not therefore understand a great many old expressions, and these he used to supplant by words of his own; he also transposed and even omitted many lines, and spoiled the rhyme, because he had not the slightest idea of the nature of the stanza in which the poem is composed. Halliwell did not trouble himself about the restoration of the true readings; he merely reproduced the traditional text, even where it would have been very easy to do more, though many passages are hopelessly corrupt; still worse is the fact, that he did not recognize the metre as the tail-rhymed twelve-line stanza, for he prints six-line stanzas.

In consequence, the whole of the philological work on the text had still to be done, and a new edition was plainly necessary; the more that this poem, though not written in the best period of romance poetry, treats of a legendary subject widely spread in the Middle Ages, and is nearly related to another poem, Syr Eglamour of Artois.

[§ 2.] METRE AND VERSIFICATION.

In this and the following section, all line numbers are active links. To reduce visual chaos, link highlighting has been turned off. This may be overridden by your personal browser settings.

As I mentioned before, the romance of Sir Torrent is composed in the well-known tail-rhymed twelve-line stanza, and belongs to that class of it in which the first and the second couplets have different rhyme-sounds (cf. Koelbing, Amis and Amiloun, p. xiv ff.). Only the incompleteness of many stanzas, and the many defects in reference to the rhyme, can excuse Halliwell for not apprehending the character of the metre. As to the structure of the eight lines of the four couplets, each contains (or at least ought to contain) four accents, the caudæ three; but as we, unfortunately, possess only one MS., a conclusive statement on this point is impossible. There is no doubt about the fact that neither the really incorrect rhymes nor the wanting of them can be due to the author of the poem: even when romance poetry was decaying, the poets were fairly perfect rhymers: with all deficiencies in this department, the copyists are to be charged.

Consonant rhymes (s. Schipper Altengl. Metrik, p. 299) are found in Torrent in the following passages: l. [141] rode—rode ags. rôd—râd. [450] the—the ags. þeón—þe. [1558] indede—dede. [2205] lay—lay, sg.—plr. prt.

Identical rhymes are frequent, especially in the caudæ: [81] stond—stond. [177] there—there. [500] he—hee. [1887] there—there. [2538] blithe—blithe. [39] take—take. [342] bold—bold, a. s. o.

Assonances: [195] bon⁾—Rome. [518] undyrstond—strong. [537] name—alone. [699] yod—fotte. [758] name—tane. [896] bryng—wynd. [1257] overcom⁾—Aragon⁾. [1768] man⁾—cam⁾. [2164] anon⁾—fome. [2544] sithe—hide.

Besides the rhymes we find abundant alliteration, as in most of the Middle English Romances. On alliteration, cf. Regel, Die alliteration in Laȝamon, Germ. Stud. I. 171; F. Lindner, The alliteration in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Essays on Chaucer, Pt. III., p. 197 ff. Koelbing, Sir Tristrem, p. xxxvii, and Amis and Amiloun, p. lxvi. Lindner as well as Koelbing has adopted Regel’s classification, and so shall I. The most frequent is two alliterative words in one verse; they can be classed in the following way:—

I. A. The same word is repeated in two succeeding lines; v. [456 f.]: Forthe sche browght a whyt sted, As whyt as the flowyr in⁾ med; v. [618 f.]: In IV quarters he hym drowe, And euery quarter vppon a bowe. v. [2026 f.]: But ran into a wildernes Amongist beests that wyld wes. v. [2465 f.]: They axid hors and armes bryght, to horsbak went thay in ffere.

B. Alliterative combinations, one part of which is a proper name. Torrent is several times combined with the verb take; [26]: Towarde hym he takythe Torrayne; [224]: Torrent thether toke the way; [519]: Torrent toke a dulful wey; [2269]: Whan sir Torent was takyn⁾ than⁾; [91]: Now, be my trowthe, seyd Torent than⁾; [1161]: Alas, said Desonell̴ the dere; [2523]: As was dame Desonell̴; [1906] = [1946] = [1969]: Mary myld. To send unto her Sathanas. v. [1091]: The castell̴ of Cardon⁾.

