Thomas of Britain’s Tristan

Return to Web Reports Index

Thomas of Britain’s Tristan

Table of Contents

Textual Summary/Common Thematic

Thomas of Britain

Tristan’s Origin and Current State

England and the High Middle Ages, the 11th -14th century

Tristan and Courtly Culture

Current Scholarship

Bibliography

Webliography

Textual Summary

Tristan, a noble knight of Britain, had earlier been wounded during a voyage across the sea. A young noble woman, Ysolt, cured him of his wound and together, they drank a potion that made them fall madly in love with one another. Since then however, Ysolt has married King Mark of Britain and Tristan becomes convinced she no longer loves him. Tormented by the inability to possess his true love, he decides to marry Ysolt of the White Hands, a noble woman of the same name, in hopes of assuaging his agony. He realizes this is a mistake however, as sleeping with his wife would violate his word and bond to Queen Ysolt, but not sleeping with his wife would violate his oaths to her and God. As a result, he pleads a false battle injury that has made him incapable of physical love, leaving his wife a virgin.

Queen Ysolt reveals she too loves Tristan, but she is not in love with the King, whom she has no power in or outside of marriage to refuse. In exchange for the love of Queen Ysolt’s handmaiden, Bengvein, Caerdin, a kinsman of Ysolt of the White Hands, helps Tristan reunite with Queen Ysolt. It is only after a great deal of convincing from the Queen that Bengvein concedes to have Caerdin as a lover however, when the two couples are discovered and Tristan must flee, Queen Ysolt first blames Tristan for her infidelity, and then Brengvein. Now dishonored for having slept outside of marriage, Brengvein swears revenge on Queen Ysolt and takes her knowledge to King Mark, who immediately expels any and all knights he suspects of infidelity with his wife and commands Brengvein to be ever in the Queen’s company.

After a small bout of sickness in which Brengvein begrudgingly forgives Tristan and Queen Ysolt, a knight named Dwarf Tristan comes to Tristan begging for help. His wife and lands have been forcibly taken by a giant and he, knowing how deeply Tristan has felt the pangs of unrequited love, asks Tristan to help. They storm the castle and Dwarf Tristan is killed while Tristan is mortally wounded by a poisoned spear. After his doctors have failed to cure Tristan, he calls in Caerdin and explains the depth of his situation regarding Queen Ysolt and his thus far, unconsummated marriage while Ysolt of the White Hands listens in the other room. Tristan is too weak to go to Queen Ysolt, but he knowing well he would be healed by her skill if he could reach her, Tristan sends Caerdin to fetch her. He instructs Caerdin that if Queen Ysolt comes along to fly white sails, but if she refuses, to fly black sails instead, that he may die in peace.

Ysolt of the White Hands, though she had been deeply in love with Tristan, is furious and vows revenge. Caerdin in the meantime seeks out Queen Ysolt and manages to spirit her away to Tristan’s castle. As they are sailing in with white sails, Ysolt of the White Hands tells her husband they are black and Tristan dies moments before Queen Ysolt can arrive. When Queen Ysolt learns of Tristan’s fate, she lies down on the bed next his corpse and dies.

Common Thematic: Thomas of Britain’s rendition reflects a growing social ambiguity regarding social and moral principles once considered to be unquestionable. In this case, Tristan’s primary source of conflict for the tale revolves around the concept of courteous actions, particularly when they come in conflict with one another. Tristan’s word is his bond and he has sworn to love only Queen Ysolt, but by the same token, he vowed before God to forsake all others for his wife. This idea can be further projected into the shift in marital relations, social interaction, the political restructuring of the King and Baron’s political duties during this particular period of medieval history.

