Shadows and reflections: Tristan and Isolde in manuscripts and ivory
2014; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 30; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/02666286.2014.883206
ISSN1943-2178
Autores Tópico(s)Medieval Iberian Studies
ResumoAbstractIn a comprehensive study of the Tryst beneath the Tree episode, this essay argues that rather than collapsing into a single unified tradition of the Tristan legend, medieval literature and art separate chivalry from adultery, identifying them as two competing trajectories for narrative development of the Tristan legend, with the literary genre preferring chivalric prowess and the artistic tradition valorizing heterosexual desire even when it happens to be adulterous. As the Tryst episode became more and more popular in luxury art objects such as fourteenth-century Parisian ivory caskets, the Tryst as a literary episode became less central in medieval romance literature, appearing toward the end of the prose cycle, if included at all. These diverging trajectories provide insight into ways romance was understood and enjoyed by its medieval audiences. While romance texts, in verse or prose, do not necessarily target a gender-specific readership, the primary audience for these ivory boxes consisted of aristocratic women, in whose private possession these narrative receptacles functioned as idealized imaginings on the subject of love, representing desire as an allegory of the senses, primarily of sight and touch. While much of the argument is informed by visual programs of the illustrated Roman de la rose manuscripts, the crux of the essay contends that the Tristan material maintained its romance identity in the lovers’ mutual exploration of desire.KeywordsTristan and Isoldemedieval ivoryRoman de la roseadulterymedieval optical theory AcknowledgmentsThis article comes from my larger dissertation project entitled “Poetics of Luxury: The Social Life of Medieval Romance.” In compiling my research on fourteenth-century ivories, I am particularly indebted to Catherine Yvard and the Gothic Ivories Project at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London (http://www.gothicivories.courtauld.ac.uk) for allowing me access to the yet unpublished portions of their extensive catalog. In addition to the generous input of the journal’s editors and reviewers, I am grateful to David J. Wallace, Kevin Brownlee, and Jennifer Borland for reading various iterations of this essay. Archival research for this project and acquisition of high-resolution images were made possible by the Dalglish Chew Graduate Research Fund, the Stuart Currant Fund, and School of Arts and Sciences Dissertation Research Fellowship, University of Pennsylvania.Notes1 – I use the term “legend” as the broadest category that includes oral, written, and visual iterations of the Tristan and Isolde romance. In doing so, I am following the distinctions outlined succinctly by Molly C. Robinson in “Tristan: A Story of Precarious Belonging,” Tristania 18 (1998): 1–15.2 – Herbert L. Kessler, Seeing Medieval Art, Rethinking the Middle Ages Series (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2004); Jacqueline E. Jung, “The Tactile and the Visionary: Notes on the Place of Sculpture in the Medieval Religious Imagination,” in Looking Beyond: Visions, Dreams, and Insights in Medieval Art and History, ed. Colum Hourihane (University Park: Index of Christian Art, Princeton University and Pennsylvania State University Press, 2010), 203–40; I am also influenced by the sessions sponsored by the International Center for Medieval Art at the 47th International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo (May 2012) which delved into visuality and materiality as ways of approximating the medieval experience of physical objects. My argument enters into a dialogue recently reopened in the essay collection Visuality and Materiality in the Story of Tristan and Isolde, ed. Jutta Eming, Ann Marie Rasmussen, and Kathryn Starkey (Notre-Dame: University of Notre-Dame Press, 2012). This argument had been raised previously by Helaine Newstead in “The Tryst beneath the Tree: An Episode in the Tristan Legend,” Romance Philology 9 (1956): 269–84.3 – To date only