SOURCE: Curtis, Renée L. “The Abatement of the Magic in Beroul's Tristan.” In TristanStudies, pp. 28-35. München, Germany: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1969.

[In the essay below, Curtis discusses Béroul's handling of the love potion in Tristran, asserting that the author does not use it merely as a stock device to advance the story, but rather carefully develops characterization and theme in order to incorporate the potion into the narrative.]

The most immediately striking fact about Béroul's use of the philtre is no doubt the limited duration of its potency in his version of the legend. I am not concerned here with the origin of this idea, whether it should be attributed to the primitive romance or merely to the common source of Béroul and Eilhart, but rather with Béroul's reason, artistic and otherwise, for including it in his story.

The fact that the love drink loses its power after three or four years has struck some critics as no more than a crude device to motivate the lovers' return from the forest.¹ At first sight, it is true, a limitation of this kind may well displease us; but if we take the philtre literally for what it is, namely a magic potion, the idea of its abatement becomes less objectionable.² What is surprising is not so much that the enchantment should cease to be effective, as its automatic wearing off after a number of years. Even in early medieval times, recipes are found describing how to break the spell of love charms and potions,³ and no doubt the art of brewing a philtre went hand in hand with that of counteracting it. I think it is greatly in Béroul's favour that he did not resort to a magic formula for breaking the spell of the philtre, but rather made the Queen limit its potency to three years at the time of her brewing it.⁴ The former would have implied that the force of the love died down as the spell of the magic broke. The latter in fact implies that the love will continue, for the Queen's idea must have been that the first three years of a marriage are the most crucial, and that after this period love would have taken root in the couple's hearts, and magic could be dispensed with.⁵

So the abatement of the potion need not in itself necessarily shock us. The question as to whether it is used clumsily to explain the lovers' return from the forest is a more important one. It may be interesting here to examine how the other two French versions, where the philtre's potency is undiminished, deal with this rather difficult situation; difficult because we have to be convinced that two beings in the throes of an all-embracing passion could not at this point do otherwise than give up their freedom and return to Marc.

Thomas' version, as far as we can judge from his translators, is, to say the least of it, disappointing. Marc, unable to bear the situation any longer, banishes Tristan and Iseut from his court, and they go off hand in hand, delighted. They find an ideal retreat, the fossure a la gent amant, and enjoy their love and their liberty to the full. One day, however, King Marc discovers them, sleeping separately; and, convinced of their innocence, he asks them to return. “This met with their approval,” says Gottfried, “and they were glad of it in their hearts. But they were happy far more for the sake of God and their place in society than for any other reason. They returned by the way they had come to the splendour that had been theirs.”⁶ Thomas' account of the incident is not effective, nor does it tally with the picture of two lovers in the grip of an overpowering love. Since Marc had let them go from his court quite freely, and they were not suffering any hardship whatever, one cannot help wondering why they did not go elsewhere instead of voluntarily renouncing their liberty.

The weakness of Thomas' story at this point seems to have struck even his medieval redactors, for both the saga and the Prose Tristan find a different solution. The prose author adopts Thomas' version of the lovers' pleasant life in the forest, making them lead a free and easy existence in a beautiful manor originally built for the Saige Demoisele. “Tant m'i plest l'estre,” says Iseut, “et tant m'enbelist que je ne m'en quier remuer tant com li demorers vos plera.”⁷ Marc discovers their whereabouts from four shepherds, and on hearing that they lived there alone except for Gorvenal and a maiden, he proceeds thither with sixty men on horseback. He finds on his arrival that Tristan and Gorvenal are out hunting, so without more ado he orders Iseut and her maiden to be seized and imprisoned in a tower in strictest seclusion. When Tristan returns in the evening, hoping that Iseut will cure him of a poisoned wound he had received that day, he finds the house empty. Although the prose version is plausible in that the lovers are separated against their will, there are other weaknesses one cannot help noticing. The first is that since Tristan and Iseut had escaped from Marc's clutches by the skin of their teeth, (and here the author follows Béroul's story), it is rather surprising that they should settle down so comfortably in the Meson a la Saige Demoisele without any precautions. Secondly, one is somewhat shocked to see Tristan going off immediately to Brittany to have his poisoned wound healed by Iseut aux Blanches Mains (an incident far too reminiscent of the earlier scene of healing), and then marrying her, without making the slightest move to rescue poor Iseut from the tower. The final result, therefore, is not much more satisfying than Thomas' version. As far as the return from the forest is concerned, it is interesting to note that the prose author clearly finds it inconceivable that the lovers, attached as they were to each other, should give up their freedom of their own accord, and therefore invents Iseut's capture—without however working out satisfactorily the consequences of such a change.

