SOURCE: Noble, Peter S. “The Lovers.” In Beroul's Tristan and the Folie de Berne, pp. 17-34. London, England: Grant & Cutler Ltd., 1982.

[In the following excerpt, Noble discusses the characterization of Iseut and Tristran respectively, emphasizing their wit and resourcefulness in difficult situations.]

One of Beroul's great strengths as an author is ability to depict character, not so much by outright description, of which there is very little in the text, but through his skill in making the characters come to life by their speech and their actions. Inevitably he is particularly concerned with the lovers, whose story after all this is and with whom he clearly sympathises. The portrayal of Iseut brings vividly to the audience this clever, forceful woman made ruthless by the demands of her love.

From the moment the fragment opens we learn something of her mettle:

Que nul senblant de rien en face.
Com ele aprisme son ami,
Oiez com el l'a devanci

(2-4)

Iseut coming to a forbidden rendez-vous with Tristan has seen the shadow of her husband Mark in the fountain and realises that she is walking into a trap. Her reaction is immediate. She seizes the initiative and will not let Tristan speak until she thinks that he too has realised the danger, which he had already perceived. Her skill with words and the quickness of her mind are such that she is able to devise immediately a formula which means one thing to herself and to Tristan and another to Mark who is listening in the tree:

Li rois pense que par folie,
Sire Tristran, vos aie amé;
Mais Dex plevis ma loiauté,
Qui sor mon cors mete flaele,
S'onques fors cil qui m'ot pucele
Out m'amistié encor nul jor!

(20-25)

Implicitly she denies that there was anything wrong in her affection for Tristan, by contrasting the King's thoughts in the first two lines quoted with the pledge which is to follow. The use of the subjunctive in line 21 cleverly draws attention to the idea that any evil is in the King's mind. The strongly worded pledge of her innocence follows, which avoids naming names. The King believes that he is the man who had her virginity and so is satisfied, but Iseut and Tristan know that Tristan loved her first and so she is speaking the truth to him and to God. She goes on to strengthen this impression of her honesty and her sense of honour:

Ne je, par Deu omnipotent,
N'ai corage de drüerie
Qui tort a nule vilanie.
Mex voudroie que je fuse arse,
Aval le vent la poudre esparse,
Jor que je vive que amor
Aie o home qu'o mon seignor.

(32-38)

‘Seignor’ is ambiguous. Tristan knows that she means him, but Mark naturally interprets ‘seignor’ as applying to him, her lawful husband. The whole impression of innocence is carefully prepared by the use of words like ‘druërie’ and ‘vilanie’, which she violently rejects. The strength of her oath in line 35 is ironic in view of the fate which Mark will try to inflict on her when he discovers that she has been deceiving him. For the moment, however, it serves to increase the impression of indignation and innocence which Iseut is creating for the benefit of Mark in the tree above.

Her whole speech is designed to convince Mark that she is a dutiful but frightened wife who has answered a call for help from Tristan because he is Mark's relative. Her fear stems from her knowledge of Mark and is not feigned, but she can use her real emotion to serve her own ends, by planting the suggestion that the trouble is being caused by her enemies at court. Skilfully she reminds Mark of his debt to Tristan, a theme already mentioned (27-28):

Molt vos estut mal endurer
De la plaie que vos preïstes
En la batalle que feïstes
O mon oncle […]

(50-53)

Quite naturally she makes Mark recall that Tristan, alone amongst his knights, was prepared to defend him against the Morholt. Her friendship with Tristan has an easy explanation:

[…] Je vos gari;
Se vos m'en erïez ami,
N'ert pas mervelle, par ma foi!

(53-55)

Tristan owes her a deep debt of gratitude for curing him. Only their enemies could interpret this evilly and they have planted the suspicion in the King's mind:

Et il ont fait entendre au roi
Que vos m'amez d'amor vilaine.

(56-7)

The denial is all the more effective because it is implied. She warns Tristan that she dare not come again (62-63), because she is so afraid of the King:

Trop demor ci, n'en quier mentir;
S'or en savoit li rois un mot,
Mon cors seret desmenbré tot,
Et si seroit a molt grant tort;
Bien sai qu'il me dorroit la mort.

(64-68)

Her tactics are changing. At first she was concerned to impress on the King the innocence of her love for Tristan and to remind him of the debt which he owes Tristan. Now she is stressing her fear of death at Mark's hands, but line 67 makes her point that she would be killed wrongfully. Her affection for Tristan is based on her mother's advice to cherish the relations of her husband:

Je quidai jadis que ma mere
Amast molt les parenz mon pere,
Et disoit ce que la mollier
Nen avroit ja [son] seignor chier
Qui les parenz n'en amereit;
Certes, bien sai que voir diset.

(73-78)

Tristan's brief interjection (81-84) about untruthful gossip gives her the chance to return to the idea that Mark is a good man led astray by others:

Molt est cortois li rois, mi sire;
Ja nu pensast nul jor par lui
Q'en cest pensé fuson andui;
Mais l'en puet home desveier,
Faire le mal et bien laisier;
Si a l'on fait de mon seignor.