II. A. Words of the same root are alliterative. [133]: Torrent, on kne knelyd he; [671]: That on hys kne he kneld; [2502]: And knelid on her kne; [205]: Torrent knelyd on hys kne = v. [528]; [881]: And knelyd vppon ys kne; [1883]: She knelid down⁾ vppon⁾ her kne; [2563]: Down⁾ they knelid on⁾ her kne; [512]: By dymmynge of the day; [1158]: For her love did I never no dede; [1801]: That ylke dede, that she hath done; [1943]: How she flew in a fflight; [2384]: Liffe and lyvelode, whill̴ I lyve; [233]: A lyon⁾ & a lyonasse; [1671]: For to se that selly sight; [407]: For the talles thou hast me told; [1466]: And fals talis hym⁾ told; [2578]: Euer we will̴ be at youre will̴.

B. Relations in which alliterative words stand to each other according to their meaning.

a. Concrete ideas are joined together because they belong to the same sphere of life. [2017]: Byrdus and bestis, aye woo ye be; [113]: bone and blod; [21]: kyng and knyght; [83]: And ryche castelles in that contre; [251]: In lond with a fyndes fere; [102]: That fyndes fare for aye; [1094]: Both at knyght and knave; [584]: Bothe in⁾ frethe and in feld; [660]: Stomlyng thurrow frythe and fen⁾; [1378]: Both be hold and be hyll̴; [2398]: lym⁾ and lith; [750]: Lytyll̴ and mykyll̴, lese and more; [1899]: That was lord of all̴ that lond; [2152]: Loo, lordys of euery lond; [2375]: With all̴ maner of mynstralsye; [149]: He reynyd hys sted vnto a stake; [1065]: Waytes on the wall̴ gan blowe; [13]: water and wynde.

b. In the same way abstract ideas are connected, so far as they belong to the same sphere of life. [460]: That dethe ys dynt schalt þou not thole; [1600]: Of deth yaue he no dout; [782] = [2062]: feyer and fre; [2153]: Falshode wyll̴ haue a foule end; [1988]: Helpe and hold I shall̴ hym yeve; [1492]: They sat and song; [683]: Cryst hym saue and see; [1303]: That he was sad and sore; [1612]: set sadly and sore; [335]: God that sofryd wonddes sore; [322]: styff and strong = [1491] = [2590]; [1205]: That wekyd was and wight; [1584]: wekyd and wight; [1849]: Her one child woke and be-gan to wepe; [1559]: And wot ye well̴ and not wene; [246]: Sche weppte, as sche were wod.

C. The grammatical relations in which the alliterative words stand to each other.

a. Subst. and adj. in attributive or predicative combinations. As bold as eny bore; With browes brod and wyde; [142]: hys bugell̴ bold; [307]: In a dongon⁾ that ys dym; [82]: My fayer⁾ forestes fellythe downe he; [209]: The feyer⁾ fyld; [426]: glemyrryng ase the glase; [1592]: good gate; [171] = [596]: the holtes hore; [1484]: To an hye hyll̴; [1183]: sydes sare; [154]: Thowe the wey nevyr so wykkyd were; [2054]: wekyd weders; [506]: In the wyld-some way; [535]: Wyldsom weyes haue I went; [2030]: She went on that wilsom⁾ way.

b. Verbs or adjectives combined with the adverb or substantive which contains their secondary adverbial meaning. [1478]: To be here at his bane, cf. [1678]: That there his bane hath be; [1944]: To her birdus was she boun⁾; [2016]: With blis on euery bowȝe; [135]: That bowght hym with hys blod; [1045]: Thurrow the body he gan hym bere; [1404]: To the bote they bare; [334]: Thus he covyrd owt of care; [27]: That dowghtty ys in dedde, cf. [1725]; [98]: With-owt fere that he schold fare; [603] = [977]: Also fast ase he myght fare; [536]: With fyndes for to fyght; [802]: To fyght with that fyndes fere; [1262]: That was grow both grene and gay; [1060] = [2330]: Torent be the hond he hent; [270]: That meche ys of myght; [713]: That meche wase of myght; [24]: For God ys most of myght, cf. [1112]: To a man off myght; [1879]: Vp she rose ageyn⁾ the rough; [2100]: Go sech her in⁾ the see; [2129]: And sett hym⁾ oute in to the see; [2469]: That semely to se were; [126]: And symly was to sene; [415]: That dare I sothely sey; [1170]: Torrent sett on hym⁾ so sore; [139]: Serttes, yf I hym slepyng slone; [181]: Torrent vndyr hys spryt he sprent; [179]: But stond styll̴; [2410]: He is so stiff at euery stoure; [987]: Torrent in⁾ the storrope stod; [1912]: For no stroke wold she stynt; [2060]: By a tokyn⁾ I shall̴ the tell̴; [2397]: Or walkyd in wede; [383]: In hys walke ther ase he went; [725]: And went forthe on hys wey; [107]: And on hys wey gan he wynd; [2030]: She went on that wilsom⁾ way; [989]: ale wyld at wyle; [2088]: In no wise he wold; [1206]: To wed her to my wyffe; [749]: That wyt ys vndyr wede; [1315]: All̴ men wonderid on that wight; [33]: worthyest in wede.

