Yvain (Part 3)

1) Yvain believes that his name is tainted with shame. Following his ‘awakening’ in the woods (his symbolic ‘rebirth’), he must build up a new reputation. He is trying to become a new man, and therefore must give himself a new name. This was symbolized in the battle between the lion and the snake, which represents rebirth (because it sheds its skin). Yvain’s choice to fight on the part of the lion represents his choosing of good over evil, nobility over wickedness, honor over shame. Therefore, it is fitting that Yvain’s new name symbolizes the qualities that make up the true knight. His ‘rebirth’ marks a turning point in his life as a knight; he is no longer seeking adventure for adventure’s sake, but going about true knightly duties and helping people. He admits to Laudine (who at the time does not know who he is), that he is “not of great renown” (352). This humility is much of what characterizes Yvian at this point in the text, and is the reason why the title he chooses for himself suggests a dedication to knighthood as opposed to personal glory.

2) The sisters end up unwittingly making two close companions fight each other; this could reflect the way that the sisters are fighting even though they should be companions.

I thought it was strange that an issue about land ownership would be resolved with a battle. I have to wonder if Chretien was suggesting the absurdity of this by making the battle amount to nothing so that the matter could be settled by the king.

3) I thought that the ending was a little disappointing. Laudine only reconciled with Yvain because of the oath that she was tricked into making, not because she really wanted to take him back. This could be what Chretien was alluding to in his speech about Hatred and Love: “Now Hatred is in the saddle, for she spurs and charges and tramples over Love as hard as she can, while Love does not stir” (370). This speech takes place just before the fight between Yvain and Gawain, but could “Hatred” also refer to Laudine, while “Love” refers to Yvain?

Because of Laudine’s distain for him, Yvain dedicated his life to “devoting himself to helping women in need of assistance” (355). It is for this reason that Yvain is finally brought back to Laudine, but the situation is incredibly ironic: every other maiden that Yvain has helped was extremely grateful and wanted to have Yvain as their husband; but Laudine, for whom Yvain was doing all of this, is the only one who accepts him out of obligation as opposed to love. Chretien states at the end of the story that “everything had turned out well for he is loved and cherished by his lady, and she by him” (380), but I have to wonder if this statement is meant to be taken at face value or if the forced reconciliation is meant to remain an unresolved undertone.

4) The fact that Chretien only reveals his name at the end of the story could mirror the way that Yvain had to hide who he really was in order to build up his reputation. Yvain has finally made a name for himself, so the author can now give his name to the romance.

Additional Thoughts: Who or what is the “unfaithful doctor” that Chretien speaks of? It harkened back to the beginning of the tale, when he was talking about how true love has dissipated over the years. “To serve her he would have taken on human flesh, abandoned his divinity, and struck his own body with the dart whose wound never heals unless an unfaithful doctor tends it. It is not right for anyone to be healed unless he encounters unfaithfulness, for he who is healed in any other way does not love truly” (362). Almost every “healer” in the romances that we have read are has been a woman. There were numerous female healers in this romance alone; it would be interesting to know what Chretien meant by his “unfaithful doctor” story and if it relates to this theme of women as healers.

Yvain (Part 2)

1) Gawain’s speech and it’s outcome:

“Indeed, you would suffer afterwards for her love if it caused you to lose your reputation, because a woman will quickly withdraw her love – and she’s not wrong to do so – if she finds herself hating a man who has lost face in any way after he has become lord of the realm” (326).

Gawain’s speech has strong echoes of the Erec and Enide tale, except for the fact that Enide did not stop loving Erec when his supposed reputation declined. This, as well as the later outcome of Yvain’s departure, suggests that Gawain does not speak Chretien’s true thoughts here. Not once did Enide stop loving Erec after she heard that he had “lost face.” This may suggest that Gawain is Chretien’s way of showing one view (the appearance-based view) of marriage, while Chretien seems to believe in love in marriage. When Yvian actually does lose his reputation, it is not because he dishonored his fellow knights or king, but because he dishonored Laudine: “But the love I have for you will become hatred, you can be sure of that, if you should overstay the period I shall set for you. Be assured that I’ll not break my word” (327). Therefore, Chretien may be suggesting, as in Erec’s case, that Yvain should have honored the commitment he made to his wife.

“But pleasures grow sweeter when delayed…. The joy of love that is deferred is like the green log burning: it gives off more heat and burns longer, since it is slower to get started” (327).