(86-91)

‘Cortois’ flatters Mark, and the use of ‘sire’ may unconsciously recall the use of ‘seignor’ in the opening lines and further reassure him that he was the man intended. Iseut has succeeded in indicating her good impression of him, while at the same time making it clear that he is wrongfully persecuting her because of the evil gossip which has influenced him. Her skill with words and, no doubt, her ability as an actress to create her role as an injured innocent—she probably does not need to act her fear, although she can control and manipulate it—are used to convince Mark that he has suspected her unjustly.

This quick-wittedness, her ability to think on her feet, so to speak, and her amazing skill in manipulating words are very evident in another of the major crises of Iseut's stormy life at the court of Cornwall. Strong-minded and resourceful as she is, Beroul makes Iseut credible by showing that she can fear. Iseut has good cause to fear Mark (he was prepared to burn her at the stake and he did give her to the lepers), and when she sees his furious face after he returns from his violent quarrel with the barons, she faints (3169). It should be noted that she faints from fear for what may have happened to Tristan:

‘Lasse’, fait ele, ‘mes amis
Est trovez, mes sires l'a pris!’

(3163-64)

She recovers from her faint to find that the King has been protecting her from the barons, who want her to defend herself by undergoing some form of trial by ordeal. Iseut pretends to turn to Mark for help:

Entent a moi, si me conselle

(3229)

but her own brain is already devising the answer and without waiting for Mark, she goes on:

Se Damledeu mon cors seceure,
Escondit mais ne lor ferai,
Fors un que je deviserai.

(3232-34)

She has already realised that she cannot take an oath, the wording of which is devised by another, whereas if she offers the oath, she is entitled to choose the formula, as is shown by Varvaro (47, pp.101-102). Although she has barely recovered from a shock severe enough to make her faint, she is planning swiftly and surely her escape from this next danger. As one who is offering to undergo the oath voluntarily, she is in a position to make demands and she is careful to make only reasonable ones. Arthur and his court are to be summoned (3249) to be the guarantors as they will defend her, should the verdict be challenged:

Se devant lui sui alegie,
Qui me voudroit aprés sordire,
Cil me voudroient escondire,
Qui avront veü ma deraisne,
Vers un Cornot ou vers un Saisne.

(3250-54)

Arthur appears to be an independent arbiter but as Iseut seems to know him already, he may be more committed to her than is immediately apparent:

Son corage sai des piça.

(3276)

Anyway she is quite confident that he will come to support her, and her confidence is fully borne out by subseqent events. As soon as Mark has agreed to her plan Iseut gets busy and organises Tristan. She plans his moves very fully, even reminding him to take and keep all the alms which are given to him in his disguise as a leper and bring them to her. Iseut is fond of money (see line 231 where her denial of avarice suggests that she knows that this accusation can be made against her):

Gart moi l'argent, tant que le voie
Priveement, en chanbre coie.

(3311-12)

Her plan works brilliantly. Tristan, disguised as a leper, is waiting for her at the ford which leads to the Blanche Lande where the oath will be taken, a site chosen by Iseut, and in full view of all the onlookers she makes him carry her across the ford, riding astride him, and after dismounting she treats him with a contempt which amuses the kings and the other onlookers. It is hard to resist the conclusion that Iseut is thoroughly enjoying herself:

Il est herlot, si que jel sai.

(3976)

Her abuse makes the kings burst out laughing, but the joke is really on them and shared between Tristan and Iseut. Next day the oath is taken in public and King Arthur tells Iseut what she has to swear:

‘Entendez moi, Yseut la bele,
Oiez de qoi on vos apele;
Que Tristran n'ot vers vos amor
De puteé ne de folor
Fors cele que devoit porter
Envers son oncle et vers sa per.’

(4191-96)

There is no way that Iseut can take that oath truthfully and the full extent of her intelligence and the skill of her planning is made clear when the audience hears her swear the oath which, as she had stipulated to Mark, she has devised:

Or escoutez que je ci jure,
De quoi le roi ci aseüre;
Si m'aït Dex et saint Ylaire,
Ces reliques, cest saintuaire,
Totes celes qui ci ne sont
Et tuit icil de par le mont,
Q'entre mes cuises n'entra home,
Fors le ladre qui fist soi some,
Qui me porta outre les guez,
Et li rois Marc mes esposez;
Ces deus ost de mon soirement.
Ge n'en ost plus de tote gent;
De deus ne me pus escondire;
Du ladre, du roi Marc, mon sire.
Li ladres fu entre mes janbes
.....Qui voudra que je plus en face,
Tote en sui preste en ceste place.

