Despite its recognized importance in medieval European litera- ture, the thirteenth-century Prose Tristan has attracted much less scholarly attention than the Prose Lancelot upon which the Tristan depends for inspiration and some content. Its complex manuscript tradition probably accounts for the lack of a critical edition of the entire romance and for the limited critical study.
Emmanuele Baumgartner's Le "Tristan en prose" (Paris, 1975) gives an extensive analysis of the Prose Tristan, but her work is not exhaustive and it concentrates especially on Version II (manuscripts B.N. 335-336). Versions I (represented by B.N. 756-757) and II diverge significantly in the second half of the romance, making study of them as one work impossible. Version II recounts the Grail Quest (taken from the Vulgate Queste) and concludes with some of the disasters which the Quest caused in Arthur's kingdom. Version I refers to the Quest, but uses it as a backdrop for Tristan's later adventures.
The differences in content of the two Versions reflect different understandings of the Arthurian material. Analysis of the characters and themes in B.N. 756-757 reveals a world dominated by pride, materialism, self-interest, and destructiveness. These personal weaknesses result in socially irresponsible behavior as well as lives which never grow toward a more altruistic state. By omitting the Queste material, Version I emphasizes the emptiness and futility of this world. The search for meaning is forever unsuccessful because the characters ignore the profound implications of the Grail Quest.
Technique and form both emphasize this literary vision. The prehistory, largely unstudied until recently, provides a first view of the major concepts in the romance. The moral weaknesses of the early characters recur in the descendants Marc, Tristan, and Iseut. Early atrocities announce later ones, particularly Tristan's adultery and Marc's treacherousness. With the Quest absent or vulgarized, the end repeats the prehistory by depicting a world which, given the moral frailties of the major figures, cannot evolve. Only the new knight Brunor seems capable of integrating love and knighthood to live an ennobled and socially responsible life.