= Thomas_Malory =

======================================================================
= Thomas_Malory =
======================================================================

Introduction
======================================================================
Sir Thomas Malory was an English writer, the author of 'Le Morte
d'Arthur', the classic English-language chronicle of the Arthurian
legend, compiled and in most cases translated from French sources. The
most popular version of 'Le Morte d'Arthur' was published by the famed
London printer William Caxton in 1485. Much of Malory's life history
is obscure, but he identified himself as a "knight prisoner",
apparently reflecting that he was either a criminal, a
prisoner-of-war, or suffering some other type of confinement. Malory's
identity has never been confirmed. Since modern scholars began
researching his identity the most widely accepted candidate has been
Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel in Warwickshire, who was imprisoned
at various times for criminal acts and possibly also for political
reasons during the Wars of the Roses. Recent work by Cecelia Lampp
Linton, however, presents new evidence in support of Thomas Malory of
Hutton Conyers, Yorkshire.

Identity
======================================================================
Most of what is known about Malory stems from the accounts describing
him in the prayers found in the Winchester Manuscript of 'Le Morte
d'Arthur'. He is described as a "", distinguishing him from several
other candidates also bearing the name Thomas Malory in the 15th
century when 'Le Morte d'Arthur' was written.

At the end of the "Tale of King Arthur" (Books I-IV in the printing by
William Caxton) is written: "For this was written by a knight prisoner
Thomas Malleorre, that God send him good recovery." At the end of "The
Tale of Sir Gareth" (Caxton's Book VII): "And I pray you all that
readeth this tale to pray for him that this wrote, that God send him
good deliverance soon and hastily." At the conclusion of the "Tale of
Sir Tristram" (Caxton's VIII-XII): "Here endeth the second book of Sir
Tristram de Lyones, which was drawn out of the French by Sir Thomas
Malleorre, knight, as Jesu be his help." Finally, at the conclusion of
the whole book: "The Most Piteous Tale of the Morte Arthure Sanz
Gwerdon par le shyvalere Sir Thomas Malleorre, knight, Jesu aide ly
pur votre bon mercy.", a mix of English and French roughly meaning:
"The most pitiable tale of the Death of [King] Arthur, without reward
for/by the knight Sir Thomas Malory; Jesus aid him by your good
mercy."

However, all these are replaced by Caxton with a final colophon
reading: "I pray you all gentlemen and gentlewomen that readeth this
book of Arthur and his knights, from the beginning to the ending, pray
for me while I am alive, that God send me good deliverance and when I
am dead, I pray you all pray for my soul. For this book was ended the
ninth year of the reign of King Edward the Fourth by Sir Thomas
Maleore, knight, as Jesu help him for his great might, as he is the
servant of Jesu both day and night."

With the exception of the first sentence of the final colophon, all
the above references to Thomas Malory as a knight are, grammatically
speaking, in the third person singular, which leaves open the
possibility that they were added by a copyist, either in Caxton's
workshop or elsewhere. However, scholarly consensus is that these
references to knighthood refer to a real person and that that person
is the author of 'Le Morte d'Arthur'.

The author was educated, as most of his material "was drawn out of the
French," which suggests a degree of French fluency indicating that he
might have been from a wealthy family. A claimant's age must also fit
the time of writing; as described below, this has been a major point
of contention among all modern scholars for determining the author's
identity.

Candidates
======================================================================
Since the late 19th century there has been a great deal of scholarly
research into the identity of Sir Thomas Malory, author of 'Le Morte
d'Arthur'. As detailed below, the earliest modern investigations
suggested that Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel was the only Thomas
Malory living in 15th-century England who was a knight. However, the
apparently great age of this candidate at the time of the work's
completion has always been a source of contention. In the early 20th
century, scholarly revelations of this candidate's extensive criminal
record and multiple imprisonments threw further doubt on the matter
because of a perceived discordance with the chivalric ideals espoused
in 'Le Morte d'Arthur'. The discovery of the Winchester Manuscript in
1934 revealed that the author was in some form of imprisonment at the
time of writing; this has generally been taken to support the
candidate from Newbold Revel, though the support is ambiguous because
that candidate's extensive prison record does not actually include the
time of writing.

These tensions have inspired scholars to propose alternative
identities; most notably, Thomas Malory of Papworth St. Agnes and
Moreton Corbet and Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers and Studley Royal.
Both are much less attested in the documentary record than the
candidate from Newbold Revel. As described in detail below: neither is
clearly recorded as having been a knight, but both come from knightly
families and could plausibly have been knighted. Both seem to have
been of a more appropriate age at the time of writing, but neither is
known to have been imprisoned at any time.

