Roman de Tristran
The main plot is repeated in all the versions of Tristran and Yseut. Yseut is married to King Mark, and having an affair with Tristan. However, Béroul’s version is different because the potion in his story only last three years. Erin Ogden-Korus from the University of Idaho makes a distinction between Béroul’s work, which she names as common because of the time limit on the potion, and other works that contain the story of Tristran and Yseut which are courtly. She states that most common versions did not survive because they were not as popular as courtly versions. The difference between common and courtly versions is that courtly versions of the story do not have Tristran doing deeds that are not befitting of a knight, like fighting a leper.
As the story progresses the “love” between the couple diminishes, and the responsibility of their transgression is not placed on the lovers but, on the potion. Guy R Mermier argues that “the lovers are protected by Béroul because they are not responsible for their love” (xix). Many times Tristran regrets their fate, “If it had not been, my lady, for the herb wine / Which was given us to drink at sea” (Tristran and Yseut 2259-60). Despite their will, the potion keeps them in love.
King Arthur makes an appearance because it is requested of him to help Yseut and King Mark, a man easily persuaded by his barons, in deciding what to do with Yseut i.e. how to judge her. They hold a Tournament and judgment of Yseut. King Mark and King Arthur hear Yseut swear on the holy relics that she has not wronged her husband and that the only men that ever were between her legs were her husband and the leper (Tristran in disguise) that helped her cross the ford on the previous day. Her name is cleared. A further explanation about the difference between common and courtly versions of the text, and the changes that those two styles make to the plot of Tristran and Yseut can be found at http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/knights/tristan/
Not much is known about Béroul. However, it is known that he refers to himself in his writing twice. In Mermier’s introduction to a translation of the story he states that “He refers to himself twice in his story lines 1268 and 1790 under the nominative form of ‘Berox’, a name of Germanic origin, probably ‘Berulf’. It is also said that he was Nordic and wrote his work during the 12th century (Wikipedia: Béroul). Learn more about Béroul’s time and origin at http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Beroul
This is the longest version of Tristan that survives 4485 lines with some minimal damage. Anthony of Britain’s version of the romance appears to pre-date Béroul’s, it is not certain if Béroul was aware of Anthony’s version. Simon Gaunt makes an important distinction between the work of Anthony and Béroul in his book, Retelling the Tale; An Introduction to Medieval French Literature, the differences being that Anthony’s version is more “bookish” while Béroul adopts “an impression of oral immediacy” (133). Béroul makes an attempt to make his work appear to be an oral-written tradition. Another difference is the justification of the lovers. Anthony, argues Gaunt, makes no attempt to justify the love between Tristran and Yseut. However, “Béroul is a master of ambiguity when dealing with morality” (Mermier xix).
Béroul’s story is named the Roman de Tristran (for that reason I have referred to the couple as Tristran and Yseut instead of Tristan an Isolt). The name of the story varies greatly because Tristran can be Trystan (Welsh), Tristan (English), or Drustamus (Brithonic), which is believed to be the name in the story that pre-dates the written text. Yseut’s name also varies Ysolt, Yseult. To learn more about the different names given to Tristran go to: http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Tristan or http://ww w.reference.com/browse/wiki/Tristan
Thomas of Britain, Béroul, Marie du France, Gottfried von Strassburg and Chrétien de Troyes are all credited with writing a version of the Romance of Tristran. Chrétien de Troyes alludes to his version in Cliges (also his work) but his version of Tristran does not survive. The story of Tristran has Brithonic roots, Joseph Bédier argues that Tristan was actually Drustanus, and the name was recorded in Welsh as Trystan, and later became Tristan to English speakers. (http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Tristan)
The primary source existed in the oral tradition but is lost. The early written works are believed to have drawn from that oral tradition, so they become primary sources with the absence of the primary source. From these works have evolved many more a list of all the works about Tristran and Yseut is compiled at http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/english/fajardo/teaching/ENG340/tristan.htm
Sir Tristrem Edited by Alan Lupack. Originally Published in Lancelot of the Laik and Sir Tristrem Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1994; reprinted 1997 Camelot Project at the University of Rochester
http ://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/trismenu.htm
Dr. Fidel Fajardo-Acosta. Creighton University. A list of Tristan and Isolt works from Marie de France to Joseph Bédier with dates and descriptions.
http://mockingbird.creighton.edu/engli sh/fajardo/teaching/ENG340/tristan.htm
University of Idaho Webmistress: Erin Ogden- Korus
Summary of Béroul’s plot. Different versions of the story. Pictures, Bibliography and explanation about difference between common and courtly versions of the story.
http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_l egend/knights/tristan/
Wikipedia search: “Beroul”
A short description about Béroul’s work and an approximate date of his writing.
http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Beroul
Wikipedia search: “Tristan”
Summary of plot. Brythonic Roots. Pictish Connection and External Links
http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/Tristan or http://ww w.reference.com/browse/wiki/Tristan
Gaunt, Simon. Retelling the Tale; An Introduction to Medieval French Literature London. Duckworth 2001
Mermier, Guy R. Introduction Tristan and Yseut By Béroul New York. Peter Lang. 1987
By Sandra Calderón. October 26, 2005. English 630