Thomas of Britain

Thomas of Britain remains a relatively obscure individual. What little scholars do know of him comes from second hand sources; dedications from fellow contemporaries or extrapolations of his text. He is estimated to have lived in the later half and likely earliest part of the 12 th and 13 th centuries, during the rise of the French romances. Though it’s clear he was a great admirer of British culture and most likely an individual of some standing during his lifetime, his nationality and affiliation are unknown. His suffix was ascribed to him later by translators in reference to his work, while the language and form in which he composed Tristan was a relatively standard form for that genre during the time period. Consequently, very little can be said of or about Thomas of Britain, other than he was for his time, a talented and well like poet.

Tristan’s Origins and Current State

Though little is known about Thomas of Britain, it is clear from the collective resources of Celtic folklore that the tale of Tristan (also known as Trystan, Tristram, or Tristran, depending on the area) was not one purely of the poet’s designs. Rather, preceding its composition date in the late 12 th century (c. 1185), the earliest known oral renditions of Tristan appear some fifty years earlier; most of which stem from Celtic folklore. Scholars speculate, based on the details of the various renditions circulating through the British Isles and Northern France, it is likely the story of Tristan the knight originated with a renowned 6 th century Celtic chieftain. Whether this chieftain was actually in Arthur’s service or was simply associated by virtue of his reputation with the deifying king over time is not known, but it is clear that by the time it reached Thomas of Britain, Tristan the knight was purported to have been one of Arthur’s greatest men and the poet obligingly translated either the Welsh or Cornish rendition into the language of the court.

Tristan, as it is known today, was originally composed in Anglo-Norman French verse. Unfortunately, the complete manuscript of the text has been lost. The remaining fragments were finally unearthed from obscurity during the 18 th century, when the origin of medieval romances became a topic of scholarly interest. The pieces had suffered heavy damage and what little was left consists only of an estimated 1/6 of the original text; with a grand total of little more than 3144 surviving lines. Luckily, Tristan proved to be relatively popular in its time, and several retellings of the story emerged in various languages over the century (One of the most popular of which was composed by Gottfried von Strassburg who copied the story, relatively in tact, into German some fifty years later). As a result, through extrapolation and a decent understanding of Celtic folklore, a rough framework of the missing text has been reconstructed by scholars with relatively stable results. It is no substitute for the original text, but at the very least, the missing plot has not been lost to total obscurity.

England and the High Middle Ages, the 11 th -14 th century

The period in which Tristan was composed and its author lived was a historically and culturally significant time for Britain (if not much of Western Europe), marked not only by a developing cultural renaissance, but also an increasing social and political discontent amongst the populace. In 1066, the reign of the Anglo-Saxons ended with the last, great, foreign invasion of the Norman Conquest that placed a French speaking king, William I, on the throne. His claim was not unfounded, as the previous king, King Edward, had spent much of his life in Normandy under exile while Danish kings and Anglo-Saxon nobility disputed the throne. For this brief span of time, England and Normandy were a single empire. King Edward however, had died without a successor and William of Normandy was as qualified through political lineage to take the throne as any of the other candidates. William was not named the heir to the throne however. The Earl of Wessex, Harold II was bestowed the title and William contested the matter, eventually coming to blows. He lost several battles to Harold II, but finally defeated him at the Battle of Hastings, allowing him to take the throne with no further opposition. Until this point, the British Isles, although culturally distinct and somewhat autonomous, had been politically united. William’s succession however, marked a permanent end to the Anglo-Saxon line.

The conquest and cultural shift that followed had a twofold result. On the one hand, William’s reign, and many of his successors, was marked with uprisings, civil war, and increasing lawlessness in Scottish, Irish, and Welsh held lands. Much of the political unrest on the Isle was marked with a sense of resentment and displacement, as the Anglo-Saxon language and culture was forced to make way for the ruling French. Accordingly, every decade or so there was a political rally amongst the fringes of the nobility to place a “true” Anglo-Saxon king back on the throne. On the other hand however, Britain thrived under the introduction of the feudal system that not only affected the political and administrative governing of the country, but would also in due time introduce the beginnings of a cultural revival already circulating through the French courts and allow the emergence of an altogether uniquely English culture.