one of these caskets has been traced to a specific medieval owner. The ivory casket stored at the Crakow (Krakow) Treasury and Armoury at Wawel Hill belonged to Jadwiga, a Hungarian princess who ascended to the royal throne of Poland in 1384. It is currently on display as part of an exhibition of the royal apartments Queen Jadwiga shared with her husband, royal consort Wladislaw Jagiello II, prince of Lithuania. More about Wawel Hill and its exhibits can be found on the official website (http://www.wawel.krakow.pl). For more about Jadwiga’s ownership of the multi-romance casket see Richard H. Randall, Jr., “Popular Romances Carved in Ivory,” in Images in Ivory: Precious Objects of the Gothic Age, ed. Peter Barnet (Princeton: Detroit Institute of Art and Princeton University Press, 1997), 63–79, esp. 64. I was able to analyze high-resolution images of the Krakow casket with the help of Catherine Yvard of the Gothic Ivories Project at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London, (http://www.gothicivories.courtauld.ac.uk).4 – In addition to Newstead’s analysis of the Celtic analogues (see note 2), see W. J. McCann, “Tristan: The Celtic and Oriental Material Re-examined,” in Tristan and Isolde: A Casebook, ed. Joan Tasker Grimbert (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1995), 3–36.5 – Gottfried’s poem and the Middle English poem will be used in this essay as Thomas-type narratives to approximate the episodes now lost in Thomas of Britain’s Tristran.6 – Julia Walworth, “Tristan in Medieval Art,” in Tristan and Isolde: A Casebook, 255–99, p. 257. Walworth is building upon Hella Frühmorgen-Voss’s work in “Tristan und Isolde in mittelalterlichen Bildzeugnissen,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 47 (1973): 645–63. Earlier in the twentieth century, Roger Sherman Loomis and Laura Hibbard Loomis explored a similar position in their survey volume Arthurian Legends in Medieval Art, Modern Language Association of America Monograph Series (New York: Modern Language Association of America, 1938).7 – In describing the Forrer casket, Michael Camille notes the disparity between the visual narrative and the extant written versions and attributes it to the influence of oral versions. Michael Camille, The Medieval Art of Love: Objects and Subjects of Desire (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998), 16.8 – One of the side panels does have an image of the two lovers by a tree, enclosed in an architectural motif, but there is no sign of intrusion. The scene may constitute the beginnings of the Tryst composition.9 – In this assertion I am aligning myself with Suzanne Lewis’ stance on narrative images in medieval art: “Images can only evoke a story the viewer already knows; the narrative lies in the perception of the pictorial rhetoric of bodies, gestures, and gazes enacting the drama of the moment within a strategically constructed framed space” (Suzanne Lewis, “Narrative,” in A Companion to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern Europe, ed. Conrad Rudolph [Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010], 86–105, p. 93.)10 – None of the scenes rendered on the Forrer Casket is listed in Stephanie Cain Van D’Elden’s catalog of “specific scenes,” in which she identifies visual compositions specific to the Tristan legend. Neither is the casket included in her catalog of visual representations of Tristan verse romances, though it may be included in her forthcoming book on the subject. Nevertheless, the example of the Forrer Casket demonstrates what is lacking in Van D’Elden’s rationale: she focuses on our modern (scholarly) identification of de-textualized scenes, but in doing so she disregards the recognition value of the visual sequence for the original audience of the caskets. For people who commissioned luxury objects like the Forrer casket, the basic story was already known. The narrative as it was given to the artist and even to the receiver of the casket pre-existed visualization. The Tryst becomes iconic to us (or a “specific scene” to borrow Van D’Elden’s term) only after it has been taken out of its original network of commodity circulation. See Stephanie Cain Van D’Elden, “Specific and Generic Scenes