Chapter II: A. Words of the same root are alliterative. 133: Torrent, on (1)

{kne} {kne}lyd he_; 671: _That on hys {kne} he {kne}ld_; 2502: _And {kne}lid on her {kne}_; 205: _Torrent {kne}lyd on hys {kne}_ = v. 528; 881: _And {kne}lyd vppon ys {kne}_; 1883: _She {kne}lid down~ vppon~ her {kne}_; 2563: _Down~ they {kne}lid on~ her {kne}_; 512: _By {d}ymmynge of the {da}y_; 1158: _For her love {d}id I never no {d}ede_; 1801: _That ylke {d}ede, that she hath {d}one_; 1943: _How she {fl}ew in a {ffl}ight_; 2384: _{Liffe} and {lyv}elode, whiÆÆ I {lyve}_; 233: _AÂ {lyon~} & a {lyon}asse_; 1671: _For to {se} that {s}elly {s}ight_; 407: _For the {t}alles thou hast me {t}old_; 1466: _And fals {t}alis hym~ {t}old_; 2578: _Euer we {wiÆÆ} be at youre {wiÆÆ}_.

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: _{B}yrdus and {b}estis, aye woo ye be_; 113: _{b}one and {b}lod_; 21: _{k}yng and {k}nyght_; 83: _And ryche {c}astelles in that {c}ontre_; 251: _In lond with a {f}yndes {f}ere_; 102: _That {f}yndes {f}are for aye_; 1094: _Both at {k}nyght and {k}nave_; 584: _Bothe in~ {f}rethe and in {f}eld_; 660: _Stomlyng thurrow {f}rythe and {f}en~_; 1378: _Both be {h}old and be {h}yÆÆ_; 2398: _{l}ym~ and {l}ith_; 750: _{L}ytyÆÆ and {m}ykyÆÆ, {l}ese and {m}ore_; 1899: _That was {l}ord of aÆÆ that {l}ond_; 2152: _Loo, {l}ordys of euery {l}ond_; 2375: _With aÆÆ {m}aner of {m}ynstralsye_; 149: _He reynyd hys {st}ed vnto a {st}ake_; 1065: _{W}aytes on the {w}aÆÆ gan blowe_; 13: _{w}ater and {w}ynde_.

_b._ In the same way abstract ideas are connected, so far as they belong to the same sphere of life. 460: _That {d}ethe ys {d}ynt schalt þou not thole_; 1600: _Of {d}eth yaue he no {d}out_; 782 = 2062: _{f}eyer and {f}re_; 2153: _{F}alshode wyÆÆ haue a {f}oule end_; 1988: _{H}elpe and {h}old I shaÆÆ hym yeve_; 1492: _They {s}at and {s}ong_; 683: _Cryst hym {s}aue and {s}ee_; 1303: _That he was {s}ad and {s}ore_; 1612: _set {s}adly and {s}ore_; 335: _God that {s}ofryd wonddes {s}ore_; 322: _{st}yff and {st}rong_ = 1491 = 2590; 1205: _That {w}ekyd was and {w}ight_; 1584: _{w}ekyd and {w}ight_; 1849: _Her one child {w}oke and be-gan to {w}epe_; 1559: _And {w}ot ye {w}eÆÆ and not {w}ene_; 246: _Sche {w}eppte_, _as sche were {w}od_.

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

_a._ Subst. and adj. in attributive or predicative combinations. _As {b}old as eny {b}ore_; _With {br}owes {br}od and wyde_; 142: _hys {b}ugeÆÆ {b}old_; 307: _In a {d}ongon~ that ys {d}ym_; 82: _My {f}ayer~ {f}orestes {f}ellythe downe he_; 209: _The {f}eyer~ {f}yld_; 426: _{gl}emyrryng ase the {gl}ase_; 1592: _{g}ood {g}ate_; 171 = 596: _the {h}oltes {h}ore_; 1484: _To an {h}ye {h}yÆÆ_; 1183: _{s}ydes {s}are_; 154: _Thowe the {w}ey nevyr so {w}ykkyd were_; 2054: _{w}ekyd {w}eders_; 506: _In the {w}yld-some {w}ay_; 535: _{W}yldsom {w}eyes haue I {w}ent_; 2030: _She {w}ent on that {w}ilsom~ {w}ay_.