Though the kings of England spend much of the 12 th century trying to maintain peace, by the early 13 th century, feudal culture and ethnic loyalties began to clash. Preceding the conquest, the Barons of Britain, like many Barons in various parts of Europe, had been governed with a comparative degree of autonomy. With the introduction of the feudal system however, a baron became totally reliant on the king for his possessions which were, in effect, rented out based on one’s service. Ideally the system was not necessarily one way though. A Baron was after all, supposed to have received their appointment not only for their service, but for the amount of trust the King had placed in their wisdom. It was the expectation they be consulted on matters of state before implementing any manner of taxation or proclamation. If abused however, the arrangement had the potential to obliterate not only heritage based claims of possession, but also gave leave to further blur the fiercely protected cultural lines. Though this initially was an issue of pure speculation, the succeeding kings slowly began to abuse the system by increasing degrees, from taxing without consultation, to violating the will of the Pope. Combined with the declining Anglo-Saxon culture, the expense of the crusades, and the emergence of secular courts governing outside the King’s authority, the country began to stir with resentment. When John came to the throne in Richard I’s stead (he was being held prisoner in Germany at the time), he inherited the growing unrest and embarked on a series of blunders that only exacerbated the already tense situation. In 1204, he lost Normandy and 1213, conceded England as a papal fief after a dispute with Pope Innocent the III. Disgusted by his actions and what they perceived a disregard of English custom, the Barons captured John and forced him to sign the Magna Carta, along with a formal apology. It did not mark the end of the feudal system in England, but it did mark a period of significant development of a uniquely English nature that would echo on into later centuries. By the latter half of 13 th century, Britain had begun to prosper again and would see a small degree of social and political peace until the first outbreak of the plague occurred within the country in the early 14 th century.

Tristan and Courtly Culture

The invasion of 1066 is marked by numerous scholars as a turning point for English culture. It delineates not only the beginning of the English language as it is known today, but also spurred through the introduction of courtly culture, what would become reclamation of the oral and folk traditions of the British Isles.

Marie de France (a contemporary of Thomas of Britain, though it is not certain if he was directly associated with her court) introduced to the French court the poetic construction of the lai. At its barest form, the lai was a piece of folklore or oral tradition that had been put into verse to give it a greater significance. The lai in turn tended to represent an episode of a larger body of work. The form proved wildly popular and gave entertainers and poets alike a means of translating previously historical bits and folklore into a deeper, more romantic context.

To this effect, courtly culture developed around itself a selection of romantic literature based on the ever evolving concepts of national identity, honor, and fealty. Until now, much of the literature of the land was based purely on historical posterity: The history of the event superseded its instructional or entertainment value. With the introduction of the lai however, this line of thought began to separate into three branches of concern: France, Britain, and England. France was concerned primarily with the tales surrounding Charlemagne ( France’s King Arthur one might say), while England was still firmly immured in the historical documentation of its history. Britain however, was based on the stories of Arthur who, by this point in history, had expanded his reputation beyond the bounds of realistic credibility.

The lai gave French and British poets alike a wealth of information to draw from. For many, this didn’t necessarily mean drawing a tale from thin air, but locating, translating, and infusing old stories with a fresh, modern face. For the English, this form had a particularly unique effect. Faced with a diminishing cultural identity, a forcibly collapsed monarchial line, and an infusion of foreign culture, the lai ironically allowed the English populace to import their own stories to help reform the English identity. Some of the earliest translations in the French court were based primarily on English folklore: Lai’d Haveloc, Gui de Lvareuic, Boeve de Hamtoune, etc. Arthurian stories had never necessarily ceased circulation, but the lai allowed a more feudal representation and exultation of the comparatively lackluster identity of Arthur’s men: Where once Arthur and his knights had simply been amazing men on a quest, the lai began to fuse the authority of the King with the divine will of God, giving the tale a surpassing quality.

