(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.