How then does Béroul deal with the situation? Is he, too, unable to motivate the lovers' return convincingly, and does he therefore resort to the abatement of the philtre to explain their behaviour? The answer is quite definitely no. It is important to stress that Béroul takes in fact great care to prepare the reader and to account for the lovers' decision psychologically. He insists constantly on the length of their stay in the forest:

Seignors, eisi font longuement
En la forest parfondement,
Longuement sont en cel desert.

(1303–5)

and several times again:

Longuement sont en cel boschage.

(1359)

Longuement par Morrois fuïrent.

(1648)

He stresses over and over again their hunted existence and their hardship. The references start by being general, and Béroul adds that Tristan and Iseut are so happy to be together that they don't feel discomfort:

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

(1364–6)

With exceeding skill Béroul reveals the drastic effects of time both on their physical and on their mental state. With each reference he heaps on further details of their sufferings, and by this augmentative technique makes us feel quite distinctly that things were getting worse and worse. When he next describes their life, it is no longer merely aspre and dure: he mentions their torn clothes, their lack of bread, their paleness; and although they still do not feel their hardship because they are together, it is interesting to see that they are not quite so confident now about each other's love:

Grant poor a Yseut la gente
Tristran por lié ne se repente;
Et a Tristran repoise fort
Que Yseut a por lui descort,
Qu'el repente de la folie.

(1651–5)

Later their condition is even more pathetic: Iseut's fingers have become quite thin, and both are described as pale and weak. We have already begun to feel that it would be humanly impossible for them to go on like this much longer; then the final blow, Marc's discovery, descends upon their heads. Their reaction shows us very clearly the changes wrought in them by their physical plight. We are very far indeed from the bold and fearless Tristan, so ready to stand up to anyone in Cornwall:

“Dame, fuion nos en vers Gales.
Li sanc me fuit.” Tot devient pales.

(2099–100)

The emphasis is on flight and fear, and in their weak state they cover long distances in order to escape from this new threat and insecurity. But if the King had found them once, could he not find them again? Must they not feel more tracked down than ever? It is clear that Tristan and Iseut have reached the very limits of what two people can endure; and there would at this point have been no need whatever to bring in the abatement of the potion to explain why the idea of a possible reconciliation should have arisen in the lovers' minds as a means of terminating their miserable existence.

Thus, as regards Béroul at any rate, I do not share the view held by some critics that the limitation of the philtre was forced upon the writer in order to explain the lovers' return from the forest.⁸ In Béroul's poem, their desire to return is very understandable and explains itself. It is, moreover, not essentially opposed to their love, as portrayed by Béroul. The lovers were prepared to part, if the worst came to the worst, but there can be no doubt that they were still hoping, when they decided to send a letter to Marc, that they would both be admitted back to his court.⁹ King Marc would have been only too happy to grant this permission, and in fact very nearly did:

Andrez, qui fu nez de Nicole,
Li a dit: ‘Rois, quar le retiens,
Plus en seras doutez et criens.’
Molt en faut poi que ne l'otroie,
Le cuer forment l'en asouploie.

(2870–4)

And even if the King were to banish his nephew from Cornwall, the lovers were counting on Marc's weakness and his need of Tristan, and expecting to be reunited before very long. This, moreover, is what the contents of King Marc's letter, as reported by Ogrin, gave them to understand:

Mais va servir en autre terre
Un roi a qui on face gerre,
Un an ou deus. Se li rois veut,
Revien a lui et a Yseut.

(2671–4)

It seems to me, therefore, that the circumstances of the lovers' return from the forest are extremely well motivated and psychologically convincing. The question now obviously arises: why then is the philtre's potency restricted, and why at this point in the story? One must here make a clear distinction between Béroul, who limits the philtre's potency to three years, and Eilhart, who merely attenuates its force after four years (in the first four years, Tristan and Iseut could not bear to be parted for half a day; if they were parted for a week, they would die), but still leaves them in its power. Is it really as certain as Bédier claims¹⁰ that Eilhart's version is the earlier one, and that Béroul “a brutalement interprété son modèle à contresens?” M. Frappier agrees with Bédier,¹¹ and gives as supporting evidence the fact that Béroul contradicts himself in line 2131, attributing the same duration of three years to the stay in the forest and the potency of the philtre; a mistake, since the lovers did not go into the forest immediately after drinking the potion. There are two points one might make:

1) The contradiction is not absolutely certain, for Béroul does not say literally that the couple were in the forest three years, although the context suggests it. His lines

Molt les avra amors pené:
Trois anz plainiers sofrirent peine,
Lor char pali et devint vaine

(2130–2)

may just be summing up the lovers' fate: ever since they loved each other (i. e. three years), they suffered pain.

2) But even if Béroul does make this mistake, we know that he was not a careful planner from all the other contradictions in his text, notably as regards the traitors, and this would not prove very much about the priority of Béroul's or Eilhart's version. On the contrary, if Béroul had in front of him a model which observed the correct chronology by letting the potion abate after four years, he would probably have kept to it, for he gained nothing by the alteration.