_b._ Verbs or adjectives combined with the adverb or substantive which contains their secondary adverbial meaning. 1478: _To {b}e here at his {b}ane_, cf. 1678: _That there his {b}ane hath {b}e_; 1944: _To her {b}irdus was she {b}oun~_; 2016: _With {b}lis on euery {b}owÈe_; 135: _That {b}owght hym with hys {b}lod_; 1045: _Thurrow the {b}ody he gan hym {b}ere_; 1404: _To the {b}ote they {b}are_; 334: _Thus he {c}ovyrd owt of {c}are_; 27: _That {d}owghtty ys in {d}edde_, cf. 1725; 98: _With-owt {f}ere that he schold {f}are_; 603 = 977: _Also {f}ast ase he myght {f}are_; 536: _With {f}yndes for to {f}yght_; 802: _To {f}yght with that {f}yndes {f}ere_; 1262: _That was {gr}ow both {gr}ene and {g}ay_; 1060 = 2330: _Torent be the {h}ond he {h}ent_; 270: _That {m}eche ys of {m}yght_; 713: _That {m}eche wase of {m}yght_; 24: _For God ys {m}ost of {m}yght_, cf. 1112: _To a {m}an off {m}yght_; 1879: _Vp she {r}ose ageyn~ the {r}ough_; 2100: _Go {s}ech her in~ the {s}ee_; 2129: _And {s}ett hym~ oute in to the {s}ee_; 2469: _That {s}emely to {s}e were_; 126: _And {s}ymly was to {s}ene_; 415: _That dare I {s}othely {s}ey_; 1170: _Torrent {s}ett on hym~ so {s}ore_; 139: _Serttes, yf I hym {sl}epyng {sl}one_; 181: _Torrent vndyr hys {sp}ryt he {sp}rent_; 179: _But {st}ond {st}yÆÆ_; 2410: _He is so {st}iff at euery {st}oure_; 987: _Torrent in~ the {st}orrope {st}od_; 1912: _For no {st}roke wold she {st}ynt_; 2060: _By a {t}okyn~ I shaÆÆ the {t}eÆÆ_; 2397: _Or {w}alkyd in {w}ede_; 383: _In hys {w}alke ther ase he {w}ent_; 725: _And {w}ent forthe on hys {w}ey_; 107: _And on hys {w}ey gan he {w}ynd_; 2030: _She {w}ent on that {w}ilsom~ {w}ay_; 989: _ale {w}yld at {w}yle_; 2088: _In no {w}ise he {w}old_; 1206: _To {w}ed her to my {w}yffe_; 749: _That {w}yt ys vndyr {w}ede_; 1315: _AÆÆ men {w}onderid on that {w}ight_; 33: _{w}orthyest in {w}ede_.

_c._ Substantives and verbs are combined in the relation of subject and predicate. 2221: _Down {kn}elid that {kn}yght_; 854: _Whether the {f}ynd can {f}yght_; 2390: _There that his {l}ady {l}ent_; 2064: _My {l}ove was on the {l}ent_; 1219: _Gret {l}ordys to churche her {l}ed_; 170: _The fyndes {sp}ere {sp}arrythe hyme nothyng_; 84: _No {st}on lettythe he {st}ond_.