I think that this part of the speech suggests, though Gawain doesn’t know it, that Yvain may have stronger feelings towards Laudine than Laudine does for him: Yvain is like the “green log burning” because he was pining over Laudine before Laudine had even met him or decided she wanted to marry him. Therefore, his love for her “grew sweeter” because it was delayed.

There is also the fact that Laudine was able to give him permission to leave so easily, and up to year at that. Yvain even said that a year would be too long (327). Laudine seemed very stoic throughout the agreement, while Yvain “wept profusely upon taking [his leave]” (328). This suggests that vain would not have even considered leaving Laudine if Gawain hadn’t convinced him to. (I was very surprised when Laudine told Yvain he could spend a year away from her; I thought she would have allowed him a week at the most. A year seems entirely too long.) I found it interesting when it was said that one of the ladies Yvain met on his journeys “would never have given him [permission to leave] had he agreed to take her as his mistress or his wife” (336), while Laudine gave Yvain leave to go relatively easily. I think this further suggests that Laudine’s love for Yvain is not equal to Yvain’s love for Laudine.

2) Yvain’s shame:

The year seems to pass quite quickly, during which time Yvain builds up his honor and esteem again and again in tournaments, battles, etc: “The year passed meanwhile and my lord Yvain did so splendidly all year long that my lord Gawain took great pains to honour him; and he caused him to delay so long that the entire year passed and a good bit of the next…. The previous evening they had returned from a tournament where my lord Yvain had fought and carried off all the glory” (329). It is immediately after this that the damsel comes to tell Yvain that he has broken his promise to Laudine and will never be allowed to see her again. This build-up of glory, followed immediately by a great downfall, seems to compare the worth of Yvain’s knightly prowess to the value of his love. Clearly, the message is that his love is of more value. This seems to be symbolically displayed when the damsel takes back the ring, which until that point made Yvain invincible (“Yet now this miracle happened, for Yvain remained alive without his heart”). It is only after this point that we see Yvain repeatedly getting injured so that he may prove his worth. Unlike in Erec and Enide, however, which has similar tones, Yvain is trying to prove his worth to his wife, not to anyone else. Yvain is, at the same time, proving his worth to the audience as well.

3) Yvain’s reaction:

When Yvain reacted the way he did, I was reminded of the peasant in the clearing from the beginning of the story, who said he was a man who was lord of the beasts. When Yvain goes insane, he seems to become an uncontrollable wild animal. This leads me to believe that the tame lion presented later on in the story is symbolic of Yvain becoming the lord of his own inner beast.

His time of insanity in the woods is also the mark of a kind of re-baptism. He is stripped of clothing and, when he is finally healed, is covered from head to foot in a healing ointment. Later on in the story, he gives himself a new name. Therefore, it seems that Yvain was ‘born-again.’

4) The snake/dragon and the lion

The first thing I though of in this scene was “Slytherin vs. Gryffindor!” But then I got serious. Lions are often used to symbolize bravery, while serpents seem to be used as representations of forbidden knowledge (Adam and Eve), a source of evil, or rebirth (because the snake sheds it’s skin). Going along with the last of these three interpretations, this seems to back up my earlier theory about Yvain becoming re-born and re-baptised.

When Yvain first comes across these two animals, he is unsure of who to slay at first. If the snake as seen as representative of evil, then Yvain’s decision to slay it means that he fights for good as opposed to evil. After the snake is killed, Yvain turns to the lion and makes the same mistake about it that Calogrenant made about the peasant in the woods: he assumes that it is going to harm him, when in fact it never intends to do so.

Yvain (Part 1)

1) Lack of Prologue

There is a distinct difference between the introduction of Erec and Enide and the beginning of The Knight with the Lion. In this tale, Chretien seems to through the audience right into the story without much an introduction, whereas there was a slow, dramatic build up in Erec and Enide. (I personally prefer this; I think it makes the story more believable, and thereby more interesting). If the point in the prologue was to “establish the parallel journey upon which both author and protagonist(s) experienced,” then the lack of prologue could logically mean the lack of a moral commonality between the author and the protagonists. Whereas in Erec and Enide the author was constantly reminding the audience of how honorable their love was, there is much less of that in The Knight with the Lion. Obviously, the situation these lovers find themselves in is entirely more complex than Erec and Enide’s, making for morally grey motives and less flat characterization. (Again, I personally like the moral complexity of this story more than the other, because I feel that it makes for more believable characters and storylines, as everything is much less utopian). The lack of prologue further connects to Yvain as an individual in that Yvain may not be the prime moral example of the story.