(4199-216)

She began by calling attention to the strength of her oath (4202-04), she continued with the vivid image of a man between her thighs which would capture the imagination of the audience and she then impressed them by her scrupulousness in mentioning the beggar as well as Mark, as they had all seen her astride the ‘ladre’. In case anyone missed the point, she repeats that there are only these two men whom she cannot omit and then to show her confidence offers to do anything else required. The reaction is, no doubt, what she had calculated:

          Tuit cil qui l'ont oï jurer
Ne püent pas plus endurer.
‘Dex!’ fait chascuns, ‘si fiere en jure!
Tant en a fait aprés droiture!
Plus i a mis que ne disoient
Ne que li fel ne requeroient

(4217-22)

Iseut is vindicated on a tide of popular enthusiasm, and at last her position seems assured with Arthur and Mark satisfied. Her skill, her intelligence and her courage have carried her through this crisis to a crushing victory over her enemies.

These enemies she hates with all the strength of her passionate nature. When she has been condemned to die at the stake, her great regret is that Tristan has also been captured:

Qui m'oceïst, si garisiez,
Ce fust grant joie, beaus amis;
Encor en fust vengement pris.

(906-08)

When she hears that he has escaped, she is of course delighted, seeming indifferent as to whether she lives or dies:

‘Dex,’ fait elë, ‘en ait bien grez!
Or ne me chaut se il m'ocïent
Ou il me lïent ou deslïent.’

(1048-50)

It is a reasonable assumption that at least part of her delight stems from her desire for vengeance. It is not solely pleasure that Tristan has escaped. The same trait can be seen during the jousting at the ford. The forester who had betrayed the lovers falls dead from his horse, struck down by Governal:

Yseut, qui ert et franche et sinple,
S'en rist doucement soz sa ginple.

(4055-56)

Beroul clearly approves of Iseut's attitude, as the adjective ‘franche’ shows, although ‘sinple’ is unexpected and may be used mainly for the rhyme, and there can be no arguing that she is rejoicing at the death of a dangerous enemy. At the very end of the fragment her resourcefulness and fierceness again are revealed when she carefully guides Tristan so that he can point his arrow through the hole in the curtain which Godoïne is using to spy on the lovers. She shows no squeamishness when Tristan presents her with the hair of Denoalen whom he has scalped (4390) but concentrates on the urgent business of despatching Godoïne as quickly as possible.

Iseut has a softer side to her nature although it is rarely seen. She is moved by the devotion of the dog Husdent who finds them in the forest and whom Tristan proposes to kill because his barking will betray them. It is Iseut who suggests that the dog can be trained to hunt silently and comments:

Amis Tristran, grant joie fust,
Por metre peine qui peüst
Faire Hudent le cri laisier

(1587-89)

The strength of her love for Tristan is also made clear more than once both before and after the potion has worn off. (The problem of the potion will be considered separately.) While the potion lasts, Beroul states categorically that the lovers can endure anything for the sake of each other:

Aspre vie meine[n]t et dure;
Tant s'entraiment de bone amor,
L'un por l'autre ne sent dolor.

(1364-66)

He does not minimise the hardships of life in the forest but omnia vincit amor. Once the potion has worn off, when one would expect the strength of their love to diminish, Beroul, less explicitly but in my opinion quite deliberately, makes it clear that although the nature of the love may have changed in that the lovers are no longer prepared to make the same sacrifices, Iseut is still very much in love. Not only does she promise to come whenever Tristan sends for her (2792-2802) whatever may be the obstacles between them, but when he finally rides away towards the sea into exile, as far as everyone knows except Iseut, she watches him until her eyes can no longer see him:

Vers la mer vet Tristran sa voie.
Yseut o les euz le convoie;
Tant con de lui ot la veüe,
De la place ne se remue.

(2929-32)

For a Queen suspected of adultery who has just been received back into society by her husband, this is a bold gesture, and I would suggest that only the strength of Iseut's love could make her forget her caution.

In some ways she seems to be a selfish person. It is perhaps understandable that she shows little concern for Mark. To her he is an obstacle. Before she ever met him, she was in love with Tristan. She seems to have no qualms about living with Mark but she does not consider him at all. Nor does she always consider Tristan. When the effect of the potion wears off, it is very noticeable that Iseut's first thoughts are of herself and of her loss of status and of the responsibility of Brangien for this. It is easy to understand why Iseut should react in this way. As she points out, she is alone in the court, a foreigner and the daughter of a hated enemy, who has to think for herself as there is no-one else to do it for her. This situation must have been not uncommon as the result of diplomatic marriages. Iseut feels herself to be in danger, and as the behaviour of the barons and the dwarf proves, she is absolutely right. It is no wonder therefore that she shows herself to be hard and scheming. She feels that she is fighting for her life.

She makes use of her loneliness and position of danger to gain sympathy for herself. She is an expert at manipulating the men in her life, as both Mark and Tristan prove. Knowing that Mark loves her although she does not love him (at least we are given no reason to think that she does), she is able to exercise power over him. She takes great care to present herself as the obedient wife, well trained by her mother so that she knows how she should regard her husband's relations. As in line 21, the subjunctive in line 74 is used to create the desired effect:

Je quidai jadis que ma mere
Amast molt les parenz mon pere,
Et disoit ce que la mollier
Nen avroit ja [son] seignor chier
Qui les parenz n'en amereit

(73-77)

This is supposed to explain her apparent friendliness to Tristan. A few lines later she reminds Mark of her isolated position at his court, appealing for his sympathy:

Tote sui sole en ceste terre.

