Eilhart von Oberge
Eilhart von Oberge fl. late twelfth century-
A seminal figure among German courtly poets, Eilhart von Oberge is the author of the oldest complete version of the medieval romance of Tristan and Isolde (or, Tristant and Isalde, in Eilhart's orthography). In his Tristant (c. 1170) Eilhart relates the tale of a tragic love affair between the eponymous Cornish hero and an Irish princess wedded to his uncle. Featuring a protagonist controlled by his predetermined fate, Eilhart's Tristant is viewed by contemporary scholars as an homage to the already declining feudal social order and epic literary style of the medieval period. Because the work is presumed to be the closest among many versions to the narrative of the lost French prose archetype, scholars tend to value Eilhart's rendering of the tale particularly highly. Tristant is frequently studied in conjunction with other adaptations of the same material, including those by the French poet Béroul and the Anglo-Norman bard Thomas of Britain. In addition, the poem is important for its considerable influence on later versions of the story, including Gottfried von Strassburg's Tristan (c. 1210) and its subsequent variations.
Almost nothing is known about the life of Eilhart aside from his composition of the Tristant. Extant documentary evidence from the court of Braunschweig, including nearby Oberg, suggests that Eilhart may have been a vassal to Duke Heinrich the Lion. Some scholars speculate that he may have been commissioned to write the poem by Heinrich's second wife, Mathilde, but no conclusive proof exists to support this claim. While the majority opinion holds that Eilhart was born at Oberg and lived his life there, it is also possible that he may have composed his famous work elsewhere, or under the direction of another patron. In addition to the paucity of evidence concerning his life and career, no existing records authenticate the time or place of Eilhart's death.
Scholars generally regard Eilhart's version of the Tristan story as the most faithful to the original French prose Tristan (speculatively dated between 1150 and 1160), which is now lost. Probably composed in about 1170, Eilhart's poem may have been written as late as 1190, according to some theories. Its survival into the contemporary period relies on a number of sources, including three fragmentary twelfth- to thirteenth-century manuscripts, three redactions from the fifteenth century (all complete), and a late-fourteenth-century Czech translation that includes added material to compensate for missing scenes from Eilhart's version. An extant medieval chapbook also offers a rendering of Eilhart's story in prose outline. Contemporary translations of the Tristant include one in French verse and an English prose adaptation by J. W. Thomas.
Eilhart's sole work, the Tristant, depicts the life of the noble warrior Tristant, a peerless knight in service of his uncle, King Mark of Cornwall. Stoic and brave, Tristant brings high honor upon himself by successfully winning battle after battle. His main adversary off the battlefield, King Mark, is usually considered to be a rather conventional villain figure (although some critics have questioned this simplification of his character). The singular object of Tristant's desire, Isalde the Fair, returns the hero's love passionately, but remains unattainable to him because she is married to Mark. For her, love is a form of exquisite suffering, and life without Tristant is inconsequential. In an early encounter in the story, Tristant challenges the Irish duke Morolt, who has unjustly demanded that Cornwall pay him tribute. Engaging in single combat on a small island, Tristant emerges victorious after delivering Morolt a mortal wound to the head. He later learns, however, that Morolt has poisoned him during the battle. Now Tristant must visit Morolt's sister, Queen Isalde of Ireland, in order to acquire an antidote. Healed by the Queen, Tristant subsequently slays a dragon that has been terrorizing the kingdom of Ireland. In return he secures the Queen's daughter, Isalde the Fair, as a bride for King Mark. On the return trip to Cornwall, Tristant mistakenly drinks a love potion prepared by the Irish Queen for her daughter and King Mark and instantly falls in love with the young maiden. After the marriage of Isalde and Mark, the secret affair between Tristant and Isalde becomes the central feature of the tale, as Mark and other jealous noblemen of the Cornish court attempt to catch Tristant and Isalde in adultery. Meanwhile, the King engages a cunning dwarf to set traps for the lovers and gather evidence of their deceit. Eventually, Mark discovers Tristant and Isalde after they have run off to the forest together. Clothed and sleeping, they lie separated by Tristant's sword. Quietly, Mark exchanges the sword for his own (an act they will be certain to notice when they awake) and departs. Afterwards, Tristant is exiled and years pass. The hero marries another woman, but cannot forget his love for Isalde. When it becomes clear that he will never again be with his beloved, he loses his will to live and dies. Shortly thereafter, Isalde arrives to join the mourners of his death. Lying beside his motionless body, she dies as well. In a symbolic denouement, two trees spring up from their graves, their limbs intertwined. In addition to the main action described above, the poem also features several Arthurian interludes, including a visit to the court of King Arthur, a stag hunt, and appearances by other noteworthy knights of the tradition. Scholars perceive the poem only peripherally as a work of Arthurian legend, insisting that such sketches in Eilhart's Tristant occur only briefly, serving to juxtapose an established epic setting with the closer and more problematic court of King Mark. Thematically, Eilhart's Tristant has been viewed as a depiction of heroic valor subverted by reckless passion. The inexorable progress of fate looms large in the poem, demonstrating that nothing can be done to change its path once certain events have transpired, even if seemingly by pure chance. Overall, the poem's theme is thought to hinge on its blending of heroic honor, fate, and passionate love.