I also found it very interesting that Yvain was barely mentioned for much of the beginning of the story. In fact, he is only mentioned once in passing, and the first several pages revolve around a completely different person. He is not made out to be important of exceptional in any way, which is highly different from Chretien’s treatment of Erec. Rather, the reader is allowed to interpret the greatness or folly of this character for themselves.

2) My Interpretation

As I stated in the above response, I like this story more than the Chretien’s first. In fact, this is by far my favorite story that we have read thus far. Ironically, though this story contains more mystical qualities, it seems altogether more realistic and believable than the near-utopia that was Erec and Enide. Another comparative irony is that in Erec and Enide there were often long, detailed descriptions of both people and events, yet I find the imagery of Yvain to be more visually impressive and believable.

To focus more on the storyline itself, one of my main concerns is Laudine’s completely random 180. Perhaps her desire to marry Yvain would make more sense if she never appeared greatly devoted to her husband, but as it is she was presented as the most sorrowful widow anyone had ever seen. Is there a deeper message behind this or did Chretien only have Laudine grieve for her husband to give him due respect and then turn the lady’s reasoning around only to advance the plot? Regarding all of this, I think it is key that the Chretien focuses much more on the love and devotion Yvain has for her than the feelings she has for Yvain.

The reasoning that Laudine uses regarding this marriage is that the spring needs to be protected. This protection of this spring is the common factor between Laudine’s two marriages. Does the spring, then, represent Laudine, or perhaps love? Though the peasant in the clearing made it seem as though the storm caused by the spring was the trial by which the knights could test their strength, I think that real “custom” he was referring to was the ‘winning’ of Laudine and her land by defeating the knight that was summoned by the storm. Also, the people of the court actually refer to the marriage as the 60-year “custom” of the kingdom.

3) Character Study

My favorite character in this story by far is the Laudine’s maiden. She demonstrates far more sense and intelligence than any other the other characters, and can be seen as the catalyst for the marriage between Yvain and Laudine. What I like most about her character is that Chretien does not focus very much on her appearance. Rather, he lets her speech demonstrate her worth. In my eyes, this maiden seems like a far more worthy person than Laudine. The difference between these two characters is seen simply in the differences in the ways they are described: Laudine is described in a completely polar fashion: her beauty is emphasized over and over again, while her speech is repeatedly marked as “confounded.”

Erec and Enide (Part 3)

1)

Immediately after fleeing the count, Erec reveals to Enide the motive he had behind taking her on this adventure. He states, “My sweet love, I have tested you in every way. Don’t be dismayed any more, for I now love you more than I ever did, and I am once more certain and convinced that you love me completely. Now I want to be henceforth just as I was before, entirely at your command; and if your words offend me, I fully pardon and forgive you for both the deed and the word” (97). The question I asked myself after reading this passage was, “Was this always Erec’s intention, or did he only realize it after hearing Enide profess her loyalty to him in front of the count?” Up until this point there was an inclination that Erec didn’t have a clear idea as to what he meant by going on this journey, and it was hinted that Enide was only taken along as a kind of ‘prop’ as Erec only wanted to prove his worth to himself. While I don’t think it can be entirely clear whether or not Erec always knew what he wanted all along, I think it can be argued that Enide’s speech to the count is part of what made Erec realize what he had wanted out of this whole journey. He basically says that he could not have loved Enide as fully as he does now if he thought that she did not love him completely. What surprised me was when he stated that he wanted to go back to the way things were before and place himself “entirely at (her) command).” This suggests that he no longer cares, perhaps never cared, about what everyone else (besides Enide) thought o him. This, more than anything else, is what makes me think that Enide’s words in the scene with the count gave Erec some kind of revelation about himself and his wife.

2)

Erec appears to come back as a demon of devil. “They did not believe that they were being pursued by a man, but by a devil or a demon that had entered into his body” (97). Though Erec was constantly shouting at Enide for speaking when she was not permitted, it is due to her speech that Erec awakens and kills the count. Also, it was Enide’s defiance of orders she did not like that kept her strong against the count. On page 100 the narrator states that Erec “had come to understand (Enide) well.” One could interpret Erec’s revelation about his wife as being a result of his ‘reincarnation’: he appears to be a new man.

