Tristan et Iseut

Dr Helen Swift
St Hilda’s College
MT11, Wks 1-8.
 Contexts of amor
• Moral context:
– how to assess moral status of amor ?
– secular or religious code of classification?
• Spiritual context:
– what form(s) does spiritual dimension take?
• Aesthetic context:
– evidence of fin’amor literary tradition?
– version commune (Béroul) vs. version
courtoise (Thomas).
 Morality: shame and/or guilt
• shame culture = public measure of morality
(question of social judgment)
• guilt culture = private, internal measure
(question of sin, personal conscience)

=> ambiguity in Béroul:

– Marc: pechié: ‘wrong’ (laide reparlance) > ‘sin’
– Ogrin: pechié: ‘sin’ ( = Modern French péché)
 Arbiters of social judgment (1)
• les Corneualais (vv. 827-59):
– weep after ‘flour on floor’ discovery: why?
– continued support for Tristan: tant par es ber ;
– traison (v. 835): lovers’ or barons’ treachery?
– unmitigated praise of Iseut: roine franche.
• Dinas, Arthur, Brengain:
– Brengain’s verdict: buen et loial (v. 380);
invokes God’s favour (vv. 377-78).
 Arbiters of social judgment (2)

• God: favour guarantees innocence?

For – tireless supporter:
e.g. tryst, miraculous leap …
Against – characters’ opinions only;
i.e. how reliable?
– alternative explanations offered:
e.g. pragmatic view of leap.
 Spiritual context: Christian
• Arbiters of theological judgment:
– God, Ogrin the hermit.
• Contested meaning of key terms:
– pechié, corage, repentir.
• Lovers visit Ogrin twice:
(1) by chance, not act of volition;
(2) conscious decision to seek advice.
 Visit to Ogrin I (1362-422)
• dialogue des sourds: clash of languages
– Ogrin = orthodox Christian doctrine;
– T+I = plead coercion by potion
• deadlocked in misunderstanding:
– Ogrin = question of will/will not;
– T+I = question of can/cannot;
– key terms = pechiez, corage, repentir.
• Ogrin’s characterization:
– uncompromising, but not unsympathetic.
 Visit to Ogrin II (2289-448)
• Iseut’s key speech (vv. 2323-30):
– phrases cessation carefully;
– wrestles with Ogrin’s terms.
• Ogrin’s response (vv. 2333-56):
– reiterates orthodox position, but…
– sudden pragmatism of concealment.
• Ogrin’s characterization:
– sympathetic, but not necessarily
compromising orthodoxy.
 Morality and spirituality
• no unitary moral perspective;
• majority of social and spiritual arbiters in
favour of lovers;
• God and Ogrin:
– countenance necessary concealment of love;
– support lovers’ pure intentions.

=> lovers’ secure moral and spiritual status.

 Aesthetic context: fin’amor

• after potion wears off = fin’amor?

– present in Thomas: amur fine e veraie (v. 2541)
– no rhetoric of love service, personified Love etc.
– exchange of ‘love tokens’ (ring and Husdent).

• => fine amor (v. 2722) = exceptional love.

Fin’amor illustrated
 thematic approach…

Next week:
Getting political: the feudal context