c. Substantives and verbs are combined in the relation of subject and predicate. [2221]: Down knelid that knyght; [854]: Whether the fynd can fyght; [2390]: There that his lady lent; [2064]: My love was on the lent; [1219]: Gret lordys to churche her led; [170]: The fyndes spere sparrythe hyme nothyng; [84]: No ston lettythe he stond.

d. Verbs and substantives are combined as predicate and object. [2490]: his bak to bend; [2532]: That couth moche curtesye; [273]: Thy dethe than wyll̴ he dyght, cf. [1043]: Hys dethe to hyme ys dyght; [1648]: Thy deth now is dight; [2123]: What deth they wold hym do; [161]: My lordes frethe thus to fell̴; [2235]: Found hym his fill̴ off ffyght; [1743]: The fforward ye to fulleffylle; [651]: He gathyred svm of hys gere; [210]: Vpp both his handes he held; [1799]: For Iesu is love, that harood hell̴; [1820]: Whan they led that lady ffre; [2080]: Leve we now that lady gent; [1663]: Ech on other laid good lode; [1495]: To god that made man; [435]: A gret maynerey let he make ryght; [264]: To hym sche mad here mone; [645]: He rawght Torrent soche a rowght; [1172]: And all̴ to sheverd his sheld; [502]: Tho he be strod anoble stede; [2482]: Torent be strode a stede strong; [281]: I schall̴ the tell̴ soche a tokyn⁾; [2013]: Ne wanted she no woo; [115]: He that schall̴ wend soche a wey; [439]: Hom-ward to wend ther wey; [2448]: And than⁾ to wend her way; [2457]: And to her logyng went her way; [1544]: Other wayes yf I wend; [207]: That hathe thys world to wyld.

[§ 3.] THE DIALECT.

The stanza of twelve lines was probably first employed in the north of England; at least it would be difficult to prove the existence of a poem composed in this metre in the southern part of the country; therefore it is beforehand probable that the romance of Torrent was composed either in some part of the Midlands or in the North. In order to determine the dialect more precisely, we restrict ourselves to a careful consideration of the rhymes.

1. SHORT VOWELS.

Old English ă is (1) preserved before n and m: [744] and [788] Iame—name. [927] Adryan—jentylmane. [13] londe—wonande. [352] stond—lygand. [1128] stond—shynand. No part. pres. on-ond rhyming with an unvariable -ond has been traced out until now, but [1824] wepand—wonde (ags. wunden) seems to be the first. 2. Changed into o. [516] rome—frome ags. rûm—fram. [2446] mon⁾—done. [1190] none—shone—anon—done. [1257] ouercom—Aragon⁾. [1989] son—can (= con). [2040] anon⁾—bone. A curious exception is [1929] grame (= greme)—teme—Ierusalem; cf. Gaw. l. [312].

O.E. e, the i-umlaut of a, is preserved: [373] end—wend. [476] went—jent. [924] tell̴—hell. [1702] hell—Desonell̴e. [1798] fell̴—hell̴. The past partic. of seón, segen, has been contracted into sen. [1562] sene—wene.

O.E. æ has become a: [45] spake—take. [363] ffare—bare. [726] and [876] sale—Portynggall̴e. [1074] passe—was. [1131] sale—tale. [1233] thare—fare. [1236] was—Sathanas. [1399] care—thare. [2287] was—alas.

