Talk:Tristan and Iseult
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
If I may throw this idea out there...what if we made a new page just for the Tristan Literature (i.e. from "The Tristan Legend cycle" to before the "Modern Literary adaptations" sections). It seems to me that the info mainly is about the historical literature and authors that wrote about the legend and not about the actual romance between Tristan and Iseult. If that won't do, then the page should be more appropriately named Tristan Legend or Tristan Literature since Iseult is not mentioned in all portions of the story/legend (while Tristan, being the hero, is)...or the info could be moved back to the Tristan page. Stoa 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's fine how it is. "Tristan and Iseult" refers to the legend itself, not just to the romance between the characters. I think it's the best title for the article; the romance doesn't need a separate page, if you think that section is lacking just expand it here.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This has become something of a recurring problem. Tristan is both the name of a charecter and the popular name for a cycle of legends centering around him. I say we should keep the T&I pages for the origin and development of the legend through different cultures and media, and then we should post more extensive pages on Isolt, Mark, and perhaps some minor charectars. We might want to also change the name to the T&I legend, T&I cycle or sub-genre or whatever you want to call it.
I noticed that Sherlock Holmes has seperate pages for his movies, but considering that Tristan has a comparatively small number of film adaptations I think we should either keep it here or link to a Tristan section to page with a more comprehensive listing of Arthurian films. How does that sound?--Dudeman5685 20:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm planning to renovate the Tristan & Isolde page and just wanted to make sure there are no objections prior to doing so. I plan to include this information in between the "origins" and "modern adaptations" sections on the Tristan & Isolde page. I am going to take out the second paragraph in the origins section since it seems irrelevant and uninformative—the article could do w/o it. I think keeping the information that User:Dudeman5685 recently added (i.e the different sources where the legend is mentioned, etc) needs stay on the Tristan page. The info seems to be more appropriatly placed where it is now on the Tristan page since it covers where Tristan as a character originated, and little about the actual legend. I also plan to remove the "enduring nature of Tristan and Isolde" section on the Tristan page because it seems too personal for Wiki; I might add a link to the legend page there instead. Finally, I plan to move the Tristan & Isolde page to Tristan and Iseult to avoid any confusion with the movie, opera, etc. Stoa 00:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to say that the "origins" section is a complete shambles. Most of the information there that is presented as the most likely facts are either exaggerations or incorrect! Chani
I haven't studied the accuracy of the page, but I tried rewording some things that were confusing, including trying to use Isolde throughout instead of Iseult (perhaps Iseult should be used throughout instead of Isolde, but it should be consistent whichever is used). --RobertC 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
If I may add my 2 cents, I think we should keep my original contributions on the T&I page, since what I was really referenceing the development of the legend, and its travels through European literature and folklore, not just the charectar. I'm going to try a similear thing with the movies.--126.96.36.199 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
My work on Tristanian film is, obviously, a work in progress. Please don't delete anything yet (feel free to edit) I will finish up a more complete list in the next few days.--Dudeman5685 04:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Another note about the movies: I don't know exactly how to wikify this material, but I suggest the contents should be devided to have one section for modern literary adaptaions, and one for films, with the usual 5.1, 6.1 scheme.--188.8.131.52 16:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Alright, the good news is I've finished the Movies section. The bad news is I have finished the movies section. I got all my info from the Arthurian filmography from the Camolot Project, and, while comprehensive, offers precious little actual information on the films discuseed. I have only actually seen one of these moves, the James Franco one, and that one is the only one thats not on there! Any further information about these films would be appreciated.
What happened to English?
For some reason the paragraphs on the English Tristan stories was removed. I tried to repost them, but Wikipedia is giving me a hell of a time, dleteing Scandinavian when I tried to repost or other hijinks. Don't know what wrong. Will try to normalize things--Dudeman5685 00:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
OK the entire Later medeival section is screwed up. I don't know what the hell is going on. Try reposted the English or Scandinavian sections and you'll see what I mean. When you go to the edit page it shows they are already there. Then they will sho up in places they shouldn't. Someones gotta fix this, we worked too hard on it--Dudeman5685 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems to be working fine when I try to edit. Perhaps you are clicking on the wrong edit button; try clicking on the main section (not the minor ones like English, etc.) or just click "edit this page" at the top. On a side note...when did we change Iseult to Isodel? --Stoa 02:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- It looks like you got screwed up with the references when you moved stuff around, Dudeman. I don't have the time to sort this out right now, Stoa, can you handle it?--Cúchullain t/c 02:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, my reference #7 was intended to be for the Cliges article in the New Arthurian encyclopedia. I tried to re-edit that but when I tried to edit it it gave me the reference symbols, not text. It important because the Cliges claim is somewhat controversial.--Dudeman5685 05:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The references for the Persian and Classical analogs were for the introduction to Steward Gregory's edition/translation of Thomas of Brittany. And some of the newer info on the Spanish Tristaniana I actually got from the Spanish langauge Tristan article on Wikipedia.--Dudeman5685 05:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I changed them. If you want to add any more references, just fill in the info in between these: <ref></ref> --Stoa 04:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed Auchinleck version to TristrEm
I changed the info in the "English" section to read the way Tristan is written in that version - "Tristrem". If you want proof then look up what i think is the only published version of the "English story"
Lancelot of the Laik and Sir Tristrem Kalamazoo, Michigan: Medieval Institute Publications, 1994 (and again in '97 i think)
Theres something else. The version on the Auchinleck manuscript probably isnt even English. Its most likely Scottish origin. I didnt change the entry because there is some debate still.
Eric Forest 22:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Isolde.jpg
The image Image:Isolde.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Similarity to Aegeus & Theseus.
The 'White Sails \ Black Sails' mixup resulting in tragedy is also present in the greek story of Theseus & the Labyrinth, where it causes Aegeus to commit suicide. I'm not aware of any sources which comment on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
No reference to Shakespeare?
Tristan is from Cornouaille
There is a confusion in the article. In the legend he is from Cornouaille, the "Cornwall" region from Brittany, not the region of England. See Arthur Cotterell, Mythologie Celtique, Celiv, Paris, 1997, (ISBN 2-86535-336-2). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpeilon (talk • contribs) 20:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's Cornwall in Britain in Beroul, Thomas of Britain, the Prose Tristan, and Thomas Malory.--Cúchullain t/c 21:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- All of which are a far cry from being the original. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually now that I rethink of it: the prose tristan is set in Brittanny, not in insular Britain; it's clearly about Leon and not some mythical submerged island. As for Mallory, we owe him much nonsense about saxon Arthurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Fable, Myth, Parable
I did not see anywhere in the article the origin of the name "Tristan" (originally Drustan) Triste is Spanish/Latin for sad. The original story is Celtic, the character's name was Drustan. At some point during the middle ages, when Latin was the common language through the Church, the name was changed. Read Mary Stewart & Diana Paxon's authors notes about the stories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Common source source
Does anyone know where the info under the section 'Common Source?' came from? I found it really interesting and I'd love to incorporate it in a paper. If not that, can someone at least tell me who wrote that section, so I can contact them? I'd appreciate it! T Rewald (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the word "archetypal" from the first sentence (and done some other minor clean-up at the same time), as the word assumes a certain (usually Jungian) hypothesis about the origins of folklore motifs. The hypothesis isn't necessarily wrong, but if it's going to be applied here it should be sourced. 850 C (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)