in Verse Tristan Illustrations,” in Eming et al., Visuality and Materiality in the Story of Tristan and Isolde, 269–98.11 – Ivory: An International History and Illustrated Survey, ed. Fiona St. Aubyn (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1987), 105–106.12 – The data are reconstructed from Renée L. Curtis’s edition of the prose text, Le roman de Tristan en prose, ed. Renée L. Curtis, 3 vols (Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer, 1985). The quantity of prose Tristan manuscripts exceeds the total number of all surviving manuscripts of Béroul, Thomas, Gottfried, Eilhart, the Norse Saga, and the Middle English poem combined. It continued to be popular in print, with at least nine separate editions printed between 1489 and 1533. In fact, the prose Tristan enjoyed such popularity in its post-medieval reception that it eclipsed the verse tradition, which was not rediscovered until the nineteenth century.13 – Margaret Alison Stones explores connections between Tristan and Lancelot-Grail manuscript illuminations in “The Artistic Context of Some Northern French Illustrated Tristan Manuscripts,” in Eming et al., Visuality and Materiality in the Story of Tristan and Isolde, 299–336.14 – The large-scale production of French ivory caskets with romance images has been localized to a series of closely connected workshops in rue de la Tableterie, near Porte Saint Denis, Paris, c.1330–1350 in Raymond Koechlin’s seminal study Les ivoires gothiques français, 3 vols, vol. 1 (Paris: Auguste Picard, 1924–1926), 472–523. More updated information, including images and provenance, is made available online through the efforts of the Gothic Ivories Project at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London (http://www.gothicivories.courtauld.ac.uk).15 – For a discussion of ivory caskets as marriage gifts see Thomas T. Hoopes, “An Ivory Casket in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,” Art Bulletin 8, no. 3 (1926): 127–39. For a discussion of decorative art objects as part of New Year courtly gift exchange see Brigitte Buettner, “Past Presents: New Year’s Gifts at the Valois Courts, ca.1400,” Art Bulletin 83, no. 4 (2001): 598–625.16 – Elizabeth L’Estrange discusses the female tournament spectators on the lid of multi-romance ivory caskets as models for how female owners interacted with images of male bodies in “Gazing at Gawain: Reconsidering Tournaments, Courtly Love, and the Lady who Looks,” Medieval Feminist Forum 44, no. 2 (2008): 74–96. Kathryn Starkey provides an excellent discussion of the Tryst beneath the Tree image in the context of fourteenth-century leather slippers found in the Low Countries in “Tristan Slippers: An Image of Adultery on a Symbol of Marriage?,” in Medieval Fabrications: Dress, Textiles, Clothwork, and Other Cultural Imaginings, ed. E. Jane Burns (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004), 35–53. Michael Curschmann provides images and a brief discussion of an ivory mirror back, an ivory hairpin, and a wooden comb with images of the Tryst in “From Myth to Emblem to Panorama,” in Eming et al., Visuality and Materiality in the Story of Tristan and Isolde, 110–16.17 – The following romance caskets include scenes from Tristan and Isolde: St. Petersburg, Hermitage Museum I, Inf. N. T.60 (all images from Tristan); Hermitage Museum II, Inf. N. T. 61 (multi-romance); New York, Metropolitan Museum, Inv.17. 190, 173 (multi-romance); Baltimore, Walters Art Museum, Inv. 71. 264 (multi-romance); London, British Museum, Inv. 368 (multi-romance); London, British Museum, (Forrer Casket, all images from Tristan); Cracow, Cathedral Treasury (multi-romance); Birmingham, Barber Institute of Fine Arts, Inv. N. 39. 