æ has become e: [2026] wildernes—was. [764] derre—clere—ware (ags. wær). [1951] there—bere. [328] glad (= gled)—redd.

æ has become ay by the vocalization of the following g: [25] fayne—Torrayne. [1025] may—day, wey—laye. [1071] say—day. [2029] day—way.

O.E. ea becomes o before ld: [303] hold—bold, fold (ags. folde)—cold. [422] gold—mold, hold—told.

ea has become a: [399] Portyngall̴—bale (ags. bealu). [531] care—far⁾ (ags. cearu). [1891] ffare—care.

ea has become e: [1166] beheld—feld—sheld—weld (ags. wealdan). [2359] preste—breste (ags. bearst).

O.E. eo has turned into e: [1166] beheld—ffeld—sheld—weld.

O.E. ĭ is preserved as i and y: [51] knyght—nyght. [307] dym—hym. [1783] myld—child. Only once this vowel has changed into e: [714] wret—get. i rhymes with e: [3] wynde—ende—lende—ffynde.

O.E. ŏ is unaltered: [422] gold—mold. [1122] gold—mold.

O.E. ŭ has become o: [367] dore (ags. duru)—befor⁾. [765] Aragon⁾—son⁾. [1257] ouer com—Aragon⁾. [1762] com⁾—kyngdome. [1801] done—sonne (ags. sunu). [2320] sonne—dungeon.

O.E. y̆, the i-umlaut of ŭ, has the value of i, written i or y: [390] kysse—iwysse. [1564] till̴—fullefyll̴, yll̴—wyll̴. [1740] evyll̴—fulle fylle. Only once it rhymes with e: [1484] hyll̴ (= hell̴)—yell̴—befell̴—well̴, never with u.

2. LONG VOWELS.

O.E. â is preserved in the following rhymes:[2] a. [39] take—stroke (= strake, ags. strâc), spake—take. [97] sore—fare. [103] goos—takythe (= gas—tas). [280] wakyn⁾—tokyn⁾ (ags. tâcen). [334] care—sore. [590] fare—wher, hore—care. [705] fare—gere (ags. gâr). [788] Iame—name, bone—schame. [834] ga—ma. [977] fare—bare, sare—chaffare. [1143] glade—rade. [1238] Cate—gate, bad—wott (ags. wât). [1251] brod—made; cf. [1303], [1306], [1501], [1526], [1604], [1612], [1663], [1669], [1825], [1911], [2178], [2356], [2617].

b. O.E. â has changed into o: [16] sone (ags. sunu)—gon. [141] rode—rode (ags. rôd—râd). [195] bon (ags. bân)—Rome. [238] wote (ags. wât)—fote. [654] browȝ—goo. [1062] tho—do. Cf. [1196], [1226], [1295], [1381], [1809], [1812], [1815], [2013], [2025], [2028], [2037], [2046], [2295], [2298], [2301], [2542]. The result is, that in 26 cases old â is preserved, in 22 cases changed into ô.

O.E. æ̂ is turned into (1) a: [154] were—fare. [603] fare—were. [1020] were—fare. [2074] care—ware.

Into (2) e. [379] dede (ags. dæ̂d)—hed. [1047] were—chere. [1053] sped—lede (ags. læ̂dan). [1263] stede—wede (ags. wæ̂d).

Into (3) o. [1113] mone (ags. mæ̂nan)—Aragon. [1384] beffore—there—were.

O.E. ô is preserved throughout: [73] wode—good. [112] rode—blod. [118] Rome—kyrstendome. [313] done—sone.

Before g the vowel u resp. w is inserted: [145] browght—nowght. [279] browght—thowght. [2053] sought—brought.

O.E. ê is preserved: [123] kene—sene. [743] dede—sped, wede. [1849] wepe—slepe. [2055] grene—kene. [2458] be dene—wene.

O.E. î is preserved as y: [196] tyd—syd. [325] fyve—lyve. [777] wyse—deuyce. [900] ryde—syde.

