Reviewed by: Männliche Hauptfiguren im ‘Tristan’ Gottfrieds von Strassburg. Charakterisierung, Konstellation und Rede by Anna Karin Charles Taggart anna karin, Männliche Hauptfiguren im ‘Tristan’ Gottfrieds von Strassburg. Charakterisierung, Konstellation und Rede. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2019. Pp. 388. isbn: 978–3–11–057225–4. €99.95. In the published version of her dissertation, Anna Karin provides a series of close readings centered on verbal and non-verbal communication in the thirteenth-century Tristan by Gottfried von Strassburg. The ‘primary male figures’ [männliche Hauptfiguren] referred to in the monograph’s title are Tristan, a knight, courtier, and minstrel, and King Marke, Tristan’s uncle, sovereign, and husband of their shared love interest, Isolde. Karin presents these two figures as polar opposites in how, what, and why they communicate. Tristan is ‘the director, who calls the shots’ [der Regisseur, der die Anweisungen gibt] (p. 260), exploiting courtly discourse and conventions as he assumes myriad different roles. Marke, by contrast, remains ‘trapped in the courtly code of behavior’ [Verhaftetsein im höfischen Verhaltenskodex] (p. 300) and adheres to this code long after his nephew and disreputable courtiers have undermined its ideals. Karin’s sharp focus on communication in Gottfried’s text demonstrates ‘just how sophisticated individual figures’ speech [...] can be even in the Middle High German epic despite being strongly shaped by rhyme and meter’ [wie differenziert [End Page 173] die individuelle Figurensprache bereits in der mittelhochdeutschen Epik trotz ihrer Überformung durch Reim und Metrik sein kann] (p. 363). This study devotes great attention to detail, and the arguments are clear and cogent. However, Karin is swimming with the tide. Much attention has already been paid to mimetic and diegetic language as well as the resulting slipperiness of meaning and interpretation in Tristan, as Karin’s own bibliography and use of secondary sources demonstrate. More fruitful is Karin’s decision to treat Tristan’s linguistic cunning as an integral part of his heroic status, calling him ‘a hero—and a linguistic hero’ [ein Held–und ein Sprachheld] (p. 260). Gottfried endows his primary figure with boundless linguistic prowess, and his Tristan impeccably mimics courtly behavior and discourse. At the same time, Tristan is unrepentantly savage toward his adversaries, plays fast and loose with the truth by taking on new identities, and shows little remorse for his transgressions. Rather than trying to reconcile Tristan’s courtliness with his lies and savagery, Karin allows these characteristics to exist side by side in the figure of the ‘linguistic hero.’ Karin builds on her lengthy analysis of the figure of Tristan and contrasts him with Marke, persuasively arguing that each figure represents competing communicative trends in Gottfried’s text: ‘Linguistically, the two male figures come across differently, as downright complete opposites: Where what Tristan says seems atypical, innovative, manipulative and proactive, Marke’s language comes across as restrictive, conventional and reactive’ [Die beiden Männerfiguren werden sprachlich als different wahrgenommen, regelrecht als Gegenpole: Da, wo Tristans Sprechen als außergewöhnlich, innovativ, manipulativ und aktiv erscheint, wirkt Markes Sprache begrenzt, konventionell und reaktiv] (p. 5). Tristan is a radical who ‘repeatedly creates new identities’ [immer wieder neue Identitäten konstruiert] (p. 50) through his words and actions, while Marke embodies a stable code of linguistic norms and behaviors as an ‘agent of courtly values’ [Vermittler höfischer Werte] (p. 285). There has been a tendency in the abundant research on Tristan to either condemn or exonerate the figure of Tristan based on a broad conception of courtliness. In much the same vein, Marke’s stringent adherence to courtly values, even when upended by his court and nephew, has frequently been interpreted as a sign of the king’s weakness. But Karin refuses to square the circle in either case. In her analysis, the figure of Tristan is cloaked in and employs the language of courtly literature, and he sets himself apart because of ‘his charming and, at the same time, horrifying nature’ [sein einnehmendes und gleichermaßen erschreckendes Wesen] (p. 261). Marke is confronted with the unenviable task of attempting to harmonize his nephew’s deviancy with a grossly inadequate courtly code. Gottfried endows each figure with a particular approach to language, and it...