_d._ Verbs and substantives are combined as predicate and object. 2490: _his {b}ak to {b}end_; 2532: _That {c}outh moche {c}urtesye_; 273: _Thy {d}ethe than wyÆÆ he {d}yght_, cf. 1043: _Hys {d}ethe to hyme ys {d}yght_; 1648: _Thy {d}eth now is {d}ight_; 2123: _What {d}eth they wold hym {d}o_; 161: _My lordes {f}rethe thus to {f}eÆÆ_; 2235: _{F}ound hym his {fi}ÆÆ off {ffy}ght_; 1743: _The {ff}orward ye to {f}ulleffylle_; 651: _He {g}athyred svm of hys {g}ere_; 210: _Vpp both his {h}andes he {h}eld_; 1799: _For Iesu is love, that {h}arood {h}eÆÆ_; 1820: _Whan they {l}ed that {l}ady ffre_; 2080: _{L}eve we now that {l}ady gent_; 1663: _Ech on other {l}aid good {l}ode_; 1495: _To god that {m}ade {m}an_; 435: _AÂ gret {m}aynerey let he {m}ake ryght_; 264: _To hym sche {m}ad here {m}one_; 645: _He {r}awght Torrent soche a {r}owght_; 1172: _And aÆÆ to {sh}everd his {sh}eld_; 502: _Tho he be {st}rod anoble {st}ede_; 2482: _Torent be {str}ode a stede {str}ong_; 281: _IÂ schaÆÆ the {t}eÆÆ soche a {t}okyn~_; 2013: _Ne {w}anted she no {w}oo_; 115: _He that schaÆÆ {w}end soche a {w}ey_; 439: _Hom-ward to {w}end ther {w}ey_; 2448: _And than~ to {w}end her {w}ay_; 2457: _And to her logyng {w}ent her {w}ay_; 1544: _Other {w}ayes yf I {w}end_; 207: _That hathe thys {w}orld to {w}yld_.

§ 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 _Ä_ 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 _teÆÆ -- +hell+_. 1702 _+hell+ -- DesoneÆÆe_. 1798 _feÆÆ -- +heÆÆ+_. 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+ -- PortynggaÆÆe_. 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 _PortyngaÆÆ -- +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. _Ä_ 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. _Å_ is unaltered: 422 _+gold+ -- +mold+_. 1122 _+gold+ -- +mold+_.

O.E. _Å_ 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. _yÌ_, the _i_-umlaut of _Å_, has the value of _i_, written _i_ or _y_: 390 _+kysse+ -- iwysse_. 1564 _tiÆÆ -- +fullefyÆÆ+_, _yÆÆ -- wyÆÆ_. 1740 _evyÆÆ -- +fulle fylle+_. Only once it rhymes with _e_: 1484 _+hyÆÆ+_ (=Â _+heÆÆ+_) -- _yeÆÆ -- befeÆÆ -- weÆÆ_, 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.

[Footnote 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_.]

_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 _browÈ -- +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. _æÌ_ is turned into (1) _a_: 154 _+were+ -- fare_. 603 _fare -- +were+_. 1020 _+were+ -- fare_. 2074 _care -- +ware+_.

Into (2) _e_. 379 _+dede+_ (ags. _dæÌd_) -- _hed_. 1047 _+were+ -- chere_. 1053 _sped -- +lede+_ (ags. _læÌdan_). 1263 _stede -- +wede+_ (ags. _wæÌd_).

Into (3) _o_. 1113 _+mone+_ (ags. _mæÌnan_) -- _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+_ (=Â _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)Â with _n_: 123 _kene -- see_ (=Â _+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 donât 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+_ (=Â _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+_ (=Â _wore_). (3) 384 _pase -- +wase+_. 1388 _passe -- +was+_. (4) 2026 _wildernes -- +was+_ (=Â _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+_ (=Â _ware_) -- _fare_. 1020 _+wer+_ (=Â _ware_) -- _fare_. 2074 _care -- +ware+_. The past participle: 7Â _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 _Ä_ 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 giantâs 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 heroâs 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 giantâs 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 squireâs 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 fiendâs 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 Calamondâs 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 giantâs head in his hand, and harshly demanded the kingâs
daughter; he called all the lords to witness of Calamondâs
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 giantâs 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, Cateâs brother, and slew him in a hard struggle,
but was himself wounded. In the giantâs 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 kingâs 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 kingâs 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 foundlingâs 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 Portugalâs 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 Torrentâs deeds, and anxious for his own
security, sent his son Leobertus, with an army of 50,000 men,
against Torrent. AÂ 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 Torrentâs
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 Torrentâs 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 âa rambling poem of adventures without much plot.â 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 childrenâs 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 poetâs own invention, as that would be the only instance of a Middle-English romance not being taken from foreign originals (except, of course, Chaucerâs _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, âIt 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.â As for me, I donât 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, âpar lâamour de dieu,â 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, âThe Octavian legend,â _Erlangen Dissert._, 84.