O.E. û is written ou resp. ow in the French way: [921] renowne—towyn⁾. [978] downe—renowne. [1425] nowe—rowe. [2634] mouth—couth. It has become o: [516] rome—frome (ags. rûm—from). Cf. [2641] renown—son.

O.E. eá has become e: [1929] grame—streme, Jerusalem. [2554] Jerusalem⁾—streme (ags. streám).

O.E. eó has changed into e: [153] be—hee: [782] fre—he. [888] tre—crystyanté. [1643] be—charité. [1861] ffree—cité.

O.E. ŷ remains y: [1361] pride—bedsyde. [1433] pryde—ryde. [1473] wyde—pride. ŷ or ê, the i-umlaut of eá or e, is found as e: [63] were—here (ags. hŷran). [235] here—were. [327] sted—yed, nede—sped. [408] yede—ned. [1552] stede—nede, indede.

3. THE INFLEXIONS.

The plural of the substantives terminates in (1) s resp. ys: [837] ryghtys—knyghtes. [1298] stonys—nonys.

(2) in n: [458] slon—appon. [1116] done—shone. [1193] shone—anon, done.

(3) is formed by i-umlaut: men [1784], [2282], but [2197] wan—men (= man).

(4) has no inflexion: [651] gere—spere. [705] far—gere. [836] hend—frende, sende. [1173] ffere—yere. [1405] hend—frend. [1556] stone—gone. [2188] were—yere. [2194] here—yere. The inflexions of the adjectives have totally disappeared.

The infinitive ends in -ne or n, or has no termination at all. (1) with n: [123] kene—see (= sene). [217] ageyne—sayne. [262] fayne—slayne. [489] Mavdeleyn—seyne; [16] sone—gon.

(2) without n: [67] sake—take. [93] kynd—fynd. [148] wake—stake. [184] so—goo. [434] Adolake—take. [1062] tho—do. [1762] me—se.

The 2nd person sing. of the pres. ind. occurs only once in the rhyme, [1333] tase—thou hase, tas—gas.

The 3rd person sing. of the present indicative ends in s: [187] tellys—ellys. [2317] rose—gose. [558] tellythe—elles (The rhyme shows that tellys must be inserted; cf. [103] gos—takythe, and [858] gothe—toke = gas—tas.) Only once th occurs: [2047] Nazareth—gethe (ags. gæð). On this remarkable form see Zupitza, Guy of Warwick, note on l. 11075. The plural has no termination: [3] wynde—ende—lende.

The subjunctive mood has no inflexions: [70] sped—stede, 3rd pers. [87] blynd—wynde, 3rd pers. [213] fyld—schyld, 3rd pers. [416] sey—may, 2nd pers. sg. [584] feld—schyld, 3rd pers. sg. [1978] saue—haue; but observe [139] slone—none and [1839] sene—grene.

The present participle ends usually in -ande (onde): [13] londe—wonande. [127] fonde—growonde. [315] levand—bond. [352] stand—lygand. [358] vndyrstond—levand. [1128] stond—shynand. [1280] fayland—lond. [1445] fleand—waraunt. [1452] ffand—goand. [1821] lond—wepand. [1899] lond—pleyand. [2104] hond—levand. Thrice -yng is found: [268] kyng—dwellyng, [1638] and [2568].

The gerund terminates always in ing (yng): [1479] kyng—ryding. [1503] comyng—kyng. [1933] ryng—lettyng. [2509] kyng—lesyng.

Observe the 2nd pers. sing. of a past tense, [1589] thou cam⁾—slan⁾, of a praeterito-praesens, [410] they—sey, thow may. [1543] away—aye, may. [2001] may—welaway.

The past participle of strong verbs terminates in n: [482] syne—schene, wene—clene. [675] slayne—rayne. [800] slayne—trayne. [1292] fayn⁾—slayn⁾. [1562] sene—wene. [2323] alone—slone. We don’t find one certain instance for the dropping of this n, besides [1678] and [2063] be.

The past tense plural of strong verbs has the same vowel as the singular: [1452] They ffound (r. ffand)—goand. [1458] began—gentilman. [1753] tong—dong.