3)

I would seem that Maboagrain and his lady are the anti-Erec and Enide. In this sense, the author’s previous allusions to Tristan and Yseut make sense, though they are somewhat ironic. Maboagrain and his lady have something in common with Tristan and Yseut: their love, though it brings them more Joy than any other love they have ever experienced, has drastic ramifications on their people. On the other hand, Erec and Enide, by the end of the story, demonstrate a kind of balance between their duties to the court and their duties to each other.

Erec and Enide (Part 2)

1) Enide’s Character Emerging

This part of the romance gives the reader a better view of the thoughts of Enide, as opposed to simply focusing on her outer appearance. One of the most noticeable ways in which this happens is when she is finally named. The context in which her name is revealed is interesting, as the entire cast of characters is discovering it along with the reader. It is clear that, before it became an actual necessity that her true name be known, no one bothered to learn it. (This contrasts greatly with the countless minor male characters we are given the names of throughout the story.) The necessity by which her name must be revealed is in her wedding to Erec. The test states, “When Erec received his wife, she had to be named by her proper name, for unless a woman is called by her proper name she cannot be married. People did not yet know her name, but not they learned it for the first time” (62). Judging from this, it would seem that, from Erec’s point of view, the maiden’s name need not be bothered with until he would actually legally “received his wife.” I think that the meaning of Enide’s name may bear an important context here; Enide means “soul,” which is ironic as the thing that Erec and the author (seemingly) are most concerned with is outward appearances. It would seem that this late revealing of Enide’s name foreshadows the later revelation that Erec only knew and appreciated one aspect of his wife, and completely ignores or disvalues many other important things about her.

2) Enide’s Speech

The first time that Enide speaks in the text she is in great despair and is cursing herself for having left her land only to bring shame to her husband. Though Enide is insistent that she is happy with Erec, as she loves and honors him more than anything else in the world, there is significance behind the fact that her first words about her situation are spoken with scorn. Throughout the text, Enide is unfalteringly praising of Erec and scornful of herself for the dishonor she has caused him. Erec sees this when she reveals the truth to him, and immediately sets out to right the wrong he has been accused of committing. However, though Enide is greatly concerned for the welfare of Erec, Erec seems less concerned with Enide’s welfare; it appears that he is only going on this journey to prove to himself that the rumors about him can be proven false. This becomes clear when Erec tells Enide that he wants her to remain silent throughout their journey: this demonstrates the fact that Erec cares more about what his fellow knights, lords, kings, etc are saying than what is being said by his own wife, even though it is proven again and again that he should take more heed of Enide’s words. At this point in the text the proverb from the prologue starts to have a significant part in the story; Erec is keeping Enide silent, insinuating that he holds her in contempt when he should be appreciating what he has. I also find it interesting that the first words we hear Enide speak to Erec are lies (when she denies that there is anything wrong after he catches her crying). She is also cleverly deceitful when she speaks to the count, bringing her from being the blandest character in the story to the one with the most depth.

3, 4) Erec’s Ego and Enide’s Emotions

The journey that Erec is going on doesn’t seem to have anything to do with proving his worth to Enide; rather, he is trying to wound his own bruised ego. For Erec, the purpose of this journey is apparently to prove that he can uphold his knightly duties and a marriage at the same time, which is why he takes Enide along on this trip as opposed to leaving her at the castle (there doesn’t appear to be any other reason why he took her along; she is clearly not there for companionship and he doesn’t seem to be proving his worth for her sake). To the reader, however, this journey is revealing the depth (or lack thereof) of Erec and Enide’s relationship. Up until now, the author has focused primarily on imagery, describing the material worth and appearances of characters, scenes, etc with a noticeable (and intentional) lack of depth. This is where the significance of Enide’s inner monologues comes into play: Enide’s thoughts are one of the few ways in which the reader gets a glimpse of the reasoning and emotion behind the scene, as there is a major difference between the way that Enide views the scene and the way the other character (and perhaps the narrator) view the scene: Enide observes and deals with all of the trouble arising on the journey and in their relationship, while Erec focuses primarily on the adventure ahead. It is quite obvious that, without his strength and prowess in battle, Erec would not make that great of a knight. There is a constant emphasis on proving self worth through strength alone, yet Enide is proving much more useful than Erec through her cleverness in speech.

