49 pages • 1 hour read
Gottfried von StrassburgTristan
Fiction | Novel/Book in Verse | Adult | Published in 1209A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Background
Literary Context: The Legend of Tristan and Isolde
The earliest known version of the Tristan and Isolde story, on which some later medieval versions are based, was written around 1150, although this version of the story no longer exists. This version drew on oral legends of the story that stretched back to an indiscernible period in Celtic antiquity and were popular in the regions that would become modern-day Britain, France, and Germany. Tristan and Isolde were legendary characters, similar in this respect to other figures who attained a legendary status in oral legends and literary works, such as King Arthur or the Germanic heroes Siegfried and Dietrich. In fact, the French prose work Tristan, written in the 13th century, would integrate the story of Tristan and Isolde into Arthurian legend, making Tristan a Knight of the Round Table. The shape of the story would also significantly influence the Arthur-Guinevere-Lancelot love triangle of Arthurian legend, in which the knight’s duty to his lord conflicts with his duty to his lady.
Despite the many permutations of the story, certain elements tended to remain constant: Tristan and Mark’s familial relationship, Tristan’s entrustment with delivering Isolde to Mark, and Tristan and Isolde’s consumption of a love potion that sparks their romantic entanglement. Gottfried’s interpretation of the story, which retains these core features, used Thomas of Britain’s version as its source. However, very little is known about either Gottfried Von Strassburg or Thomas of Britain. In fact, whether Thomas was from Brittany or the British Isles is unclear. Thomas likely wrote his version of the story around 1160, and Gottfried left his work unfinished at his death around the year 1210.
Regardless, both Gottfried and Thomas left their mark on the story. Gottfried is believed to have belonged to the urban aristocracy of Strasbourg, and the educational background he would have received as part of this class likely influenced his depiction of Tristan’s boyhood and education. Gottfried was fluent in German, French, and Latin and may have worked in diplomacy, which possibly inspired his account of Tristan’s travels. Gottfried’s treatment of Isolde’s trial, during which Isolde is forced to carry red-hot irons, is another distinctive element of Gottfried’s Tristan and has been controversial in determining Gottfried’s attitudes toward religion. In 1215, a council forbade trials by ordeal of the sort in which Isolde is forced to participate, and Gottfried’s treatment is thought to mock those who still believed in these sorts of trials.
The final 11 chapters of the work (those written by Thomas) also demonstrate how the story evolved in the hands of different authors. For example, the use of white and black sails as a signaling device is an innovation that Thomas probably borrowed from the Greek myth of Theseus, in which Theseus’s father, Aegeus, requests that Theseus’s ship sail home with white sails if Theseus is alive following his quest to defeat the monstrous Minotaur, and black sails if he is dead; a similar miscommunication occurs, resulting in Aegeus’s death.
Socio-Historical Context: The Era of Feudalism in Europe and the Idealization of Chivalry and Courtly Love
Tristan was penned and takes place during a time of feudalism, a system of interlocking and hierarchical political and social relationships. The economy of Europe largely centered on agriculture, and land was held by a hereditary aristocracy. Under this system, powerful lords or rulers would grant land to less powerful vassals in exchange for loyalty—in particular, military service. Closely related to feudalism was manorialism, an economic system in which peasants lived and farmed on a lord’s estate in exchange for taxes or labor.
Although nobles ostensibly owed allegiance to kings, political and military power was typically fractured, and the power of kings did not resemble that which absolute monarchs managed to acquire centuries later. Some kings were even overshadowed in terms of wealth and martial power by nobles over whom they supposedly had authority. Violent conflict between lords was relatively common, and literary works of this period often focus on the military exploits of nobles and the battles for power between them. Although Tristan is typical in that virtually every character in the story is an aristocrat, Tristan takes on the identity of commoners, pretending to be a merchant or a minstrel at various points in the story.
The idea of chivalry developed within the context of feudalism. The extent to which chivalry was ever a historical reality is much debated, as is its relationship to institutions like the Church; some historians have argued that the Church promoted chivalry in an effort to “civilize” unruly knights, but elements of chivalry, such as the focus on martial prowess, at times coexisted uneasily with Christian teachings. Broadly speaking, however, chivalry was a code of conduct associated with medieval nobility and particularly with knights: Its tenets included loyalty to one’s lord, courage and personal honor, and piety and other Christian virtues (e.g., magnanimity, defense of the innocent and weak, etc.). These values, which likely reflected multiple cultural influences, began to coalesce into a distinctive ethos around the time of Tristan’s writing.
The emergence of chivalry coincided with and was influenced by the rising popularity of another ideal: courtly love. As promoted by figures like the French and English queen Eleanor of Aquitaine, courtly love centered on a knight’s unwavering devotion to a lady (usually married) of higher status. The knight’s love for a woman he could never attain would ennoble him, inspiring him to perform great feats in her honor and even mirroring the Christian’s devotion to God. As with chivalry more broadly, it is unclear whether courtly love was a significant phenomenon outside the bounds of chivalric romance. Marriages among the nobility generally involved political expediency rather than love, so whether in real life or in fiction, courtly love may have provided an outlet for otherwise unacknowledged feelings.
Gottfried’s Tristan demonstrates many of the tensions that underpinned both chivalry and courtly love. The most obvious of these is Tristan’s competing loyalty to Mark and to Isolde, but the details of Tristan and Isolde’s relationship are also revealing. While courtly love was typically romantic or even erotic in tone, consummation was not necessarily its “goal.” However, Tristan and Isolde do have sex, in obvious violation of religious and legal injunctions against adultery. The paradoxical nature of their affair—simultaneously transgressive and sublime—is typical of the rhetoric surrounding courtly love in general.