Scholars have traditionally analyzed Eilhart's Tristant alongside other versions of the Tristan legend from roughly the same period, including those by the French poet Béroul, the Anglo-Norman Thomas, and the German Gottfried von Strassburg. Through such comparisons, Eilhart's work has been found generally lacking, whether it be in terms of exposition, character delineation, or thematic development. Thus scholars have variously deemed Béroul's version (with its emphasis on passionate love and high adventure), or Thomas's and Gottfried's more psychological renderings of the Tristan legend as superior to Eilhart's somewhat informal and stylistically simplified verse narrative. Additionally, a number of scholars believe that Eilhart may have omitted some original scenes from the story (later included by subsequent authors) for the sake of clarity or brevity. Such omissions are thought to have contributed to Eilhart's avoidance of psychological depth or motivation in his characterizations, a quality often thought to mar the Tristant. Others have questioned Eilhart's use, or misuse, of narrative motivation in the work. Many commentators have acknowledged a lack of traditional narrative plausibility in Eilhart's Tristant, arguing that the inexplicable and supernatural forces of fate and chance condition and carry the action of the poem. Still others have observed that Eilhart's narrative was perhaps intended primarily as a defense of the feudal social order and its ideology. The author's focus on the inexorable power of destiny, in contrast to his characters' actions or desires, frees Tristant, Isalde, and Mark from guilt or complicity and externalizes the concerns in the story, making it an exemplum of deterministic fate and providential order in action. In this sense, scholars have noted, the poem validates the status quo of feudal hegemony, rather than analyzing the individual merits of its protagonist or other principal figures. Despite all of these objections, a contemporary trend in critical thought on the Tristant has been to question the received view of the poem, and instead to study the work on its own artistic merits. Recalling elements that made the poem popular in a bygone era, late twentieth-century commentators have begun to admire the dynamic qualities of Eilhart's storytelling technique, including his exploitation of narrative intervention to carry the tale, his robust style unimpeded by the demands of psychological motivation, as well as his use of low, whimsical, and almost mock-heroic humor—features almost universally lacking in contemporaneous versions of the story. Minor elements, such as Eilhart's clever use of epithets in delineating character and foreshadowing action, have also been noted. Putting aside discussion of its similarities to or departures from other versions of the tale, commentators on Eilhart's Tristant have instead concentrated on its skilled blend of romantic and epic forms, and have admired its artistic integrity as it traces the heroic arc of Tristant's life and the events culminating in his tragic demise.
SOURCE: Whitehead, Frederick. “The Early Tristan Poems.” In Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, edited by Roger Sherman Loomis, pp. 134-44. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.
[In the following excerpt, Whitehead contrasts versions of the Tristan legend by Eilhart and Béroul, claiming that Eilhart's German poem suffers in comparison because of its narrative abridgement and occasional psychological implausibility.]
Nineteenth-century scholars agreed in regarding the [Tristan] poems of Eilhart and Béroul as essentially a single version (version commune or version des jongleurs) and in contrasting it with that of Thomas and his derivatives (version courtoise). Bédier, having demonstrated that the three poems and the Prose Tristan were derived from a common source,1 showed that Eilhart and Béroul reproduced this archetype with great fidelity,2 whereas Thomas made considerable changes. This was also the opinion of Gertrude Schoepperle.3 But Bédier believed4 that Eilhart and Béroul had departed from the archetype in limiting the effect of the potion to three or four years, and since this deviation could not have been made independently, he postulated an intermediate common source, which he called y.
The duration of the spell is...
(The entire section is 2700 words.)
SOURCE: Trindade, Ann. “The Enemies of Tristan.” Medium Aevum 63, no. 1 (1974): 6-21.
[In the following essay, Trindade discusses the narrative structure of the Tristan legend as it exists in poetic versions by Eilhart and others, placing particular emphasis on the function of antagonists in the story.]