Erec and Enide (Part 1)

1) The Proverb

The proverb in the beginning of the text states that people sometimes take what they have for granted, and even hold it in contempt. Chretien states, “A man does not act intelligently if he does not give free range to his knowledge” (37). The implication of this proverb in the text has yet to be fully realized, but I am guessing that it may have something to do with Erec and Enide’s appreciation for one another. The text states, “he who neglects his learning may easily keep silent something that would later give much pleasure” (37). After reading the first part of text, I thought that this was a very important line, because Erec’s “beautiful maiden” is completely silent throughout the entire story thus far. So, even though on the surface of the text it would seem as though most of the women in the story are treated as property as opposed to equal human beings, there may be an underlying theme of appreciating and learning from women.

2) The Contests

The hunt for the white stage is one of the main focal points of the opening scene. In the text, there are two contests involving a hunt for an esteemed animal, both wielding the dame outcome – the honor of claiming a beautiful lady. The stag hunt is the first contest, followed by the sparrow-hawk competition. I think that there are two different ways in which you can view these contests: The surface of the text implies that women are equal to jewels and other finery, to be won and shown off by men as a symbol of wealth and prosperity. The women are also compared to highly valued animals, as the men in the story ‘hunt’ for both valuable beasts and women. On the other hand, you could say that the women are not simple objects of admiration but are ‘pulling the strings’ of their respective men. Queen Guinevere, for example, has a far more important role in the action of the story than King Arthur. The King listens to and obeys the Queen’s advice concerning the outcome of the stag hunt, and it is she to whom Erec sends the knight Yder for punishment.

The actions of all of the men in the story thus far, in fact, are based off of the custom and admiration they have towards either the women or the contests (which, it has already been established, both lead back to the value of women).

3) Characterization

The thing that bothered me in the test the most was the excessive focus on appearances, particularly clothing. Before anything else about a character is described, their clothes are depicted down to the last detail; there is a resonating idea that “the clothes make the man.” The focus on clothes seems to be so excessive that I have to wonder if the author did this purposefully, to draw attention to the importance appearances have in social standing, according to society. When the author mentions the wisdom a character possesses, it is almost always the very last thing mentioned, as if only an afterthought.

I found it interesting that Enide’s name is never actually given in the text. In fact, none of the women in the story, besides Guinevere, are given a name. Enide is “the beautiful maiden,” then we have “the vavasour’s wife,” “the knight’s maiden,” and “the cousin.” Does the author wish to draw attention away from the individual and simply focus on a general interpretation of the ideal woman? All of the women in the text are given the same characteristics: beauty, nobility, good sense, and in some cases wisdom, but there is never a more detailed, individualizing description of their characters. On the other hand, the names of the various knights, lords, barons, and kings of the court are given quite often, many times in long lists of one right after the other. In this context, a stark contrast can be seen between the view of males and females, where males are viewed as individuals, while females are grouped into one general ideal without any individualism at all.

I was very intrigued by the line comparing looking at Enide to looking at a mirror, because it immediately made me think of the tale of Narcissus, who died after falling in love with his own reflection. If this is the allusion the authors wishes to make, it can be easily argued that Erec’s enamored feelings towards Enide based on her looks will end up having negative results. In this context, does saying that “one might gaze at her just as one gazes in a mirror” suggest that Enide is a portrait of vanity? If so, it certainly doesn’t refer to her own vanity, but the vanity of those who look upon her, particularly males. This leads directly back to the way that the men in the story view women as descriptions of their own worthiness.

5) The Red Dress

In the scene in which Queen Guinevere has Enide dressed there is once again an almost excessive focus on the material makeup (beauty, clothes and other finery) of a character, and the way in which it should express the value of the person they adorn. The dress-changing scene is, I think, most representational of the ‘transfer’ of Enide over to King Arthur’s court. I noted in the text that Enide is treated as a valuable possession to be transferred from one man to another; Enide’s father literally “gives her away” to Erec, and his insistence upon her being dressed by Guinevere reveals his obsession with formally ‘initiating’ her into his life and removing her from the status she once held.

Romance of Tristan (Part 3)

1) Yseut’s Ambiguous Oath

I thought that Yseut’s manipulation of the situation, and subsequently the manipulation of her language during her oath, was very clever. The narrator hinted several times leading up to this event that the queen “was wise in speaking” (119).

Her words once again show us the power of lies and fiction in the story: the entire court readily believes what she says without the smallest amount of skepticism. Due to the fact that the kings and their courts had already made up their mind about Yseut’s innocence before the vindication took place, her actual oath doesn’t really seem to serve that much of a practical purpose (other than making an elaborate formality out of her absolution).