(174)

She does this again when planning her oath:

Rois, n'ai en cest païs parent
Qui por le mien destraignement
En feïst gerre ne revel

(3239-41)

Just as she can manipulate Mark, so she can manipulate Tristan. The most obvious example of this is at her reconciliation with Mark, where Iseut persuades Tristan to break his word, a serious matter for an honourable knight. Tristan has promised to go into exile if that should be Mark's decision:

Ge m'en irai au roi de Frise;
Jamais n'oras de moi parler,
Passerai m'en outre la mer.

(2610-12)

Iseut, as the time for the reconciliation approaches, is not unnaturally apprehensive. Her one sure supporter is about to go into exile while her enemies will still be at court, and she has no illusions about their probable attitude to her:

Ges dot, quar il sont molt felon.

(2827)

She uses all her art to persuade Tristan to lurk nearby at least until they see how Mark is treating her:

Gel prié, qui sui ta chiere drue,
Qant li rois m'avra retenue,
Que chiés Orri le forestier
T'alles la nuit la herbergier.
Por moi sejorner ne t'ennuit!
Nos i geümes mainte nuit
En nostre lit que nos fist faire …

(2815-21)

Using phrases like ‘ta chiere drue’, beseeching him with ‘por moi’, reminding him of their life together (‘nos i geümes’ and ‘en nostre lit’) she puts immense pressure on him. She continues with ‘beau chiers amis’ (2825), repeats twice that she is afraid (2825 and 2827), twice addresses him possessively as ‘li miens amis’ (2829 and 2832), and Tristan agrees at once. There can be no real struggle between his love for Iseut and his pledged word to Mark. Nor are Tristan and Mark the only men whom Iseut can influence. As already mentioned, she is confident that she can summon Arthur to her aid at the oath-taking ceremony:

Et li mien cors est toz seürs,
Des que verra li rois Artus
Mon mesage, qu'il vendra ça;

(3273-75)

Her confidence is fully justified. Arthur and his men will leap to the defence of such a famous beauty before they know what her request is:

Otroi a li qant que requiers …
Por le mesage a la plus bele
Qui soit de ci jusq' en Tudele.

(3407-10)

Beroul gives us almost no description of Iseut's beauty, which is clearly one of her weapons in controlling the men in her life. This lack of description may be because we lack the scenes in which Iseut first appears in the poem, which would be the natural place for such a description, but we are given a brief comment at the reconciliation:

Les eulz out vers, les cheveus sors.

(2888)

In all the rich robes purchased for her by the hermit she is a striking figure.

For much of the fragment Iseut must be living on her nerves and there are, of course, moments when the strain is too much for her. She faints from fear at the sight of Mark's angry face. Like Tristan she is terrified when they realise that the King had discovered them asleep in the forest:

S'il ont poor, n'en püent mais;
Li rois sevent fel et engrés.

(2123-24)

They had such good reason to fear Mark that they quite misinterpret the signs which he had left of his visit. She weeps when she falls at the feet of the hermit on their first visit:

          Iseut au pié l'ermite plore,
Mainte color mue en poi d'ore,
Molt li crie merci sovent

(1409-11)

Nevertheless these are only brief losses of control on her part and not to be confused with the tears of rage which she sheds when she is a prisoner, for example:

Yseut plore, par poi n'enrage.

(903)

Here the tears are only the outward sign of her fury at the prospect of her death going unavenged, not a sign of weakness. Iseut rarely lowers her guard and when she does, is quick to regain control.

For all her beauty, courage and resourcefulness there are points where Iseut does not control the action. After the lovers have been caught by Mark and the dwarf, she remains absolutely still and silent, while Tristan argues on her behalf and offers to defend her. Nothing that she could say will help matters. This is one of the moments when the affair will be settled between the men, and she needs the strength of a man to defend her. Similarly in the forest, Tristan, the hunter, becomes the leader. It is Tristan who decides when they will flee to Wales (2099), and Iseut's influence dominates only in the episode with Husdent and when they are planning their return to court. She makes no demur when told by Tristan that if he sends for her after their separation:

Dame, faites mes volentez.

(2791)

Iseut knows full well that there are times and places where even a queen as able as she is must stand back and do what she is told by the men in her life. As a foreigner in a hostile court, as an adulterous wife fighting to preserve her secret and her position, Iseut is at war with the society around her. She uses her beauty, her intelligence and her courage to survive and defeat her enemies by controlling the men nearest to her, but she wins through by force of character, ruthlessness and brain-power. She is not granted any of the respect or the authority of the courtly lady, not even by her lover.