26 (multi-romance); London, Victoria and Albert Museum, Inv. 146–1866, 35549 (multi-romance); Florence, Museo Bargello, Inv. 123c 248170 (multi-romance); Paris, Musée de Cluny–Musée national du Moyen Âge, Cl. 23840 (multi-romance).18 – The Parisian and other centers of ivory carving are discussed in Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, Ivoires du moyen age (Fribourg: Office du Livre, 1978) 131–56. The guild structure in Paris is discussed in Elizabeth Sears, “Ivory and Ivory Workers in Medieval Paris,” in Barnet, Images in Ivory: Precious Objects of the Gothic Age, 19–37.19 – Eva R. Hoffman, “Pathways of Portability: Islamic and Christian Interchange from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century,” in Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Mediterranean World, ed. Eva R. Hoffman (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), 317–49. Hoffman provides a telling example in her discussion of the reception room in the Norman Palace in Palermo, the design of which is influenced by carved royal ivory boxes from Andalusia. Jerrilyn Dodds discusses the production of ivory objects in royal workshops of al-Andalus, including carved boxes with figural imagery, and locates some of these ivory objects in church treasuries in Northern Spain, revealing admiration for Islamic art in Christian settings; See Hoffman, “Islam, Christianity, and the Problem of Religious Art,” in Late Antique and Medieval Art of the Mediterranean World, 350–66. Herbert Kessler provides yet another example of Islamic influence in Christian ivory carving in his discussion of the ivory covers for a mid-twelfth-century Book of Psalms, the borders of which “deploy acanthus scrolls in a fashion characteristic of Islamic carved work,” framing six circular mandorlas with Biblical images (Kessler, Seeing Medieval Art, 40–41).20 – The subject of ivory as a medium for Gothic statuettes of Mary most recently appeared in two sessions sponsored by Dom-Museum Hildesheim at the 47th International Congress on Medieval Studies at Kalamazoo (May 2012).21 – “Ivory, the smooth, creamy tusk of an elephant or walrus, conveyed the luxuriousness it had already acquired in antiquity and the symbolism Christianity had given whiteness and also elephants” (Kessler, Seeing Medieval Art, 27). Though walrus bone was frequently used as a substitute for ivory, it appears slightly darker in color but still retains the spiritual significance attributed to ivory.22 – Danielle Gaborit-Chopin, “The Polychrome Decoration of Gothic Ivories,” in Barnet, Images in Ivory: Precious Objects of the Gothic Age, 47–61.23 – A good overview on the subject complete with illustrations can be found in Richard H. Randall, Jr., “Popular Romances Carved in Ivory,” in Barnet, Images in Ivory: Precious Objects of the Gothic Age, 63–79; also see Randall’s catalogue of secular ivories pp. 217–48. Images of the various multi-romance caskets are available online through the cataloging efforts of Catherine Yvard and the Gothic Ivories Project at the Courtauld Institute of Art, London (http://www.gothicivories.courtauld.ac.uk).24 – Paula Mae Carns, “Compilatio in Ivory: The Composite Casket in the Metropolitan Museum,” Gesta 44, no. 2 (2005): 69–88, p. 70. Carns’ focus, however, is limited to a single composite casket, and she provides only one, albeit famous, example of fourteenth-century compilatio—BnF MS fr.1450, in which Chrétien’s romances are inserted into Wace’s chronicle. Carns bases her opinions regarding BnF MS fr. 1450 on Lori J. Walters’ study “Le Rôle du scribe dans l’organisation des manuscrits des romans de Chrétien de Troyes,” Romania 106 (1985): 308–13.25 – The two exceptions are the Cluny casket (figure 11) and the multi-romance Hermitage casket.26 – The most famous of these unicorn images are known as sequences of Unicorn Tapestries, different versions of which are currently part of permanent collections at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and Musée national du Moyen Âge, Musée de Cluny. See Margaret B. Freeman, The Unicorn Tapestries, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1983). For a thorough discussion of the unicorn in wood carvings see Christa Grössinger, “The Unicorn on English Misericords,” in Medieval Art: Recent Perspectives. A Memorial Tribute to C. R. Dodwell, ed. Gale R. Owen-Crocker and Timothy Graham (New York: Manchester University Press, 1998), 142–58.27 – Book of Hours, use of the Augustinian Canons of the Windesheim Chapter (Hours of the Virgin), and Utrecht (Office of the Dead), in Latin and Dutch. Netherlands, Utrecht, c.1500. The Morgan Library & Museum, MS G.5, fols. 18v–19.28 – Richard de Fournival, Le Bestiaire d’amour et la réponse du bestiaire, bilingual