To date, no candidate for authorship has ever consistently commanded
widespread support other than Malory of Newbold Revel. However,
despite the evidence for other candidates being "no more than
circumstantial", eminent scholars suggest that the question of the
author's identity is both critically important and yet unresolved.
However, Linton argues that Malory of Hutton Conyers was a knight of
the church, and as her recent work garners scholarly attention, it may
bring the matter into different focus.

Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel
================================
Since George Lyman Kittredge, a professor at Harvard, published the
first significant investigation into Malory's identity in 1894, the
primary candidate for authorship has been Thomas Malory of Newbold
Revel in Warwickshire. Kittredge discovered a record of this Malory's
service under Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick in William
Dugdale's 'Antiquities of Warwickshire' (1656), stating of Sir Thomas:

In modern English:

Dugdale's history also revealed that this Malory had served as a
Member of Parliament, and recorded the date of his death, the location
of his tomb, and many other details of his life and family. As Dugdale
lived in Warwickshire and apparently had access to Malory's home and
direct descendants during a time when 'Le Morte' remained very popular
and was still being printed, scholars have noted that any mention of
his authoring 'Le Morte' is conspicuously absent in Dugdale's record.
To date, however, this candidate for authorship remains the only
Thomas Malory known to be living at the time of writing who was
clearly recorded as having been a knight.

Kittredge accepted the details of Dugdale's history at face value:
specifically, that he was commissioned to serve at Calais under Henry
V; a campaign which took place in 1414-15. Under this view, Malory
would have been a junior officer in Henry V's famous Battle of
Agincourt - a member of what William Shakespeare cemented in popular
memory as the Band of Brothers in the famous St. Crispin's Day Speech.
However, subsequent scholars have questioned this interpretation,
suggesting that Dugdale's record was erroneous and that Malory instead
served under Henry VI, at an action in Calais in 1436 - a brief
mobilization which was disbanded without combat and which Dugdale, in
their view, erroneously called a siege. P.J.C. Field suggests that the
first public record of this Malory in 1439 is an indication of when he
reached the date of his majority (at the age of 21).

Scholars consider the question of this timeline to be important in
determining authorship, as the original timeline would place Malory's
birth in the early to mid 1390s. He would therefore have been at least
75 when 'Le Morte' was completed, as he must have been at least in his
late teens or early 20s at the time of his commission: his peers of
the same rank in Dugdale's record were in their mid- to late-twenties.
According to the alternate timeline, his birth would have been around
1415-1418 and his age would have been a much more reasonable 55 to 58
years when 'Le Morte' was completed.

William Matthews emphasizes the importance of Malory's age thus:
"There is considerable evidence that the medieval view was that by
sixty a man was bean fodder and forage, ready for nothing but death's
pit... it might be best to find out how old the Warwickshire knight
really was in 1469." Researching the question, Matthews made an
original discovery: Sir William Dugdale's surviving 15th century notes
and papers in the Bodleian Library on the Agincourt campaign contain a
lengthy military roster (apparently in Dugdale's own hand) with the
following detail:

Because this original French note perfectly matches the English
translation in Dugdale's published work, and because a number of the
other knights listed on the same commission roster are known to have
died long before 1436, Matthews concludes that these commissions
cannot refer to the 1436 campaign; and therefore Thomas Malory of
Newbold Revel must have been commissioned into Henry V's Agincourt
campaign around 1414 or 1415, confirming Kittredge's original timeline
and making this Malory in his mid-70s to early 80s at the time the
book was completed. Matthews asserts, "seventy-five is no age at all
to be writing 'Le Morte Darthur' in prison."

Linton comes to Dugdale's defense, disputing the need for an
alternative timeline. She notes that scholars have accepted Dugdale's
account of this Malory without question, except for the matter of his
age. She agrees with other scholars that Dugdale knew the Malorys of
Newbold Revel and suggests that he would have certainly made the
connection between this Malory and 'Le Morte' if there were any
connection to be made.

Much more detail was added to Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel's
biography by Edward Hicks in 1928, revealing that this Thomas Malory
had been imprisoned as a thief, bandit, kidnapper, attempted murderer,
and rapist; which hardly seemed in keeping with the high chivalric
standards of his book. Helen Cooper referred to his life as one that
"reads more like an account of exemplary thuggery than chivalry".
Shortly before his death, C. S. Lewis stated that this issue was a
grave one for readers of 'Le Morte d'Arthur'.