With such a partner it would be easy for Tristan to be overshadowed and made to look rather ridiculous, but Beroul does not allow this to happen. Tristan is a worthy partner for Iseut, and although she usually takes the lead, he is shown to be intelligent and quick-thinking as well as a superb man of action. There can be no challenging Tristan's claim to be the outstanding knight of the Cornish court. It was he who fought the Morholt, whom no other Cornish knight would face, as the audience is constantly reminded (28, 136, 848, 2037-38), he it was who defeated the dragon so that he won Iseut's hand for Mark (2559-61), and his confidence in his own valour and prowess is shown by his demand for an ‘escondit’ (803) which not one of the Cornish knights is prepared to accept. Presumably they, like Tristan, believe that the Morholt's conqueror is not to be overcome by those who refused to face the Morholt, even with such a good case to fight for. Ogrin also seems sure that Tristan will win any ‘escondit’ and advises him to repeat his offer:

S'il veut prendre vostre escondit,
Si qel verront grant et petit,
Vos li offrez a sa cort faire.

(2397-99)

Further proof of Tristan's strength and physical skill can be seen in the leap from the chapel, which not even a squirrel could accomplish successfully. Even if it is accepted that Tristan had God's help in this leap, it is still an amazing feat, and the whole episode illustrates his quick-thinking opportunism, as he seizes every chance offered. Tristan is not a chivalrous knight, however. We see him joust only once, an impromptu affair at the ford, where Tristan is thought to be a fairy knight by the onlookers, and he unhorses Andret who alone takes up the challenge posed by Tristan and Governal. There is a striking contrast between the courtly appearance of the two knights, their beautiful armour, Tristan's horse with its name Bel Joeor, his ‘enseigne’ given by his ‘bele’ (as Varvaro points out (47, pp.182-83), the whole appearance is very reminiscent of the Cliges of Chrétien de Troyes 4614 ff.), and the burlesque content underlined by Iseut's private, mocking laughter (4055-56).¹ Otherwise the fighting in the book is a matter of ambushes and surprise attacks. Tristan is very skilled at this style of fighting, which probably approximates very closely to contemporary reality. It is worth noting too Tristan's skill with the bow:

En Tristran out molt buen archier,
Molt se sout bien de l'arc aidier.

(1279-80)

By the twelfth century the bow was not regarded as a knightly weapon, although it was favoured for example in south Wales, and so this skill of Tristan's is probably a throw-back to some earlier version of the legend.

Tristan's physical qualities and courage are not in doubt, and he is not without intelligence either. He had in fact already noticed Mark in the tree before Iseut arrived at the fountain and has no trouble in following her lead to deceive Mark as to the real purpose of their meeting. His ability with words almost matches that of Iseut as he pleads with her to reconcile him with Mark, offering to prove himself by an ordeal, as no-one will accept his challenge:

Dame, ore li dites errant
Qu'il face faire un feu ardant,
Et je m'en entrerai el ré;
Se ja un poil en ai bruslé
De la haire qu'avrai vestu,
Si me laist tot ardoir u feu;
Qar je sai bien n'a de sa cort
Qui a batalle o moi s'en tort.

(149-56)

His confident boasting is reminiscent of the ‘gabs’ of epic poetry, but his offer is not accepted. Like Iseut he plays on Mark's sympathy, recalling all that he has done for him in the past, when he alone in Cornwall was willing to stand up and fight the Morholt (135-42). By calling him ‘mis oncles chiers’ (143) and later in his soliloquy ‘beaus oncles’ (251) he is reminding Mark of their relationship and that as kindred they should stand together. His enemies he describes with the word ‘losengiers’ (144), with all its implications of trouble-makers. He has already suggested their aim is to isolate the King from his kindred, an apparently innocent remark which should warn the King of the threat posed to the royal family:

Or voi je bien, si con je quit,
Qu'il ne voudroient que o lui
Eüst home de son linage.

(123-25)

In addition to harping on his relationship to the King, Tristan paints a very pathetic picture of his own condition, apparently to move Iseut, but really for Mark's benefit. He describes himself as ‘cest chaitif’ (107) and later tells her:

Engagiez est tot mon hernois

(204)

After Iseut has gone, Tristan stresses his loss of status, since a knight without armour has lost the tools of his trade and is a man without worth:

Ha! [Dex,] d'ome desatorné!
Petit fait om de lui cherté!
Qant je serai en autre terre,
S'oi chevalier parler de gerre,
Ge n'en oserai mot soner;
Hom nu n'a nul leu de parler.

(243-48)

When this is taken with his skilful denials of a guilty relationship with the Queen, it is not surprising that he succeeds in convincing Mark for the moment:

Beaus oncles, poi me deconnut
Qui de ta feme me mescrut;
Onques n'oi talent de tel rage;
Petit savroit a mon corage.

(251-54)

Mark is moved to tears (262) by the pathos of the scene which he has just witnessed.