The 3rd pers. of the present indic. of to be = ys or es: cf. [738] blyse—ys. [2413] ys—Raynes. Once ys is found as plural: [2524] ys—iwys. The present subjunctive is be through all persons: [208] be—me, 2nd pers. [614] be—se, 3rd pers. [884] the—bee, 3rd pers. [2017] be—me, 2nd pers. plr. The infinitive be and bene: [49] the—bee. [483] be—see. [1643] be—charite. [903] the—bee. [1833] clene—bene. [2161] quene—bene. [2613] bene—kene. The past tense singular number is was or wes: [247] alas—wase. [426] glase—was. [771] pase—wase. [1873] wyldernes—was (= wes). The plural were, ware, wore, as well as was, wes: (1) [l. 402] wer⁾—cher. [1047] were—chere. [1845] were—ffere. [2586] squiere—were, here—clere. (2) [603] fare—were. [2494] ware—bare. [1384] beffore—there, were (= wore). (3) [384] pase—wase. [1388] passe—was. (4) [2026] wildernes—was (= wes). [2545] wildernes—was; cf. l. [2584]. The subjunctive mood of the past tense is were and ware, in sgl. and plr.: [225] were—clere. [235] here—were. [1696] chere—were. [2476] were—bere. [154] were (= ware)—fare. [1020] wer (= ware)—fare. [2074] care—ware. The past participle: [7] bedene—ben. [172] byne—seyn. [2344] ibene—kene. [1678] be—crystiaunte.

From this inquiry into the sounds and inflexions, the following conclusions can be drawn:

The development of ă is of no use in fixing the dialect. Nor is ea, which has become a, o, and e, to be deemed a characteristic either of the Midland or Northern dialect. Ags. ea occurs as o as early as 1250 in the Northumbrian Psalter, and 50 years afterwards in Sir Tristrem and Sir Perceval; even Richard Rolle in his Pricke of Conscience offers one instance of this change (cf. Sir Tristrem, p. lxix f.).

The development of the ags. â, which we find in 26 passages as a, in 22 as o, is remarkable. There are only a very few instances of this change in Sir Tristrem, p. lxxi, and in the Psalter; and this almost equal number of a- and o-rhymes proves evidently that the poem cannot belong to a Northern country. At the same time, a proportion like that would be impossible in a text of Southern origin. The same negative result is to be derived from the fact that Ags. y is always written y.

As to the inflexions, the plurals of the substantives are formed by adding -s or -n (en), or by vowel change, or they have no inflexions at all. As for the inflexion -n, it only occurs in slon and shon, and of this very word the plural in n is to be met with even in Northern writers.

The infinitives both preserve or drop the final n, as is the rule with the Midland dialect; the form of the past participle with n accords with the use of the Northern writers.

The present partic. ending in -and and the past tense plurals of strong verbs having adopted the vowel of the singular, agree with the North as well as with the northern districts of the Midland, in the same way as some forms of to be: plr. prs. ys and plr. prt. was, besides the usual forms be and are, resp. were and ware, and the contracted forms of take: [758] name—tane. [1095] gane—itane. [1825] ta—twa (cf. [231], [286], [859], [1333], [1475], [1722], [1733], [2617]).

The forms thou has and thou may point to the West.

The inflexions of the 3rd pers. prs. sg. are -th and -s. In the western part of the Midland we never meet with the ending th, but only with s. In Amis and Amiloun, the Eastern origin of which seems to be sure, only the inflexion -eþ is found in the rhyme (Amis, p. xxx ff.).

The romance of Sir Torrent seems to be the first document hitherto considered where both these forms occur, one by the side of the other. Perhaps this fact justifies us in concluding that this poem was composed in the east, but on the borders of the west, Midland.

[§ 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 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.

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:—

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.

[§ 5.] THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE EDITION.

As to the only MS. in which this romance has come down to us, I have mentioned before that it is exceedingly corrupt; many conjectures, more or less sure, were necessary in order to restore metre, rhyme, and meaning; the greater part of them seemed worthy to be entered in the text, the rest being offered in the notes. No attempt has been made to introduce a uniform character of dialect, considering the quite unsettled state of orthography in early times. The only exceptions are where the sounds are fully determined by the rhyme. In general the orthography of the MS. has been reproduced as accurately as possible. The contractions used by the scribe are expanded and printed in italics. At the beginning of a new period, or a proper name within the line, capitals have been introduced. From l. 1200, where the numeration of my text no longer coincides with that of Halliwell’s edition, the line-numbers of the latter are added in brackets.