edition, publication, translation, presentation and notes by Gabriel Bianciotto, Champion classiques (Paris: Champion, 2009). So far I have found several instances of Le Bestiaire d’amour bound together with Roman de la rose texts, but never in combination with a Tristan narrative.29 – Martine Meuwese catalogs a number of ivory caskets according to subject matter in appendices to her article “Chrétien in Ivory,” in Arthurian Literature XXV, ed. Elizabeth Archibald and David F. Johnson (Rochester: D. S. Brewer, 2008), 119–52. For appendices see pp. 148–52.30 – Only four panels of this casket are medieval. The central panel in figure 6, or the lid of the casket, is a late nineteenth-century addition. In a separate essay, presented at the 23rd Triennial Congress of the International Arthurian Society, Bristol, England, July 2011, I address the “emergence” of the lid with the Tryst and the Separating Sword scenes as a late nineteenth-century addition to the casket. If the Tryst had been planned for display on the original lid, it probably would appear in conjunction with Tristan’s arrival at Mark’s court in a fool’s disguise, as it does in the Cluny casket (figure 11) as well as in the Hermitage multi-romance casket. Considering other instances of disguise on this single-romance casket and the uncertain temporality of narrative sequences, the visual program may have been influenced by the anonymous Folie Tristan.31 – Michael Curschmann, “Images of Tristan,” in Gottfried von Strassburg and the Medieval Tristan Legend: Papers from an Anglo-North American Symposium, ed. Adrian Stevens and Roy Wisbey (Rochester: D. S. Brewer, 1990), 1–18, p. 14.32 – Curschmann, “From Myth to Emblem to Panorama,” 116.33 – Jacqueline Thibault Schaeffer, “Modulations of Moduli in the Tristan Illuminated Manuscripts: Secular ‘Tryst’ and Biblical ‘Temptation’ Scenes,” in Manuscripts in Transition: Recycling Manuscripts, Texts and Images, Proceedings of the International Congress held in Brussels (5–9 November, 2002), ed. Brigitte Dekeyzer and Jan Van der Stock (Paris: Peeters Leuven, 2005), 139–48. Particularly relevant is her conclusion on p. 146.34 – Mark Cruse connects the visual construction of this scene with the material function of a writing tablet on the ivory cover of which it appears, concluding that both conveyed messages of love. See “Intimate Performance: An Ivory Writing Tablet Cover at the Cloisters,” in Cultural Performances in Medieval France: Essays in Honor of Nancy Freeman Regalo, ed. Eglal Doss-Quinby, Roberta L. Krueger, and E. Jane Burns (Rochester: D. S. Brewer, 2007), 57–70, p. 67. Cruse’s argument could be extended to the Tryst beneath the Tree scene as it appears on a leather pouch, which served as a container for a writing tablet with images of courtship on its ivory covers. This fourteenth-century French writing tablet is currently held at the Musée provincial des Arts anciens du Namurois-Trésor d’Oignies.35 – Kenneth Tiller, “Reading like a Knight in Malory’s Book of Sir Tristram,” paper presented at the 23rd Triennial Congress of the International Arthurian Society, Bristol, England, July 2011.36 – Suzanne Lewis, “Images of Opening, Penetration and Closure in the Roman de la Rose,” Word & Image: A Journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry 8, no. 3 (1992): 215–42, p. 215.37 – Mahaut, Countess of Artois was one of the few female patrons who owned both an ivory casket and several romance manuscripts. Unfortunately, the decorative program of her ivory casket is unknown. Paula Mae Shoppe (Carns), “Reading Romances: The Production and Reception of French Gothic Ivories in the Context of Late Medieval Literary Practices” (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2000), 5–7, available through Proquest Dissertations and Theses Fulltext; and Carns, “Compilatio in Ivory,” 84–85.38 – R. H. Rouse and M. A. Rouse, “The Commercial Production of Manuscript Books in Late-Thirteenth-Century and Early-Fourteenth-Century Paris,” in Medieval Book Production: Assessing the Evidence, ed. Linda L. Brownrigg (Los Altos Hills: Anderson-Lovelace, Red Gull Press, 1990) 103–16, p. 110.39 – Rouse and Rouse, “The Commercial Production of Manuscript Books,” 109–10.40 – Stones situates a mid-fourteenth-century prose Tristan manuscript (Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Museum, Getty Ludwig XV.5), in a Parisian circle of manuscript workshops/ateliers associated with Jeanne de Montbaston. Stones also connects a prose Tristan manuscript now held at the Vatican (Pal. lat. 1964) with the Maubeuge Master, whose work features prominently in this Parisian center in Rouse and Rouse. Other manuscripts produced in this circle include: BnF fr. 12577; Munich, BSB Clm 10177; BnF fr. 24391, and the Busch Collection Roman de la rose manuscripts; BnF fr. 24388; BnF fr. 12577 (Stones, “The Artistic Context of Some Northern French Illustrated Tristan Manuscripts,” 331). Sylvia Huot adds BnF fr. 25526 manuscript of the Rose to this list, also completed in the 1330s in Paris by Jeanne and Richard de Montbaston (Sylvia Huot, The Romance of the Rose and its Medieval Readers: Interpretation, Reception, Manuscript Transmission [New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993], 274).41 – Suzanne Conklin Akbari, Seeing through the Veil: Optical Theory and Medieval Allegory (Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2004), 22–23.42 – David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976), 1.43 – Akbari, Seeing through the Veil, 23.44 – Akbari (ibid.) has demonstrated an influence of perspectivist theories on allegorical writing of fourteenth-century poets, particularly Dante and Chaucer.45 – I am following Akbari among others who argue for a purposeful division of the poem into two parts. The first (ll. 1–4028) was completed by Guillaume de Lorris around 1225, and the second and much larger part (4029–21,750) completed by Jean de Meun around 1265. As Kevin Brownlee has established, the first half was intentionally left incomplete, and its aims are radically different from those of the second half. Kevin Brownlee, “Reflections in the Miroer aus Amoreus: The Inscribed Reader in Jean de Meun’s Roman de la Rose,” in Mimesis: From Mirror to Method, Augustine to Descartes, ed. John D. Lyons and Stephen G. Nichols, Jr. (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1982), 60–70. Also see David Hult, Self-fulfilling Prophecies: Readership and Authority in the First “Roman de la Rose” (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).46 – Guillaume de Lorris et Jean de Meun, Le Roman de la rose, published by Félix Lecoy, 3 vols, vol. I (Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, 1973). All further references are cited by line number.47 – Guillaume de Lorris and Jean de Meun, The Romance of the Rose, trans. Charles Dahlberg (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1983). All further translations are cited by page number.48 – Ovid, Metamorphoses, Books 1–8, Loeb Classical Library, ed. Jeffrey Henderson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977). All further references to the Latin text are cited by line number. All translations are my own.49 – Akbari, Seeing through the Veil, 24, referencing Roger Bacon, De multiplicatione specierum, Book 1, section 1.50 – Bacon’s theory of species was available as its own treatise De multiplicatione speciorum as well as part of his Opus maius. In his popular short treatise Perspectiva communis, John Pecham (c.1235–1292) made Bacon’s (and Alhazen’s) work even more widely available.51 – Roger Bacon and the Origins of Perspectiva in the Middle Ages, A Critical Edition and English Translation of Bacon’s Perspectiva with Introduction and Notes by David C. Lindberg (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 253.52 – The distinction in tenses in Old French (and in Dahlberg’s English translation) creates a temporal distinction between the past tense of the dreamer as lover and the present tense of the dreamer as poet. The term “Amant” encompasses all three: dreamer, lover, and poet.53 – In Guillaume de Lorris’ text, Amors shoots Amant with five arrows that enter through his eye and penetrate his heart. The five arrows are Biauté or Beauty, Simpleice or Simplicity, Cortoisie or Courtesy, Compaignie or Company, and Biau Semblant or Fair Seeming (see Lecoy ll. 1679–1878, Dahlberg 54–56). Most visual representations of this allegorical