Another side of Tristan's character emerges in the scene at the ford. Iseut has told him what to do and he has carried out her instructions to the letter, but the role of the leper gives him a chance to make fun of his enemies and he takes full advantage of it. Even before the barons or the kings appear, he enjoys himself extracting alms from everyone he can:

Tristran lor fait des borses trere,
Que il fait tant, chascun li done

(3632-33)

There is humour in the crude scuffling as Tristan drives off tormentors with his leper's crutch (3647-52). The humour is principally found, however, in his appeal to the unsuspecting Arthur, who is wheedled into giving up his gaiters (3732-34), quickly followed by his exchange with Mark, who gives him his hood and goes off laughing at the beggar's claim that his disease came from his mistress, who is almost as fair as Iseut and dresses just like her. I have already mentioned the way in which Iseut mounts the beggar and then after he has carried her safely across the ford denounces him as a sturdy rogue, refusing to give him alms as he had collected so much already. The kings are amused, but the audience can share the amusement of the lovers. Tristan's sense of mischief and malice are best shown, however, in his treatment of the barons, whom he lures into the most dangerous part of the swamp so that they are covered in mud and nearly die:

          Li felon entrent en la fange;
La ou li ladres lor enseigne,
Fange troverent a mervelle
Desi q'as auves de la selle;
Tuit troi chïent a une flote.

(3797-801)

Pretending to help he offers his stick to Denoalen and then lets go so that the baron falls even further into the mud, while the leper blames his poor swollen hands (3839-52). Like Iseut, Tristan clearly enjoys playing his role, although it is a very dangerous one and his disguise is not perfect, as his friend Dinas has recognised him (3854-55). Nevertheless Tristan plays his part with such panache that no-one else suspects a thing, and it is evident that he enjoys the danger as a challenge.

He has a nicer side to his nature too. When the effect of the potion wears off, Tristan does think of both the Queen and his uncle. He is sorry for the suffering which has been caused. To be sure he starts off by regretting the three years lost in the forest and thinking of his own lost position:

Oublié ai chevalerie
A seure cort et baronie

(2165-66)

He soon does think of his uncle:

Dex! tant m'amast mes oncle(r)s chiers,
Se tant ne fuse a lui mesfez!

(2170-71)

He also thinks of Iseut, whom he refers to formally as ‘la roïne’:

Et poise moi de la roïne.

(2179)

His aim now is to seek a reconciliation between husband and wife:

A Deu vo je que jel feroie
Molt volentiers, se je pooie,
Si que Yseut fust acordee
O le roi Marc, qui'st esposee

(2189-92)

It is not surprising that Tristan should be more concerned with Mark than Iseut ever is, because as he himself remembers, they are uncle and nephew. There are, presumably, old bonds of affection between them which the disappearance of the potion allows to reappear. Tristan is also always willing to sacrifice himself for Iseut, as can be seen when he breaks his word to go into exile and instead goes and stays at Orri's house, while the lovers wait to see how Mark will behave to Iseut. Similarly, once he has escaped by jumping from the chapel, Tristan is concerned with nothing but the rescue of Iseut and indeed has to be restrained by Governal from rushing uselessly back into the town in search of her, where he would be overwhelmed by the numbers of his enemies. He is also conscious of his rank, for all that during their exile in the forest he, like Iseut, is ready to lead a life of unparalleled harshness. Not only does he immediately think of his lost rank and status when the potion wears off, but Beroul makes a point of telling us that Tristan was too noble to soil himself by killing the lepers:

Trop ert Tristran preuz et cortois
A ocirre gent de tes lois.

(1269-70)

He shows considerable pride and independence in refusing to accept any money from Mark for his exile:

Tristran dist; ‘Rois de Cornoualle,
Ja n'en prendrai mie maalle’

(2923-24)

He might also feel some reluctance to accept money from a man to whom he is just about to break a promise.

Quick-witted and opportunistic like Iseut, Tristan has no great difficulty in holding his own in a very dangerous society. The reckless streak in his character which can be seen in the scene at the ford, where he enjoys himself by teasing Mark with his reference to his mistress, almost as beautiful as Iseut, is also seen much earlier in the poem, when he leaps to Iseut's bed to take his pleasure although he knows that the dwarf is setting a trap for them, because he has seen him scattering flour on the floor. His passion is so great that he thinks that he can outwit the dwarf by leaping from bed to bed, another example of his tremendous physical skill and strength. This reckless streak shows itself only rarely, but it is certainly there and helps perhaps to explain both why Tristan is such a hero and why he seems to enjoy danger. His scorn for the Cornish who were afraid of the Morholt is very telling:

Molt les vi ja taisant et muz,
Qant li Morhot fu ça venuz,
Ou nen i out uns d'eus tot sous
Qui osast prendre ses adous.

(135-38)

He is a very attractive character, more attractive perhaps than Iseut, although her impact on the reader is probably the greater.

Note

1. See also Ewert II, 247.

Bibliography

Beroul

Editions

1. The Romance of Tristran by Beroul. A Poem of the Twelfth Century, edited by A. Ewert (Oxford: Blackwell), Vol. I (1939), Vol. II (1971).

