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.