process of falling in love reduce the sequence of five arrows to a single event.54 – “Béroul’s Tristran,” ed. and trans. Norris J. Lacy, in Early French Tristan Poems, ed. Norris J. Lacy, 2 vols, vol.1 (Rochester: D. S. Brewer, 1998), 3–216. All references to the Old French text and all modern English translations are cited by line number from this edition.55 – E. Jane Burns, “How Lovers Lie Together: Infidelity and Fictive Discourse in the Roman de Tristan,” in Tristan and Isolde: A Casebook, 75–93, p. 85.56 – ‘Onbre’ and ‘umbre’ are variant spellings for ‘ombre’.57 – “La Folie Tristan (Oxford)”, ed. and trans. Samuel N. Rosenberg, in Early French Tristan Poems, ed. Norris J. Lacy, vol. 2 (Rochester: D. S. Brewer, 1998), 278–309. All references to the Old French text and all modern English translations are cited by line number from this edition.58 – V. A. Kolve provides a black-and-white image of the Hermitage multi-romance casket as well as a brief discussion of its visual narrative in Telling Images: Chaucer and the Imagery of Narrative II (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 240, figure VIII.18.59 – Eilhart von Oberg, Tristrant und Isalde, mittelhochdeutsch by Danielle Buschinger, neuhochdeutsch by Wolfgang Spiewok (Reineke: Verlag Greifswald, 1993). All line numbers are cited from this edition.60 – Eilhart von Oberge, Tristrant, trans. J. W. Thomas (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1978), 88. All translations are cited by page number from this edition.61 – Henrike Manuwald and Nick Humphrey, “A Painted Casket in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London,” Antiquaries Journal 90 (September 2010): 235–60, p. 247, figure 2.62 – A black-and-white facsimile of the illustration appears in Schaeffer, “Modulations of Moduli in the Tristan Illuminated Manuscripts,” 140, Ill. 2.63 – Interestingly, the addition of the dwarf in the tree provides a different fourth focal point, shifting the balance of the composition.64 – Due to the fragmentary nature of Thomas of Britain’s Tristran, Gottfried’s work is generally used to approximate the content of the missing episodes. I am supplementing Gottfried’s account with the Middle English “Sir Tristrem,” which is also based on Thomas of Britain’s Tristran.65 – Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan und Isold, edited by Walter Haug and Manfred Günter Scholz, Band I: Bibliothek des Mittelalters (Berlin: Deutcher Klassiker Verlag, 2011). All line numbers are cited from this edition.66 – Gottfried von Strassburg, Tristan, in Gottfried von Strassburg Tristan Translated Entire for the First Time with the Surviving Fragments of the Tristran of Thomas with an Introduction by A. T. Hatto (New York: Penguin Books, 2004), 40–297, p. 234. All translations are cited by page number from this edition.67 – In her discussion of how the Tryst illustrations are specific to the Tristan verse romances, Van D’Elden bases her analysis on the German texts of Eilhart and Gottfried, both of which position two figures in the tree. In doing so, she disregards the French and Anglo-Norman textual sources, such as Béroul and the anonymous Folie Tristan, which place only a single person in the tree. Van D’Elden does not address the shadow/reflection distinctions. See Van D’Elden, “Specific and Generic Scenes in Verse Tristan Illustrations,” 272–81.68 – For a detailed discussion of this image in relation to the visual program of the manuscript as a whole see Julia C. Walworth, Parallel Narratives: Function and Form in the Munich Illustrated Manuscripts of Tristan and Willehalm von Orlens, King’s College London Medieval Studies XX (London: King’s College London Centre for Late Antique & Medieval Studies, 2007), 188–89.69 – Sir Tristrem, The Auchinleck Manuscript, ed. David Burnley and Alison Wiggins, National Library of Scotland Digital Library (July 2003) (http://www.nls.uk/auchinleck/mss/tristrem.html). All line numbers are cited from the transcription provided by Burnley and Wiggins.70 – The date of production for the Auchinleck manuscript is roughly 1330, but the composition of the romance texts it anthologizes is approximately 1300. The manuscript illuminations found in the Auchinleck remain largely