2. Béroul. Le Roman de Tristan. Poème du XIIe Siècle, édité par Ernest Muret, 4e édition revue par L. M. Defourques (Paris: Champion, Les Classiques Français du Moyen Age, 12, 1947).

Translations

3. Béroul. Tristan and Iseult, translated by Janet H. Caulkins and Guy R. Mermier (Paris: Champion, 1967). This is based on the Muret, Defourques edition and is a careful, line by line rendering.

4. Beroul. The Romance of Tristan and The Tale of Tristan's Madness, translated by Alan S. Fedrick (Harmondsworth: Penguin Classics, 1970). A free rendering into English prose.

Critical Works

5. Alison Adams and Timothy D. Hemming. ‘La Fin du Tristan de Béroul’, Moyen Age, LXXIX (1973), 449-68.

6. Francis Bar. ‘Le Premier Serment ambigu d'Iseut dans le poème de Béroul’, Bulletin bibliographique de la Société Internationale Arthurienne, XXIX (1977), 181-84. A useful analysis of some important scenes.

7. François-Xavier Baron. ‘Visual Presentation in Béroul's Tristan’, Modern Language Quarterly, XXXIII (1972), 99-112.

8. Brian Blakey. ‘On the Text of Beroul's Tristran’, French Studies, XXI (1967), 99-103.

9.———. ‘Further Comments on the Text of Beroul's Tristran’, French Studies, XXX (1976), 129-39.

10.———. ‘Truth and Falsehood in the Tristran of Beroul’ in History and Structure of French: Essays in the Honour of Professor T. B. W. Reid (Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), pp. 19-29.

11. Saul N. Brody. The Disease of the Soul: Leprosy in Medieval Literature (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1974).

12. Geoffrey N. Bromiley. ‘A Note on Beroul's Foresters’, Tristania, I (1975), 61-73. An ingenious solution to a difficult problem.

13.———. ‘Andret and the Tournament Episode in Beroul's Tristan’, Medium Aevum, XLVI (1977), 181-95. This is another ingenious explanation of a problem in the text.

14. Janet H. Caulkins. ‘The Meaning of péchié in the Romance of Tristran by Beroul’, Romance Notes, XIII (1971-72), 545-49. An interesting article.

15.———. ‘Le Jeu du surnaturel et du féodal dans le Tristan de Beroul’ in Mélanges d'histoire littéraire, de linguistique et de philologie romane offerts à Charles Rostaing (Liège, 1974), Vol. I, 131-40.

16. Renée L. Curtis. Tristan Studies (Munich: Fink, 1969).

17. Edith M. R. Ditmas. ‘King Arthur in Beroul's Tristan’, Bulletin bibliographique de la Société Internationale Arthurienne, XXI (1969), 161. A summary of her paper.

18. Jean Dufournet. ‘Etude de l'Episode du Roi Marc’, Information Littéraire, XXVII (1975), 79-87.

19. Jean Frappier. ‘La Reine Iseut dans le Tristan de Béroul’, Romance Philology, XXVI (1972-73), 215-28. A subtle interpretation of Iseut.

20. Micheline Hanoset. ‘Unité ou dualité du Tristan de Béroul’, Moyen Age, LXVII (1961), 503-33. An answer to Raynaud de Lage.

21. Anthony Holden. ‘Note sur la langue de Béroul’, Romania, LXXXIX (1968), 387-99. An answer to Reid.

22. Tony Hunt. ‘Abelardian Ethics and Beroul's Tristan’, Romania, XCVIII (1977), 501-40. Essential reading for the philosophical background.

23. Phyllis Johnson. ‘Dolor, dolent et soi dolor: le vocabulaire de la douleur et la conception de l'amour selon Béroul et Thomas’, Romance Philology, XXVI (1972-73), 546-54.

24. Pierre Jonin. Les Personnages féminins dans les romans français de Tristan au XIIe siècle: étude des influences contemporaines (Gap: Ophrys, Publications des Annales de la Faculté des Lettres, Aix-en-Provence, nouvelle série, 22, 1958). One of the basic books for a student. Full of interesting background material, but has more insight into Thomas than Beroul.

25.———. ‘Le Songe d'Iseut dans la forêt du Morois’, Moyen Age, LXIV (1958), 103-13. A Freudian interpretation of the dream.

26. Pierre le Gentil. ‘La Légende de Tristan vue par Béroul et Thomas: Essai d'interpretation’, Romance Philology, VII (1953-43), 111-29. A useful comparison of the two writers.

27. M. Dominica Legge. ‘Place-Names and the Date of Beroul’, Medium Aevum, XXXVIII (1969), 171-74.

28. Faith Lyons. ‘Vin herbé et gingembras dans le roman breton’ in Mélanges de langue et de littérature offerts à Jean Frappier (Geneva: Droz, Publications romanes et françaises, 112), Vol. II, 689-96.