But whether or not Eilhart's version of the philtre's potency is the earlier one, I cannot share Bédier's view about its superiority. The weakening of the potion after four years seems a feeble way out, leaving one with the unsatisfactory feeling that Tristan and Iseut now love each other less. Moreover, the idea that the philtre weakened sufficiently to allow the lovers to be apart is really contrary to the story, for the whole point is that they could not remain apart, and that this finally caused their death. Yet another defect in Eilhart's version of the philtre is that it seems so obviously designed just for Tristan and Iseut in their particular situation. Why should a love potion intended for Marc and Iseut be made in such a way that for four years the couple cannot be apart for a week without dying, but after four years can?

Béroul tells us about the three years' term of the philtre somewhat suddenly after the lovers' flight towards Wales, in a manner which suggests that he has not spoken of it before:

Seignors, du vin de qoi il burent
Avez oï, por qoi il furent
En si grant paine lonctens mis;
Mais ne savez, ce m'est avis,
A conbien fu determinez
Li lovendrins, li vin herbez:
La mere Yseut, qui le bolli,
A trois anz d'amistié le fist.

(2133–40)

It would, of course, have been dramatically impossible to mention it before without weakening the tragic impact of the love philtre;¹² and its sudden mention at this point makes it a very clear landmark in the relationship between Tristan and Iseut. There is surely no need to stress that Béroul's intention was not to make the lovers' feeling cease as the effect of the potion wears off, but rather to make it change. The love, awakened by the philtre, has taken root in two beings admirably suited to each other, and Béroul makes it quite clear, over and over again, that their love will never die:

Roïne franche, ou que je soie,
Vostre toz jorz me clameroie.

(2249–50)

The abatement of the potion nonetheless marks a turning point in their life and love. In the first three years Tristan and Iseut are completely united in thought and in deed. No pressure from without, no danger, no discomfort can sever them. After the three years, however, they part in more senses than one; physically, first of all, but also, if we follow the story beyond Béroul's actual surviving text, on the moral plane. Now disharmony creeps into the relationship, suspicion, jealousy and even betrayal, for however one tries to justify it, that is what Tristan's marriage really amounts to. With the abatement of the philtre, gradually but surely, distintigration sets in, which will finally lead to the lovers' death. It marks the beginning of the end.

The philtre's loss of efficacy also has another significance, which emerges quite clearly from Béroul's text. Monsieur A. Fourrier, praising Thomas' poem, writes that his lovers “ne sont pas des malades irresponsables.”¹³ He is thinking obviously of Béroul's scene at Ogrin's hermitage, where both Tristan and Iseut shift the blame for everything on to the potion, and maintain that they are quite powerless to act otherwise. It is useless asking Tristan, as the hermit does,

“Que feras tu? Conselle toi.”

(1400)

Tristan is beyond sensible reflection, and merely replies:

“De tot an est li consel pris …
De lié laisier parler ne ruis,
Certes, quar faire ne le puis.”

(1403 sq.)

Here, indeed, are two people so totally in the grip of passion, in the sway of magic, that they cannot be held responsible for their actions. This, however, is only true of the first three years. The result of the philtre's abatement is in fact to give back to the lovers their freedom to decide and to act. They realise now that they have no choice but to part, and they make their decision in spite of the suffering involved:

“Dex!” dist Tristran, “quel departie!
Molt est dolenz qui pert s'amie!
Faire l'estuet …

(2681–3)

They no longer say “we cannot” but “we must”; they are no longer powerless, no longer “des malades irresponsables.” It is temping to think that Béroul consciously gave back to Tristan and Iseut their freedom of will, not wanting them to remain helplessly submerged in their love, ensnared by magic, but trying, as responsible human beings, to come to terms with life and with the demands of society. Certain it is that Béroul's text gives one the impression that it was written by someone with a positive outlook, who believed in making the best of things, and who would face life's difficulties with an attitude of constructiveness rather than with passive acceptance.

Seen in this light, the abatement of the love potion in Béroul's Tristan does not strike us as an unfortunate idea, clumsily used to motivate the lovers' return from the forest. One might even go to the other extreme and ask how one can motivate Tristan's marriage to another woman and his undoubted attraction towards her as the action of a man who is in the sway of a magic love potion; for this marriage only becomes plausible if the magic has worn off, leaving in its place the complexity and the frailty of a purely human passion. And so, whether or not we prefer the version where the philtre's efficacy is undiminished, I feel one must give credit to Béroul for having woven into the story this rather tricky idea of a three years' term in a way which, as I hope to have shown, is acceptable.