understudied mostly due to the level of vandalism that befell the manuscript. The vast majority of the manuscript illuminations have been removed: either cut out, leaving behind rough rectangular holes (this practice occurs in thirteen places in the extant manuscript), or removed together with the entirety of the folio (at least eighteen folios that correspond to opening pages of new texts have been excised). Of six remaining illuminations, only five are potentially recognizable, as one is thoroughly defaced. Four out of five images are connected to romance texts, and the fifth appears at the opening of the Paternoster. The remaining illuminations introduce texts thematically. My observations regarding the Auchinleck manuscript are based on archival research conducted at the National Library of Scotland in July 2011, March 2013, and October 2013.71 – Christa Grössinger addresses the physical proximity of Capture of the Unicorn and Tryst beneath the Tree compositions on misericords in the Chester and Lincoln Cathedrals in “The Unicorn on English Misericords,” 142–58.72 – Melissa Furrow, Expectations of Romance: The Reception of a Genre in Medieval England (Rochester, NY: Boydell & Brewer, 2009), 163–69, p. 164, plate 1.73 – Emmanuèle Baumgartner groups six of these manuscripts together—BnF fr. 97, 100–101, 540, 349, 772, and Chantilly 648—as belonging to a single textual tradition, which she categorizes as the Third Variant (v.III). BnF fr. 757 belongs to the First Variant (v.I or the short version) but overlaps textually with the Third Variant group in the second half of the narrative, which includes the Tryst scene. See Emmanuèle Baumgartner, Le “Tristan en prose”, Essai d’interprétation d’un roman médiéval (Genève: Droz, 1975), 67–71. The Third Variant was partially edited by Joël Blanchard in The Romance of Tristan in Prose, Two Captivities Tristan (Paris: Klincksieck, 1976). The First Variant was edited by Joël Blanchard and Michel Quéreuil in Le Roman de Tristan en Prose: Version du manuscrit fr. 757 de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris (Paris: H. Champion, 1997).74 – Blanchard and Quéreuil, Le Roman de Tristan en Prose, 378. All further references are cited by page number.75 – The Romance of Tristan: The Thirteenth-Century, Old French “Prose Tristan,” trans. Renée L. Curtis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 306. All translations are cited by page number from this edition.76 – A color facsimile of the image can be found in Stones, “The Artistic Context of Some Northern French Illustrated Tristan Manuscripts,” 306, figure 12.6.77 – Lewis, “Images of Opening, Penetration and Closure in the Roman de la Rose,” 215–42. In addition to Lewis’ examples, the following Roman de la rose manuscripts contain images of Amant entering the Garden of Deduiz: Bodleian Library, MS Douce 195, fol. 6r; Bodleian Library, MS Selden Supra 57, fol. 5r; Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, 5226, fol. 6v; Bibliothèque nationale de France, fr. 801, fol. 5r; J. Paul Getty Museum, Ludwig XV 7, fol. 6v; Morgan Library & Museum, M. 948, 12r. Many more Rose manuscripts show Amant conversing with Oiseuse outside the Garden of Deduit, with towers and crenellated walls enclosing trees and sometimes birds inside.78 – A large color facsimile of the image can be found in Stones, “The Artistic Context of Some Northern French Illustrated Tristan Manuscripts,” 308, figure 12.7. Another reproduction together with a thorough discussion appears in Schaeffer, “Modulations of Moduli in the Tristan Illuminated Manuscripts,” 141, Ill. 4.79 – The composition is a mirror image of the one found in the Munich manuscript of Gottfried, as the positions are reversed: the tree is on the right and the lovers stand to the left of it.80 – Fifteenth-century Rose manuscripts feature elaborate architectural designs that delimit the garden, while fourteenth-century manuscripts exhibit smaller crenellated towers and/or wattle fences.81 – Lewis, “Images of Opening, Penetration and Closure in the Roman de la Rose,” 226.82 – Ibid. 226.83 – Schaefer, “Modulations of Moduli in the Tristan Illuminated Manuscripts: Secular ‘Tryst’ and Biblical ‘Temptation’ Scenes,” 146.
Referência(s)