The enemies of Tristan are many and varied in what are usually called the ‘primary’ versions of the legend. Their number and degree of individualization varies, and while the principal editions and studies of Tristan texts have included comments on individual variants as they occur, there has been, as far as I am aware, no study devoted entirely to this group of characters alone. I propose to show that there are important advantages to be gained from studying them as a group and in terms of their narrative function.
First, while a number of influential Arthurian scholars have maintained that the study of origins is less important than the application of traditional literary criteria to the texts themselves,1 nevertheless the fact that we refer so frequently to the ‘legend’, or ‘story’, or Tristan independently of the Tristan versions indicates that the processes of transmission and development will always be a legitimate object of study. The Arthurian field is not unique in possessing a number of traditional themes and characters which persist throughout...
(The entire section is 8098 words.)
SOURCE: Thomas, J. W. Introduction to Eilhart von Oberge's Tristrant, translated by J. W. Thomas, pp. 1-46. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978.
[In the following excerpt, Thomas encapsulates the manuscript tradition of Eilhart's Tristant and summarizes what is known of the poet's life. The critic continues by examining structure, style, narrative technique, and the theme of fate in the poem.]
AUTHOR AND TEXT
Composed some time between 1170 and 1190, the Tristrant of Eilhart von Oberge is the earliest complete account of the tragic love story of Tristan and Isolde and the version which, according to many scholars, most closely resembles the lost original.1 As such, it is an invaluable reference point for all studies of the medieval Tristan material: its origins, as well as its widespread literary exploitation during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. However, Eilhart's epic poem is also important in its own right and was popular in Germany for some five hundred years, inspiring various works of plastic arts as well as of literature.
We know Tristrant through three early manuscripts, three late ones, a Czech translation, and a chapbook. The early manuscripts are from the end of the twelfth or the beginning of the thirteenth century and are fragmentary, containing in all only 1,075 (85 overlapping) verses, or slightly...
(The entire section is 10631 words.)
SOURCE: Wiesmann-Wiedemann, Friederike. “From Victim to Villain: King Mark.” In The Expansion and Transformations of Courtly Literature, edited by Nathaniel B. Smith and Joseph T. Snow, pp. 49-68. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1980.
[In the following essay, Wiesmann-Wiedemann compares versions of the Tristan story by Eilhart, Thomas, and Gottfried with the prose French narrative source, arguing that Eilhart's work privileges the feudal order, while the other writers take elements of psychology, love, and action (respectively) as their main components.]
In her study of the Tristan story, Joan Ferrante compares corresponding episodes in different versions of the legend, but she treats characters only insofar as they figure within these episodes.1 This article follows one character, Mark, in order to show how the ethos of different versions and the effect that each work as a whole has on its readers influenced the portrayal of the cuckolded king. Four texts lend themselves to a comparison because they are meant to tell the whole story, even if we lack the complete versions. These are Eilhart, with his feudal point of view; Thomas, with his interest in unhappy love; Gottfried, with his elevation of love to a religious level; and the French Prose Tristan, with its simplistic ideology.2 I concentrate on three points of special importance for assessing Mark's role: his...
(The entire section is 5902 words.)
SOURCE: Schultz, James A. “Why Does Mark Marry Isolde? And Why Do We Care? An Essay on Narrative Motivation.” Deutsche Vierteljahrs Schrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 61, no. 2 (June 1987): 206-22.
[In the following essay, Schultz studies the differing forms of narrative motivation employed by Eilhart and Gottfried in their versions of the Tristan legend.]
Although narrative motivation has only recently become a theoretical concern of literary scholars, it has always been a practical concern of storytellers, for anyone who tells a story must give some attention to the causal connections that join the events being recounted. It is not surprising then that storytellers who are inclined to reflect on their own activity will occasionally offer us their thoughts on the subject nor that Gottfried von Straßburg, surely one of the most self-conscious of medieval vernacular writers, should introduce such reflections into his Tristan. These reflections are formulated as an attack on another “Tristan” with which he assumes his audience is familiar and which closely resembles the somewhat earlier Tristrant of Eilhart von Oberg. At issue is the motivation of a crucial event in the story, Mark's marriage to Isolde.
Eilhart and Gottfried begin their accounts of Mark's marriage from the same premise: Mark has made his nephew, Tristan, his heir and has vowed...
(The entire section is 8341 words.)
SOURCE: McDonald, William C. “The Fool-Stick: Concerning Tristan's Club in the German Eilhart Tradition.” Euphorion: Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte 82, no. 2 (1988): 127-49.
[In the following essayt, McDonald interprets the symbolic significance of Tristan's club in Tristant and in later adaptations of the legend the followed Eilhart.]