Notes

1. Cf. A. T. Hatto, Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan (Penguin Classics, 1960), 359.

2. Unlike Thomas, Béroul does not, at least in the extant fragment, attach any symbolic value to the philtre.

3. Cf. L. Thorndyke, “History of Magic and Experimental Science”, (New York, 1923), II, 737.

4. This idea seems to be Béroul's own invention, for it does not occur in Eilhart's version.

5. It has often been pointed out that if one took the three years' duration of the philtre literally, Tristan and Iseut should stop loving each other after this period. The Queen, however, could not have intended her daughter to love Marc for three years, and then to live together with him for the rest of her life without love; she must have assumed that their love would continue.

6. A. T. Hatto, op. cit., 274.

7. f. 90b of MS. Carpentras 404.

8. As J. Frappier so aptly remarks in his very interesting article “Structure et sens du Tristan”, (Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale, VI, 1963, p. 272), the idea of the philtre's abatement remains “un motif embarrassant, de quelque biais qu'on l'envisage”; I do not think the whole problem is solved by seeing in this invention an answer to the question “Comment faire sortir Tristan et Iseut de la forêt de Morrois?”

9. See lines 2304–13, 2404–9.

10. Le Roman de Tristan par Thomas, II, 239.

11. Op. cit., 269.

12. Eilhart does mention it earlier (lines 2279–99), when the Queen gives Brangain the philtre; all critics seem to agree in considering Eilhart's reading a later development.

13. Le courant réaliste dans le roman courtois (Paris, 1960), 70–1.

Key to Abbreviations and Editions Used

Béroul: The Romance of Tristran by Béroul, ed. A. Ewert (Oxford, 1939, reprinted 1967).

Eilhart: Eilhart von Oberge, ed. F. Lichtenstein (Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und Culturgeschichte der germanischen Völker XIX, Strasburg, 1877).

Folie de Berne: La Folie Tristan de Berne, ed. E. Hoepffner (Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg, Textes d'Etude 3, Paris, 2nd ed. 1949).

Folie d'Oxford: La Folie Tristan d'Oxford, ed. E. Hoepffner (Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg, Textes d'Etude 8, Paris, 2nd ed. 1943).

Gottfried: Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan und Isolt, ed. A. Closs (Oxford, 1947, reprinted 1965).

Prose: Tristan Le Roman de Tristan en prose, vol I, ed. Renée L. Curtis (Munich, 1963).

Thomas: Thomas. Les Fragments du Roman de Tristan, ed. Bartina H. Wind (Geneva/Paris, 1960).

Violette: Le Roman de la Violette ou de Gerart de Nevers, par Gerbert de Montreuil, ed. D. L. Buffum (SATF, Paris, 1928).

Analyse: see Löseth, Analyse.

B: Béroul.

Bédier, II: J. Bédier, Le Roman de Tristan par Thomas, 2 vols. (SATF, Paris, 1902–5) vol. II.

Bédier: Folie Les deux poèmes de la Folie Tristan, ed. J. Bédier (SATF, Paris, 1902–5) vol. II.

Bibl.: Bibliothèque.

B. M.: British Museum, London.

B. N.: Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris.

C.: Century.

C.: A manuscript of the Prose Tristan at the Bibl. Municipale, Carpentras: No. 404 (13th C.).

CFMA: Classiques français du moyen âge.

Chevrefoil: Marie de France. Lais, ed. A. Ewert (Oxford, 1944, reprinted 1965), XI. Chevrefoil.

D.: Douce fragment of Thomas' Tristan, as quoted in the 1960 edition of B. H. Wind.

E: Eilhart.

f.: folio.

F Folie Tristan.

Fam.: Family.

Fb: La Folie Tristan de Berne.

ff.: folios.

Fo: La Folie Tristan d'Oxford.

Löseth, Analyse: E. Löseth, Le roman en prose de Tristan, le roman de Palamède et la compilation de Rusticien de Pise, analyse critique d'après les manuscripts de Paris (Paris, 1890).

M. L. R.: Modern Language Review.

MS.: Manuscript.

MSS.: Manuscripts.

n. a.: nouvelles acquisitions.

N. L. S.: National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh.

N. L. W.: National Library of Wales, Aberystwyth.

R: Prose Tristan.

Rev. des. Et. Lat.: Revue des Etudes Latines.

saga: The Saga of Tristram ok Isoud, a translation of Thomas' version into Norse, composed in 1226 by Friar Robert.

SATF: Société des anciens textes français.

Sn.¹: First Sneyd fragment of Thomas' Tristan, as quoted in the 1960 edition of B. H. Wind.

Sn.²: Second Sneyd fragment of Thomas' Tristan, as quoted in the 1960 edition of B. H. Wind.

T: Thomas.

T.¹: First fragment from the Turin manuscript of Thomas' Tristan, as quoted in the 1960 edition of B. H. Wind.

Tobler-Lommatzsch: Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch (Wiesbaden, 1951 to date).

var.: variant.