The fragments which I have added as an appendix to the text have been consulted in all cases of difficulty, and proved of no little service in correcting the blunders of the manuscript; they contain indeed a somewhat better text than the MS., though they are by no means free from clerical errors. A detailed comparison gives the following result:

In fifty-one lines the text of the fragments is evidently correcter than the MS.:

Cf. 489, 498, 507-10, 512-15, 822, 825, 831, 833, 834, 837, 845, 848, 851, 929, 932, 933, 935, 947, 948, 951, 952, 958, 965, 968-70, 1807, 1808, 1810, 1827, 1828, 1831, 1834-36, 1844, 1854, 1866.

Forty-eight lines are coincident: 468, 470, 474, 479, 480, 486, 487, 495, 499, 501, 504, 505, 520, 823, 832, 842, 844, 846, 917, 918, 921, 922, 927, 928, 936, 938, 953, 957, 962, 1809, 1813-17, 1819-21, 1823, 1830, 1832, 1838, 1847, 1850, 1851-52, 1863, 1865.

In ninety-one lines it is doubtful which reading is to be considered as the original one:

Cf. 467, 475, 476, 478, 481, 482, 488, 496, 497, 500, 506, 511, 516-20, 821, 824, 826, 827, 829, 830, 835, 838-41, 843, 847, 850, 919, 920, 923, 925-26, 930-31, 934, 937, 939, 940-43, 945, 946, 949, 950, 954, 955, 959, 960-61, 963, 964, 966, 967, 1811, 1812, 1818, 1822, 1825, 1826, 1829, 1837, 1840, 1842, 1843, 1845-46, 1848-49, 1853, 1855-62, 1864.

In eleven lines the text of the MS. is superior to that of the fragment:

Cf. 488, 503, 820, 849, 924, 1824, 1833, 1839.

As to the sixth fragment, 1014-36, and the beginning of the first (in Halliwell’s edition the third), 462-64, in which, as above mentioned, not much more than the rhyming words are preserved, they have nearly the same relation to the MS. as the other ones.

In the following passages they correct the rhymes of the MS.: 1017, 1018, 1028, 1033. Coincident rhymes: 1014, 1015, 1019, 1026, 1027, 1032, 1034-36. Undecided: 1020, 1021, 1023-24, 1029-30, 462-64. The rhymes of the MS. are preferable in ll. 1016, 1022, 1025, 1031.

I need only add, that all the discrepancies between the MS. and the fragments, however numerous they may be, concern, for the most part, things of little importance; they are caused especially by the frequent change of synonymous terms, by the difference of expletive words and phrases, the transposition of words, the change of tenses, and so on. But as there is nowhere any essential difference to be traced, we may conjecture with great probability that the early printed edition of the romance was taken from a manuscript which was pretty nearly related to the Manchester MS., though somewhat more correctly written.

I gladly take the present opportunity of acknowledging my very great obligation to Prof. Koelbing, from whom I have received ample assistance throughout the whole of this work. It would be absolutely impossible to me entirely to discriminate his part from mine. He carefully revised the introduction, notes, and the glossary, before they went to press, and after they came from it, and he looked several times through the proofs of the text. Nor am I less indebted to Mr. Joseph Hall at Manchester, who not only kindly read the proofs of the text with the MS. in the Chetham Library, but also contributed some valuable notes, which are marked by his name. The Director has added the head-lines and side-notes.

Footnotes to Introduction

[1.] Halliwell says, Preface v f.: ‘It is very incorrectly written, and the copy of the romance of Torrent of Portugal, which occupies 88 pages of the book, contains so many obvious blunders and omissions, that it may be conjectured with great probability to have been written down from oral recitation.’

[2.] The rhymes with tane and with John are not quoted, as these words occur also as tone and Johan; they are, therefore, of no use in fixing the sound of the â.

[3.] On this term see Octavian, ed. Sarrazin, p. xxxviii.