[Footnote 3: On this term see _Octavian_, ed. Sarrazin,
p. xxxviii.]

[Footnote 4: See Wartonâs opinion upon the legendary origin of
many romances, _History of Engl. Poetry_, London, 1824, I.
p. ccxliv: âMany 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 pilgrimâs life was also written. The penitent changed into
the knight-errant.â 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).]

[Footnote 5: See the edition of _The worthie Hystorie of
Plasidas_, 1566, by H. H. Gibbs, for the Roxburghe Club, 1873.]

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 Emperorâs 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 Ãlfricâs _Passiones Martyrum_; see Horstmann, _Altenglische Legenden_, Second series, Heilbronn, 1881, p. xli.

(2) In the South-English collection, _l.c._ p. xlviii.

(3) In the Northern collection, pp. lxi and lxiv. Herrigâs _Archiv_ 57, p. 262 ff.

(4) In the Scottish collection of legends, said to be Barbourâs. Cf. Barbourâs _Legendensammlung_, ed. C. Horstmann, Heilbronn, 82, ii. p. 12.

(5) In the old Engl. translation of the _Legenda aurea_, see Horstm., _l.c._, p. cxxxv. Caxtonâs edition of the legend, No. 196.

(6) The complete text of the legend printed in Horstmannâs above-mentioned collection, _Altengl. Legendensamml._, p. 211 ff.

(7) _St. Eustas_, by I. Partridge, see Gibbsâ above-mentioned edition, and Horstm., _l.c._ p. 472 ff.

With this legend are connected, more or less, the following poems, which it is necessary to speak of in turn:

(1) The Pseudo-Chrestien epic poem, _Guillaume dâEngleterre_.[6]

[Footnote 6: _Guill. dâEngleterre_, ed. Fr. Michel, _Chron.
Anglo-Norm._, III. 39-172. On the authorship of this poem see C.
Hofmann, _Sitzungsberichte der Münch. Akad._, 1870, II. p. 51, and
P. Meyer, _Romania_, VIII. p. 815 f.]

(2) The two Middle High German poems, _Die gute Frau_,[7] and (3) _Der Graf von Savoyen_.[8]

[Footnote 7: _Die gute Frau_, ed. E. Sommer in Hauptâs
_Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum_, II. 389.]

[Footnote 8: _Der Graf v. Savoyen_, ed. F. H. v. d. Hagen,
_Minnesinger_, IV. 640, and Eschenburg, _Denkmäler altdeutscher
Dichtkunst_, Bremen, 1799.]

(4) The romances of _Isumbras_; (5) of _Octavian_; (6) last, _Syr Eglamour of Artois_, and (7) _Sir Torrent of Portugal_.

The first five have been treated by Holland in his book, _Chrestien de Troies_, Tübingen, 1854.

According to Hollandâs opinion, all of these are derived from the legend of Eustache. He has not exactly inquired into each of them, but restricts himself to a detailed account of their contents. 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. AÂ critical edition of this poem has long been promised by Prof. Zupitza.

In this romance the legend of Eustache can be most clearly recognized. Its contents are, indeed, somewhat transformed according to the taste of the later Middle Ages: the Roman captain is changed into a Christian knight, who performs wonders in fighting against the infidels; he finds his wife as queen of a heathen country; they end their lives as mighty princes, and so on. The legendary style has been supplanted by the romantic diction,[9] but the leading features remain the same. In his above-mentioned essay, pp. 46-48, Steinbach concludes, from a detailed comparison of the contents, that the author of _Isumbras_ did not derive his story from the epic poem, _Guillaume dâEngleterre_, but from an original which bore a still greater resemblance to the legend of Eustache, and, at the same time, contained many of those additions which are to be found in all versions of the legend. Whether this original was composed in Latin, French, or Anglo-Norman, Steinbach does not pretend to determine.