In my opinion, the oath scene reveals the kings and their courts to be the most biased characters, their main purpose in the story being the personification of the narrator’s sympathies towards Tristan and Yseut. The story itself is entirely pathos-driven. If the story were driven more by logic, the narrator would surely have more sympathy towards the barons, who are only doing their lordly duties. I think that while the kings, courts and commoners represent the matriarchal side of society (the pathos-driven side of the story), the barons represent the patriarchal side of society (the logos-driven side of the story). The oath scene, therefore, marks a point in the story where a clear line can be drawn between the matriarchal and patriarchal characters. Thinking in this light, it should be easier to see why the narrator would be so intent on sympathizing with Tristan and Yseut, the most manipulative characters in the text: they (especially Tristan) represent the ‘blurred line’ between the matriarchal and the patriarchal. One narrative purpose of this story seems to be the exploration of the question “Can these two aspects of society blend, or must they remain separate?” Clearly, the author is saying that if two people tried to blend the matriarchal and the patriarchal, neither person would be able to remain true to himself/herself. This is shown through Yseut’s speech, which has multiple, secret meanings, and Tristan multiple, secret identities (“I should be found out straight away unless I altered my clothes and my appearance sufficiently… He changed his name and called himself Tantris” 153). It is interesting to note that when the lovers are finally left in peace, Cornwall is finally “held in peace” (143). Also, at this point, the three barons (the characters who are most opposed to matriarchal aspects) are referenced as the main villains of the story. These points further indicate the author’s negative feelings towards a strictly patriarchal society.

2) Tristan’s Vengeance

While the narrator’s bias towards the so-called “villains” clearly shows why Tristan and Yseut fear them so much, their murders are still unjustified. From an objective point of view, the barons act more morally than Tristan and Yseut. The narrator is constantly criticizing the barons for acting out of selfishness, yet they are simply trying to reveal the truth. Tristan and Yseut, on the other hand, operate under just as much – if not more – selfishness, and do ethically corrupt things because of this. This goes back to my earlier point about neither character being able to be true to themselves, resulting in manipulation and deceit. Also, I thought it was interesting that the author named one of the barons Godwin, which means “friend of God,” even though the narrator is constantly making references to how ungodly the three barons are.

3) Tristan’s Madness

Though Tristan changes his name, his new identity is an anagram of his true one. This could represent how Tristan is struggling to rearrange the duel aspects of his life, with little success. It is also interesting that Tristan, while playing the fool, says that his mother is a whale, as whales are often shown as symbols of death and rebirth: Tristan’s multiple personalities can be read as various ways in which he wishes to be reborn.

4) The Death of the Lovers

One way that the lovers’ deaths can be interpreted is that that they could only be together, and thereby truly happy, in the afterlife. Therefore, their lives on earth had to end so they could live out an eternal life together. This is supported by the fact that Tristan’s death is the one thing that finally brought the lovers together again, as well as the line in the text stating, “ whoever serves love will one day be rewarded for everything” (161). Also, there is the fact that two trees grew out of the lovers’ graves, and trees are commonly used as symbols of eternal or regenerative life.

I found it interesting that, though both Tristan and Yseut ended up dying of a broken heart because of each other, it seems that Tristan was more ailed by Yseut’s absence in his life that Yseut was of Tristan’s absence.

I also thought that the author’s references to Yseut’s ability to heal Tristan was an interesting part of the story. I think that the intense, nearly bewitching power that Yseut has over Tristan connects to her family’s reputation as sorceresses.

Romance of Tristan (Part 2)

1) Tristan and Yseut in Morrois

The lovers’ time of exile in the woods is described as “rough and hard” (78), yet neither Tristan nor Yseut feel any hardship because of the love and devotion that they feel towards one another. As such, the theme of true love is paradoxically treated both as an anesthetic and as a source of pain. Another paradox of the story is that the to characters who experience such a strong and pure love must live lives of extreme deceit and hardship.

I see the setting of the forest as symbolic of the pure nature of love in general. Whereas their love was kept hidden for fear of being scorned while they lived in the kingdom, it is accepted in the forest. Therefore, it can be said that Tristan and Yseut’s time in Morrois brought them closer to God. Ogrin, the wise hermit, states that “truly God will pardon the sin of a man who repents in good faith by making confession” (79). If the forest’s natural setting does indeed help to bring one closer to God, then it would make sense that this wise hermit was found in Morrois. (Ogrin also has the added credential of being literate, automatically making him a wise and respectable beacon of truth in the story.)