[4.] See Warton’s opinion upon the legendary origin of many romances, History of Engl. Poetry, London, 1824, I. p. ccxliv: ‘Many romances were at first little more than legends of devotion, containing the pilgrimage of an old warrior. At length, as chivalry came into vogue, the youthful and active part of the pilgrim’s life was also written. The penitent changed into the knight-errant.’ Sometimes, of course, the opposite change may have taken place, as for instance is probably the case with the story of the two faithful friends, Amis and Amiloun (cf. Koelbing, Amis, p. lxxxi), and with the story of Robert the Devil (cf. Sir Gowther, ed. Breul, p. 74).

[5.] See the edition of The worthie Hystorie of Plasidas, 1566, by H. H. Gibbs, for the Roxburghe Club, 1873.

[6.] Guill. d’Engleterre, 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.

[7.] Die gute Frau, ed. E. Sommer in Haupt’s Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, II. 389.

[8.] Der Graf v. Savoyen, ed. F. H. v. d. Hagen, Minnesinger, IV. 640, and Eschenburg, Denkmäler altdeutscher Dichtkunst, Bremen, 1799.

[9.] On this text see Sarrazin, Octav., p. xlv; he speaks of “die 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.).”

[10.] The Thornton Romances, p. xxii f. ‘The 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.’

[11.] Cf. Koelbing’s Englische Studien, vii. p. 191 ff.

[12.] Cf. The Thornton Romances, p. xxv ff., and p. xxxvi.

[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.

[14.] See Eglamour, notes on ll. 1064, 1082, 1267.

f. 76a.

Here bygynneth a good tale

Of Torrente of Portyngale.

[ (1)]

God, that ys worthy and Bold,

Heuen⁾ and Erthe haue In hold,

Fyld, watyr, and wynde,

Yeve vse grace hevyn⁾ to wyne,

And brynge vs owt off Dedly synne [5]

And In thy seruyse to Ende!

A stounde and ye woll̴ lyst be-Dene,

Ale dowghtty men⁾ þat Euyr hathe ben⁾,

Wher So that they lende,

I Schall̴ yow tell̴, ore I hense pase, [10]

Off a knyght, þat Dowghtty wase,

In Rome ase clarkys ffynde.

8. byn MS.

[ (2)]

In Portynggall̴, that Ryche londe,

An Erell̴ that wase wonande,

That curtese wase and wyght; [15]

Sone aftyr he had a sone,

The feyerest þat on fot myght gon,

Tyrrant, men seyd, he hyght.

Be tyme he wase XVIII yer⁾ old,

Of deddes of armys he wase bold, [20]

To felle bothe kyng and knyght;

And now commythe dethe appon a day

And takythe hys father⁾, ase I yow sey,

For God ys most of myght.

15. wyght] Dowghtty MS.

21. felle] first l above the line MS.

TORRENT LOVES DESONELL.

[ (3)]

The kyng of Portynggall̴ wase fayne, [25]

To-warde hym he takythe Torrayne,

That Dowghtty ys in⁾ dedde;

And ther he fesomnyd in⁾ hys hond

A good Eyrldom in⁾ that lond,

Bothe forest and fede. [30]

The kyng hathe a dowghttyr whyte ase fame,

Dysonell wase her name,

Worthyest in wede.

When Torrent had of her⁾ a syght,

More he lovyd that swete wyght [35]

Than⁾ all̴ ys fathyrys lede.

30. fede] Downe MS.

31. whyte ase fame] feyer ase flowyr MS.

32. Dyscenys, MS.

35. swete] swet, MS.
wyght] wyte MS.

36. lede] londe MS.

[(4)]

For love of thys lady Deyr⁾

In dede of armys far and nere

Aventorres gan he take

With heve tymbyr and ovyr-Ryde, [40]

Ther myght no man⁾ hys dent a-bydde,

But to the Erthe he them strake.

Her father and other knyghttes mo

Had farly, how he Ryd soo,

And on a day to hyme spake, [45]

He Seyd: ‘Torrent, howe may thys byne,

That thow Dyspisyst thes knyghttes kene

And ordurres non woll̴ take?’

39. A ventorres MS.

42. stroke MS.

47. dysplesyst MS.

[ (5)]

Torrent sayd: ‘So mvt I the,

An other sayment woll̴ I see, [50]