29. Jean Marx. Nouvelles recherches sur la littérature arthurienne (Paris: Klincksieck, 1965).

30. René Ménage. ‘L'Atelier Béroul ou Béroul artiste’, Romania, XCV (1974), 145-98. A wide-ranging and interesting article.

31. Peter S. Noble. ‘L'Influence de la courtoisie sur le Tristan de Béroul’, Moyen Age, LXXV (1969), 467-77. Criticises some of Jonin's points.

32. J. C. Payen. ‘Ordre moral et subversion politique dans le Tristan de Béroul’ in Mélanges Jeanne Lods (Paris: Collection de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles, 10, 1978) Vol. I, 473-84.

33. Daniel Poirion. ‘Le Tristan de Béroul: récit, légende et mythe’, Information Littéraire, XXVI (1974), 199-207. A very useful study.

34. Lucie Polak. ‘Tristan and Vis and Ramin’, Romania, XCV (1974), 216-34. Suggests an Oriental source.

35. Guy Raynaud de Lage. ‘Faut-il attribuer à Béroul tout le Tristan?’, Moyen Age, LXIV (1958), 249-70. Argues for two authors.

36.———. ‘Post-scriptum à une étude sur le Tristan de Béroul’, Moyen Age, LXVII (1961), 167-68.

37.———. ‘Faut-il attribuer à Béroul toul le Tristan? (suite et fin)’, Moyen Age, LXX (1964), 33-38. His answer to Hanoset.

38.———. ‘Du style de Béroul’, Romania, LXXXV (1964), 518-30.

39. T. B. W. Reid. ‘The Tristan of Beroul: one author or two?’, Modern Language Review, LX (1965), 352-58. Supports dual authorship.

40.———. ‘A Further Note on the Language of Beroul’, Romania, XC (1969), 382-90. A furious response to Holden.

41. Jacques Ribard. ‘Un Monde de l'illusion?’, Bulletin bibliographique de la Société Internationale Arthurienne, XXXI (1979), 229-44. An interesting article.

42. François Rigolot. ‘Valeur figurative du vêtement dans le Tristan de Béroul’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, X (1967), 447-53. Useful for a study of symbolism.

43. Gertrude Schoepperle. Tristan and Isolt. A study of the Sources of the Romance (Frankfurt: Baer; London: Nutt, New York University Ottendorfer Memorial Series of Germanic Monographs, 6-7, 1913, second revised edition 1970). A study of Celtic origins.

44. David J. Shirt. ‘A Note on the Etymology of Le Morholt’, Tristania, I (1975), 21-28.

45. Donald Stone, Jnr. ‘Realism and the real Béroul’, L'Esprit Créateur, V (1965), 219-27. Criticises some of Jonin's points.

46. Jean Subrenat. ‘Sur le climat social, moral, religieux du Tristan de Béroul’, Moyen Age, LXXXII (1976), 219-61. Very interesting and persuasive, but the conclusions seem a little unlikely.

47. Alberto Varvaro. Il ‘Roman de Tristan’ di Béroul (Turin: Bottega d'Erasmo, Studi de Filologia Moderna dell'Università di Pisa, Nuova Serie, 3, 1963; English translation by J. C. Barnes, Manchester University Press, 1972). An original and important study.

48. Eugène Vinaver. A la recherche d'une poétique médiévale (Paris: Nizet, 1970).

49. Gweneth Whitteridge. ‘The Date of the Tristan of Beroul’, Medium Aevum, XXVIII (1959), 167-71. Criticises dating based on line 3849.

50.———. ‘The Tristan of Beroul’ in Medieval Miscellany presented to Eugène Vinaver, ed. F. Whitehead et al. (Manchester University Press, 1965), 337-56.

Folie de Berne

Edition

51. La Folie Tristan de Berne, publiée avec commentaire par Ernest Hoepffner (Paris: Belles Lettres, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg, Textes d'étude, 3, 1934).

Translations

52. See 4.

53. Tristan et Yseut. Les Tristan en vers, édition par J. C. Payen (Paris: Garnier, 1974). Also contains text at the foot of the page. In addition, has texts and translations of Beroul, Thomas, the Folie d'Oxford and Chèvrefeuille.

Critical Works

54. Renée L. Curtis. ‘The Humble and the Cruel Tristan: a New Look at the Two Poems of the Folie Tristan’, Tristania, II (1976), 3-11. Criticises Hoepffner.

55. Krystyna Kasprzyk. ‘Fonction et Technique du Souvenir dans la Folie de Berne’ in Etudes de langue et de littérature du Moyen Age offertes à Félix Lecoy (Paris: Champion, 1973), 261-70.

56. M. Dominica Legge. ‘Le problème des Folies aujourd'hui’ in Mélanges Jeanne Lods (Paris: Collection de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure de Jeunes Filles, 10, 1978), 371-77. Makes some useful observations.

57. Jacqueline T. Schaefer. ‘Tristan's Folly: Feigned or Real?’, Tristania, III (1977), 4-16. An interesting interpretation.