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.