[Footnote 9: On this text see Sarrazin, _Octav._, p. xlv; he
speaks of âdie entstellte, spielmannsmässig zersungene Form, in
der die Thornton Ms uns die legende überliefert. . . . . .
dasselbe Pathos, dieselbe Sentimentalität und Frömmelei, aber auch
dieselbe anschauliche und lebhafte Erzählungsweise (sc. as in
Oct.).â]

To _Isumbras_ I join a few remarks on the romance of _Octavian_, which was edited by Halliwell for the Percy Society, _The Romance of the Emperor Octavian_, London, 1844; and by Sarrazin, _Zwei mittelengl. Versionen der Octaviansage_, in Koelbingâs _Altengl. Bibliothek_, Band III. As for its contents, cf. Sarrazin, as above, p. xviii ff. Concerning the origin of the story, he agrees in general with Holland, only he shows a still nearer connection between _Isumbras_ and _Octavian_, taking the former for a mere imitation of the latter. This opinion, however, cannot be proved. As I cannot enter into detail, 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, Octavianâs son; especially in the second half of the story, exploits of Florent so prevail that the romance might justly bear his name on the title instead of his fatherâs. I therefore believe that Sarrazinâs opinion, that _Isumbras_ is nothing but a bad imitation of _Octavian_, is wrong; and I am rather inclined to think the two poems were composed independently from each other, after French originals, as is evidently the case with _Octavian_, and probably with _Isumbras_. See Halliwell, _Thornt. Rom._, p. xviii. Sarrazin, moreover, supposes, p. xlv, both poems to be due to the same author, in consequence of the conformity of the dialect and style, and of some literal coincidences. But the fact that both of these romances are written in the same dialect is not sufficient to prove the identity of the authors, nor is the style, which is nearly stereotyped in all of these romances. As to the literal coincidences, only three of the nine passages quoted by Sarrazin seem to me to be of any importance. See _Octavian_, notes on ll. 382, 397, 481. But even these only show that the writer of _Octavian_ knew _Isumbras_, or _vice versâ_.

As to the relation between _Octavian_ and our poem, these two romances have no other affinity than the same legendary origin, and the motive of the woman innocently persecuted, which may very well have been introduced independently by two different authors. In all other particulars they are quite different.

The heroes bear little resemblance to their legendary models; in _Octavian_ the Emperor of Rome; in _Torrent_ the young, hardy knight who encounters marvellous struggles to win the hand of his spouse. Also in the treatment of the other motive, each romance has taken its own course. In _Octavian_, Florence is calumniated by her mother-in-law; in _Torrent_, Desonelle is persecuted by her father. The causes are consequently quite different: there the jealousy of the mother-in-law against the mighty Empress; here Calamondâs hatred against Torrent. These differences, now only alluded to, cause a great number of others, and produce a general difference of the two poems, which renders the opinion of a nearer connection between them altogether illusory.

Of all the poems mentioned above, the last, _Syr Eglamour of Artois_, is most nearly related to _Sir Torrent_, a fact found out by Halliwell,[10] who, however, thought that there was no necessity for him to prove a similarity which would be at once detected by the reader; still, he takes it for certain that the romance of _Torrent_ is younger than and partly founded on _Sir Eglamour_. As he gives no proof for this opinion, it will be worth while to enter once more into this question, in order to see whether he is right or not.

[Footnote 10: _The Thornton Romances_, p. xxii f. âThe romance of
_Torrent_ is partly founded upon the story related in _Sir
Eglamour_. The names are changed, but the resemblance is too
striking to have been the result of chance. The treachery of the
sovereign, the prowess of the knight, the indiscretions and
misfortunes of the lady, and the happy conclusion of her
misfortunes, these form the leading incidents of each romance
. . . . there is, perhaps, a secret history attached to the source
of these romances that remains to be unravelled.â]

Upon it, the MSS. do not help us. The earliest MS. that can have contained _Sir Eglamour_ is the parchment one of the Duke of Sutherland,[11] written about the end of the 14th century. The other four MSS. of it[12] are still later. The only MS. of _Sir Torrent_ belongs to the 15th century, so that neither of these romances can be traced very far back.

[Footnote 11: Cf. Koelbingâs _Englische Studien_, vii. p. 191 ff.]

[Footnote 12: Cf. _The Thornton Romances_, p. xxv ff., and
p. xxxvi.]