2) Repentance

Ogrin stresses the importance of repentance in relation to one’s soul as opposed to simply fulfilling mortal duties. He wisely states that “a man who lives in sin is dead, for no one can give absolution to a sinner if he does not repent.” By this he means that a sinner lives as a shell of a human being, as a person without a soul has no hope of living on in the afterlife. I found it interesting that Tristan and Yseut, though fully knowledgeable of the love potion’s role in their devotion towards one another and know that their love should never have been conceived, they still have no intention of making amends while under its spell. Their attitudes here further demonstrate how strong the love potion is - it can make two people, who are otherwise perfectly capable of logical thought, completely disregard logic when threatened with being separated from their lover.

When Tristan and Yseut actually do repent, they do so immediately and to the fullest extent of their ability. This further marks not only their virtue but also the power that their love held if it was able to repress such strong virtues. I was not surprised that the two still expressed love towards one another after the artificial catalyst wore off, but I was a little surprised at their insisting that their love was never dishonorable. Do they mean that because it was the result of an honest mistake that they cannot be held completely at fault? And when they decide to tell King Mark that they never loved each other dishonorably, do they think this is true in some capacity themselves or are they aware of the blatant wrongness of this statement? In my opinion, Tristan and Yseut believe that their repentance and the accidental nature of their love absolves them of having had a truly ‘dishonorable’ love, but they still want to deceive Mark into thinking that they never had an affair because it would make it that much more difficult for them to become absolved in his eyes. Tristan also makes the point, when he is explaining their situation to the hermit Ogrin, that since they were suffering for so long, it can only be concluded that such was their destiny. The narrator similarly states that “No man can turn aside his fate” (86). If this statement is to be taken as true, then Tristan and Yseut can rightly claim that they never had a “wrongful love,” as that would be claiming that the fate designed for them by the Creator was wrong.

3) The Discovery

In the discovery scene at the bower, Tristan’s sword is put between he and Yseut. As this was the same sword that Tristan used to kill Morholt, Yseut’s uncle, it represents the force that originally should have kept them apart. Mark’s replacement of this sword with his own symbolizes the fact that he is now the main figure standing in between the lovers’ happiness. The lovers (who are fully clothed) have their arms are wrapped around each other, though their bodies and lips are not touching, Yseut is wearing King Mark’s ring and light is streaming on her face that makes her shine like glass. When Mark discovers the lover in this state, he is, as he always is, easily swayed, and believes that his indicates that they never intended to have a dishonorable love. He notices the light on Yseut’s face and says “I think it is burning her” (93). This could be a reference to burning in hell for committing sin. He then notices the ring he gave her on her finger, which is considerably thinner than it once was. This could be a reference to the theme of love being incredibly draining and destructive as much as it is rewarding. The presence of King Mark’s ring on her finger also alludes to the fact that he is the one person standing in between an honorable, healthy, fulfilling love and the deceitful love that the lovers now have. Replacing the ring with one that Yseut originally owned conveys Marks wish not to stand between what he views as an honorable relationship. The fact that the ring that Yseut was originally wearing was emerald, however, marks an even deeper meaning in the text. Emerald symbolizes successful love, so Mark’s removal of the ring from Yseut’s finger may have ironically been the symbolic destruction of the lovers’ relationship (until Mark’s discovery of them they were at least able to be together, oblivious of their hardship). I think that Mark’s pity for the lovers, rather than making him appear completely foolish, shows him to be aware of the benevolent powers present in the story. His desire to show Tristan and Yseut that they are safe from his vengeance makes me sympathize with him more than I did before.

4) The Love Potion

I think that the immediacy of Tristan and Yseut’s reactions reveals not only the great strength that the love potion had over their virtues but also how strong their virtues were to begin with. I think that many people, if put in the same predicament, would react much differently (i.e. becoming angry that they had to suffer hardship for something that was not entirely their fault and refusing to repent). What I found most interesting was the fact that their feelings towards one another do not seem to have changed very drastically; that is, they still love each other deeply, though they claim this is now an honorable love. The only thing that has changed is that their love has ‘calmed down’ enough for them to think more clearly about their situation and the effect that their actions are having on people they once held dear. It is very important to the overall message of the story, I think, that their love does not actually ware off when the original catalyst for their love ceases to play a part in the story. Up until this point, the potion has been a metaphor for true love, but there was the problem of the love being artificial. Therefore, the abolition of the potion, yet remainder of the love, brings the theme of true love down to a more relatable level. It also allows the story to progress in a way that shows further hardship on the part of the lovers: ironically, they feel just as much – if not more – hardship when they are forced to separate than when they were living their “rough and hard life” in Morrois, even though they are now allowed to live a relatively more comfortable life.

