CRITICISM

Bromiley, G. N. “A Note on Béroul's Foresters.” Tristania 1, no. 1 (November 1975): 39-46.

Suggests that Béroul invented the character of the forester, who does not appear in other versions of the romance, to create a more cohesive plot.

———. “Andret and the Tournament Episode in Béroul's Tristran.” Medium Aevum 46, no. 2 (1977): 181-93.

Discusses the place of the tournament episode in the romance and argues that Béroul may not be the author of that section, or that perhaps Béroul's text was tampered with at some later point.

———. “The Order of the Forest Episodes in Béroul's Tristran.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 79, no. 4 (1978): 411-21.

Compares the order of the forest episodes in versions of the romance by Béroul, Eilhart, and Thomas, noting that Béroul's more closely follows the original Tristan estoire.

Burch, Sally L. “’Tu consenz lor cruauté;’ The Canonical Background to the Barons' Accusation in Beroul's Roman de Tristan.” Tristania 20, (2000): 17-30.

Discusses the characterization of Mark and his stature as king by exploring some canons of church law that relate to his role.

Cole, William D. “Purgatory vs. Eden: Béroul's Forest and Gottfried's Cave.” The Germanic Review 70, 1 (winter 1995): 2-8.

Compares Béroul's and Gottfried's treatments of the lovers once they are placed in an environment that isolates them from civilization and the court.

Hyatte, Reginald. “Arthur as Marc's and Tristan's Double in the French Tristan Fragments by Béroul and Thomas.” In King Arthur through the Ages, Vol. 1, edited by Valerie M. Lagorio and Mildred Leake Day, pp. 110-26. New York & London: Garland Publishing, 1990.

Examines Béroul's method of doubling characterization in order to comment on his attempt to vindicate the lovers by calling attention to the king's injustice.

Illingworth, Richard. “Thematic Duplication in Beroul's Tristran.” Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 101, no. 1-2 (1985): 12-27.

Explores Béroul's “obsession with the twin themes of revenge and deception” and its implications for narrative coherence in Tristran.

———. “The Episode of the Ambiguous Oath in Beroul's Tristran.” Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 106, 1-2 (1990): 22-42.

Technical analysis in which Illingworth argues for the completeness of an episode in Tristran often thought to have a missing section.

Pemberton, Lyn. “Authorial Interventions in the Tristan en Prose.” Neophilologus 68 (1984): 481-97.

Compares authorial interventions in Béroul's Tristran with those by the anonymous author of the earlier Tristan en Prose.

Pitts, Brent A. “The Path of Memory: Imagination and Repetition in Béroul's Roman de Tristan.” Romance Quarterly 37, no. 1 (February 1990): 3-17.

Argues that memory plays a central role in the structure of Tristran and that both the characters and the readers are exhorted to remember in key scenes that build up this theme.

Reid, T. B. W. “On the Text of the Tristran of Béroul.” In Medieval Manuscripts and Textual Criticism, edited by Christopher Kleinhenz, pp. 245-71. Chapel Hill: North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures, U. N. C. Department of Romance Languages, 1976.

Discusses principles of editing the manuscript text.

Reiss, Louise Horner. “Tristan and Isolt and the Medieval Ideal of Friendship.” Romance Quarterly 33, no. 2 (May 1986): 131-37.

Explores the friendship of Tristran and Iseult in terms of the biblical and medieval ideal of friendship, epitomized in the relationship between David and Jonathan.

Smith, Kathleen White. “The Ambiguous Oath in Twelfth-Century Romance: Béroul's Roman de Tristan and Le Chevalier de Troyes. Forum 29, no. 3 (summer 1988): 37-44.

Examines the ambiguous oaths in the two romances respectively, noting that in both “the oaths are markers for the dichotomy of sign and signified.”

Trindade, Ann. “The Enemies of Tristan.” Medium Aevum 43, no. 1 (1974): 6-21.

Examines Tristran's named and unnamed enemies, noting the implications of this group of characters regarding the origins and development of the romance.

Vitz, Evelyn Birge. “Orality, Literacy, and the Early Tristan Material: Béroul, Thomas, Marie de France.” Romanic Review 78, no. 3 (May 1987): 299-310.

Marshals the evidence for considering Béroul's text “orally conceived and composed.”