Although critics have examined the Tristan poems of Eilhart von Oberge (fl. ca. 1170) and his followers through a wide variety of methodologies and critical approaches, a pervasive motif has largely gone unexplored: the large stick carried by the protagonist when he is dressed as a fool is placed in high relief. The function of Tristan's club engages our attention here, not least for its contribution to reception theory. Eilhart, whose poem affords very early access to the episode of Tristan's folly1, introduces the club as the hero's distinguishing feature for his final adventure of love. Tristan, in exile, wishes to see Isolde again and feigns madness to enter Mark's court. After a battle in support of Kehenis (Kaherdin), from which he receives a head wound, Tristan has a long period of convalescence. He is shorn of hair and scarred, so disfigured that he need not fear discovery when assuming the role of Isolde's rescuing devotee in Cornwall. Tristan's nephew advises him to go to court alone, acting foolish and dressed in a hooded coat;...
(The entire section is 5168 words.)
SOURCE: Cormier, Raymond J. “Eilhart's Seminal Tower of Pleasure.” Fifteenth-Century Studies 17 (1990): 57-63.
[In the following essay, Cormier comments on Eilhart's innovative retelling of the story-within-a-story of Gariole and Kehenis in his Tristant.]
Eilhart von Oberg postpones the dénouement of his tragic Tristan love story by inserting a cameo that mirrors the sad destiny of his main characters.1 This observation refers to the tale of Gariole and Kehenis, who find themselves deeply in love but thwarted by an evil, jealous husband.
In the words of Eilhart (as translated by J. W. Thomas, 137-38): “Not far from Karahes lived a mighty lord named Nampetenis. …” This warrior, having retired from high, knightly deeds and pursuits, now spends all his time at the hunt shooting game or stays busy watching over his beautiful wife whom he keeps guarded in complete custody, grimly even and dishonorably. That is, he has very high castle walls built and three moats dug around the structure. Nampetenis himself carries the keys to the castle; he is the gatekeeper and allows no males young or old, bondsmen or nobles, to remain within whenever he rides out to hunt. Only women can stay to watch over and keep the company of the sorely vexed Lady Gariole.
Now Gariole, before her marriage, had promised Kehenis secretly that she would receive him if...
(The entire section is 3314 words.)
SOURCE: Brockington, Mary. “Tristran and Amelius: False and True Repentance.” Modern Language Review 93, no. 2 (April 1998): 305-20.
[In the following essay, Brockington explicates a scene from the Tristan legend in which King Mark discovers the sleeping lovers in the forest, exploring the different approaches to the episode taken by Eilhart, Béroul, and Thomas.]
The scene in the Morrois forest, where the wronged husband, King Marc, sees Tristran and Yseut, the fugitive lovers, asleep, decides not to kill them, and retires silently, leaving tokens of his presence, is one of the most important in the whole Tristran tradition.1 The verse redactors, particularly Beroul, present it in highly dramatic form, and it appears in manuscript and textile illustrations of the story. In terms of plot, it is pivotal; it closes one series of episodes (blood on the sheets, capture, escape) allowing Yseut's eventual return to Marc, and prepares the way for the next series (Tristran's exile, returns, and eventual death). The French prose redactor discarded it, as its softening of Marc's harsh attitude was inconsistent with his reworking, and instead has Marc discover Yseut alone and recapture her; yet he discarded Beroul's version with reluctance, retaining details for use in other scenes (appropriate or not).2 The earlier form of the scene was not lost, however. An Italian who adapted the...
(The entire section is 3606 words.)
Haug, Walter. “Reinterpreting the Tristan Romances of Thomas and Gotfrid: Implications of a Recent Discovery.” Arthuriana 7, no. 3 (fall 1997): 45-59.
Argues that the discovery of the so-called Carlisle Fragment of Thomas of Britain's poem Tristan calls for a scholarly reappraisal of the relationship between the principal post-Eilhart versions of the Tristan story.
Henning, John. “Irish Saints in Early German Literature.” Speculum: A Journal of Mediaeval Studies 22, no. 3 (July 1947): 358-74.
Considers the Tristan tradition as it highlights developments in continental European perceptions of Ireland during the medieval period.
McDonald, William C. “Character Portrayal in Eilhart's Tristant.” Tristania 9, no 1–2 (autumn-spring 1983–84): 25–39.
Seeks to evaluate Tristant on its own merits, examining the poem's style, genre, and characterization.
———. “King Mark, the Holy Penitent: On a Neglected Motif in the Eilhart Literary Tradition.” Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altertum and Deutsche Literatur 120 (1991): 393–418.
Discusses King Mark as a complex figure, arguing that Eilhart's subtle characterization prevents him from coming across as a stereotypical villain.
(The entire section is 315 words.)