Romance of Tristan

1. Characterizations:

There were several situations in which I found Tristan and Yseut to be the atypical “knight in shining armor and damsel in distress”: first, the scene where Tristan rescues Yseut from the “strange knight” who took her away from Mark as his prize, and second, the scene where Tristan saves Yseut from the band of lepers. (There seemed to be a lot of scenes that featured women as the ultimate prize to be won.) However, there were several scenes where Yseut is proven to be a strong character, much less like the damsel in distress scenario that I was expecting. These scenes include when Yseut spots King Mark’s shadow and begins a clever ruse to divert his suspicions, and when she takes matters of security into her own hands and tries to have Brangain killed.

To me, it is clear that Tristan is being portrayed as the ideal man, but I am less sure that Yseut is playing the role of the ideal lady. She is in the same exact predicament as Tristan except for the fact that she is married. Therefore, I have to wonder if Yseut is the example of what husband’s might fear most from their wives – deceitfulness/disloyalty.

2. The Power of Language:

One thing that is clear from the text thus far is that the narrator has a clear bias regarding the virtuousness/villainy of the characters. It appears that anything stated in the text is expected to be taken at face value and without any skepticism (i.e. as when the narrator curses the barons and the dwarf for trying to reveal the truth to the king, but has nothing ill to say of Yseut when she tries to have Brangain killed). My thoughts are that in a time when there were much fewer literate/well-spoken people than there are today, speech of this level of eloquence had an advantage in that it was not taken with much skepticism. Therefore, it would seem that the power of speech was incredibly valuable at the time.

On sort of a tangent: It is also interesting to note that the only characters that have lied in story so far are Tristan and Yseut. I think that the love potion has an important role in the story here: one underlying message of the story may be the disastrous results of meddling with magic. Tristan and Yseut, as a result of the magic potion, went from being two of the most virtuous characters in the story to the most sinful. However, the narrator remains sympathetic towards them; this is probably because it is clear that they were influenced by magic unwillingly (that is the only reason I can think of why the narrator would ask us to sympathize with them). On the other hand, the narrator clearly despises the dwarf, who uses magic intently. If the theme of magic as a source of evil is what the narrator is trying to get at, then I can see the theme of repentance playing a part towards the story’s end.

I also found myself wondering why the townspeople in the story where made out to be sympathetic towards the lovers even though they had no knowledge of the love potion’s role in the affair. My guess is that the townspeople’s reactions are meant to represent how the audience should react towards Tristan and Yseut’s situation rather than be accurate portrayals of how commoners would realistically react towards an affair between the king’s wife and nephew.

3. Love:

This story clearly aims towards the theme of tragic, undying love. I found myself wondering while I was reading what role the love potion had to play in the theme of undying love, if not for the reason stated above. I wondered why Tristan and Yseut couldn’t simply fall in love on their own, without the aid of magic, as that might better represent true love. But then I thought that the use of magic as a facilitator might be the author’s way of exploring the nature and limits of a love that many people might never have the opportunity to experience. The sudden and limitless love between Tristan and Yseut does, after all, seem quite idealistic. The use of the potion also makes it easier to explore the results of uncontrollable desire in two otherwise pious people.

4. Sympathies:

At this point in the story I am most sympathetic towards King Mark, who has been deceived by the two people who should be his closest companions – his wife and nephew. Although, I cannot say that I completely dislike any of the other characters: Tristan and Yseut are under the influence of the potion, so they can technically be considered absolved of guilt, and the barons and dwarf are only trying to tell the king the truth. However, I find that the constant insistence that Tristan and Yseut are virtuous characters does more to make me skeptical of their virtuousness than anything else. Likewise, the narrator’s unfounded criticisms of the barons and dwarf make me wonder what the cause for his bias is. Mark is one of the only characters in the story towards which the narrator seems to be relatively neutral, which makes it easies for me to come up with my own conclusions about him.