_Sir Eglamour_ was printed several times in the beginning of the 16th century, and edited anew by Halliwell from the Cambridge MS. in his well-known collection. To judge from the numerous readings of the Lincoln, Cotton, and Cambridge MSS. which he has quoted, the Lincoln MS. shows best the original dialect, and offers in several passages a reading preferable as to rhyme and meaning.[13] Even slight differences in the contents occur now and then.[14]

[Footnote 13: See the following passages which Halliwell has
quoted in the notes: _Eglam._ 54, 96, 107, 111, 122, 128, 139,
153, 177, 195, 213, 247, 337, 347, 399, 445, 572, 605, 614, 737,
740, 765, 858, 883, 945, 985, 1081, 1143, 1206, 1216.]

[Footnote 14: See _Eglamour_, notes on ll. 1064, 1082, 1267.]

The metre and probably the dialect are the same in both romances; they are composed in the tail-rhymed twelve-line stanzas, and written in a North Midland dialect. In both of them the style is alike swelled with the habitual phrases; only the long prayers and pious reflections so frequent in _Torrent_ are not to be met with in _Eglamour_. On the other hand, the poet is wont to predict the fates of his heroes (ll. 204, 951); he often demands attention (ll. 15, 39, 343, 634, 904); he never omits, in describing the festivals, to mention the performances of the minstrels, and to praise the liberality of the lords. These characteristics render it probable that the author of _Eglamour_ was a minstrel, not a clerk or monk, as I suppose the author of _Sir Torrent_ to be.

I now pass on to compare the contents of the two poems. The principal features of the plot are the same in both. AÂ young knight who seeks the hand of a princess engages to win her by valiant exploits. The princessâs father opposes his wooing, jealous as he is of the heroâs renown. The knight vanquishes all the giants and other monsters against which he is told to fight, and at length gains his spouse. AÂ few weeks after their marriage, he sets out again on adventurous expeditions. While he stays abroad, his wife is delivered of twins. Her father sends her to sea in a leaky boat; she lands on a foreign shore, where her children are carried off by wild beasts; but they are saved in a marvellous manner, and brought up at royal courts, whilst she herself lives for a long time at a foreign court. As the hero, when he comes home again, doesnât find her, he goes into the Holy Land to fight with the infidels. After various adventures he finds his wife and children after a tournament at a foreign court. They return home gladly, and celebrate their nuptials by great festivals. The cruel father is duly punished.

On entering into details, however, we find considerable discrepancies between the two romances. First, the names are altogether different. (Eglamour = Torrent. Crystyabelle = Desonelle. Prynsamour = Calamond. Organata = Gendres. Degrabelle = Antony fice Greffoun.) The stage of the plot is in _Eglamour_ Artois, Rome, and Egypt; in _Torrent_ Portugal, Norway, and Calabre. Only the Holy Land is mentioned in both. There the children are carried off by wild beasts, saved by princes and brought up; there the hero fights against the infidels.

The differences of the plot itself are the following:

1. Eglamour confesses his love to Crystyabelle before his deeds; a squire is the go-between in his suit; Eglamour finds love in return. In _Torrent_ Desonelle does not know that she is adored by the hero till after his first exploit. See ll. 109, 448.

2. Accordingly, Eglamour, setting out on adventures, receives two greyhounds and a sword of St. Paul from Crystyabelle as presents, whereas Torrent gets an ambler from his lady love, but not till after his first deed.

3. Prynsamour charges Eglamour with three deeds by which he is to gain Crystyabelle. Torrent is obliged to undertake not less than five combats.

4. In _Torrent_ the combats of the hero are enlarged and adorned by additions not to be found in _Eglamour_. The latter does not release the daughters and sons of kings, nor does he find precious swords in the castles of the giants, nor is he deceived by a kingâs counterfeit letter, which causes Torrent a dangerous struggle and the rivalry of a foreign prince. Only in _Eglamour_ (ll. 40-48) some knights are mentioned who came to win Crystyabelle by jousting, but were all vanquished by Eglamour.

The greatest differences are found in the second halves of the stories.

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 heroâs 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.