The impact of this infusion of French literary forms and culture was not an altogether surprising one. England had been invaded for much of its earliest history and with each passing conquest; the culture emerged in a type of hybrid state with an identity unique to itself. While the lai did indeed draw from what were considered historically based accounts, they were not necessarily modified to the point that one could easily distinguish fact from the fiction. Tales were often identical in many respects but for the author’s slant on contested issues. Consequently, the British Arthurian identity and the English historical recollection began to fuse in many respects, blurring the line between accuracy and nationalistic identification. This fusion was not merely a combination of history and fiction, but of the older Anglo-Saxon culture (if not arguably the Breton one as well) and the now dominant French based Anglo-Norman culture ruling the country. The result was not a total submission to the conqueror, but a new identity emerging, once again, from the remains of the surviving culture.

Current Scholarship

Initially, Thomas of Britain’s Tristan was not a significant text in of itself, but rather, like many other medieval texts, was used as a spring board into the origin point for fiction derived from the Celtic oral traditions during the 18 th century. The scholars of the time were more interested in finding a universal origin point for medieval romance than examining the deeper cultural, historical, and social significance derived from the texts today. As time progressed however, the broad influence of the Arthurian legends, particularly that of the knight Tristan, began to gain credibility as more than just a quaint collection of amusing culturally derived stories. As interest began to spark, the study of the historical and literary figure of Tristan expanded into what is now referred to as the Tristan tradition. It roughly traces the sources of various Tristan stories, their impact on subsequent renditions, its historical relevance to the Arthurian stories, as well as the impact of previous research on later theories.

Unfortunately, if not ironically, Thomas of Britain’s text suffered in popularity as a result of this increased study. Though it provides a framed outline of the Tristan’s tale, its fragmentation makes textual analysis exceedingly difficult. Immediate interest in that particular text appears to have peaked roughly in the 1970s and petered out. When discussing themes and issues relevant to Thomas of Britain’s rendition of Tristan, much of the current scholarship in the last several decades does not draw on Thomas of Britain, but rather upon a later contemporary of the poet, Gottfried von Strassburg. The German poet admittedly used Thomas of Britain’s work as a direct source and, comparison of the two texts has revealed according to many scholars, texts of nearly parallel content and quality. Unlike Thomas of Britain’s work however, Strassburg’s has survived in relative entirety, though he died before its completion. Despite this, his rendition of Tristan is often substituted in the former poet’s place.

Bibliography:

-Both works, though presented in their entirety, are presented only as translations, not with references to the actual text. Though he does take great pains to document this, his tendancy to interject personal opinion and anecdotal information leaves gives rise to question regarding the quality of translation and information provided.

-The author attempts to provide a relatively comprehensive explanation of the origins of Tristan scholarship, it’s significance, and what spurred interest in the topic, along with some current criticism. The work is impressively thorough and extensive, though the author has a overriding tendency to refer to Strassburg’s composition as interchangeable in content and significance with Thomas of Britain’s rendition.

-The author’s approach is fairly straightforward, discussing the various sources from which Tristan poets presumably drew their content and the reliability of these sources as well as their impact on scholarly study. A certain degree of knowledge in medieval history and Celtic mythology is required to understand the full intricacies of his discussion.

Webliography:

-A brief summary of 12-14 th century history, as reviewed in class.

(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572205_5/England.html#p30)

(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_762507301/Tristan.html)

-An explanation of the Tristan story along with summary information on its counterparts.

(http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566674/Strassburg_Gottfried_von.html)

-A biography of the poet.

-A summary of the Tristan cycle.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_von_Strassburg)

-A brief biography of the poet.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_of_Britain)

-A brief biography of the poet.

(http://muse.jhu.edu/search/pia.cgi)

-A collection of various topics and articles pertaining to current scholarship on the Tristan texts within the last ten years.

Jennifer Martin