E. K. Chambers emphasizes the importance of the problem by quoting the
author himself:

In Modern English:

Chambers comments, "Surely the Sir Thomas of Monks Kirby [the parish
in which Malory of Newbold Revel lived] could not have written this
without a twinge."

Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel was born to Sir John Malory of
Winwick, Northamptonshire, who had served as a Justice of the Peace in
Warwickshire and as a Member of Parliament, and Lady Phillipa Malory,
heiress of Newbold. He was knighted before 8 October 1441, became a
professional soldier, and served under Henry de Beauchamp, 1st Duke of
Warwick. While it is not recorded how he became distinguished, he
acted as an elector in Northamptonshire. However, in 1443 he and
accomplice Eustace Barnaby were accused of attacking, kidnapping, and
stealing 40 pounds' worth of goods from Thomas Smythe, though nothing
came of this charge. He married a woman named Elizabeth Walsh, with
whom he had at least one son, named Robert, and possibly one or two
other children. Despite the criminal charges against him, he seems to
have remained in good standing with his peers because in that same
year, Malory was elected by the men of Warwickshire to Parliament to
serve as a knight of the shire for the rest of 1443, and was appointed
to a royal commission charged with the distribution of money to
impoverished towns in Warwickshire. In 1449-50, he was returned as
member of Parliament for Great Bedwyn, a seat controlled by the Duke
of Buckingham.

Malory's status changed abruptly in 1451 when he was accused of
ambushing Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham, a prominent
Lancastrian in the Wars of the Roses, along with 26 other men sometime
in 1450. The accusation was never proved. Later in 1451, he was
accused of extorting 100 shillings from Margaret King and William
Hales of Monks Kirby, and then of committing the same crime against
John Mylner for 20 shillings. He was also accused of breaking into the
house of Hugh Smyth of Monks Kirby in 1450, stealing 40 pounds' worth
of goods and raping Smyth's wife, and with attacking her again in
Coventry eight weeks later. At this period, a charge of rape could
also apply to some acts of consensual sex and some nonsexual crimes;
several scholars have suggested that the accusation did not refer to
rape as it is now defined. However, Field's analysis of the specific
Latin terminology of the charges concludes that they were intended to
refer to actual rapes.

On 15 March 1451, Malory and 19 others were ordered to be arrested.
Nothing came of this and, in the following months, Malory and his
cohorts were charged with a series of crimes, especially violent
robberies. At one point, he was arrested and imprisoned in Maxstoke
Castle, but he escaped, swam the moat, and returned to Newbold Revel.
Nellie Slayton Aurner points out that most of these crimes seem to
have been targeted at the property and followers of the Duke of
Buckingham; and that as Malory was a supporter of the family of
Buckingham's former rival, the Duke of Warwick, there may have been a
political motive behind either Malory's attacks or Buckingham and
others bringing charges against him. Aurner suggests that Malory's
enemies tried to slander him, giving evidence that the Duke of
Buckingham was Malory's long-time enemy.

Malory finally came to trial on 23 August 1451, in Nuneaton, a town in
the heartland of Buckingham's power and a place where Malory found
little favour as a supporter of the Beauchamps. Those accused included
Malory and several others; there were numerous charges. Malory was
convicted and sent to the Marshalsea Prison in London, where he
remained for a year. He demanded a retrial with a jury of men from his
own county. Although this never took place, he was released. By March
1452, he was back in the Marshalsea, from which he escaped two months
later, possibly by bribing the guards and gaolers. After a month, he
was back in prison yet again, and this time he was held until the
following May, when he was released on bail of 200 pounds, paid by a
number of his fellow magnates from Warwickshire. Malory later ended up
in custody in Colchester, accused of still more crimes, involving
robbery and the stealing of horses. Once again, he escaped and once
again was apprehended and returned to Marshalsea Prison.

From Malory's first criminal charge in 1443 through his eighth charge
in 1451 after several escapes from captivity, little was done to
contain his actions. In 1451, a royal arrest order was issued,
followed by increasing fines on the lords overseeing his imprisonment
in case of his escape, culminating in a maximum fine of 2000 lbs set
by the King's Bench in June 1455. As Malory aged through several
subsequent imprisonments, fines for his escape decreased to 1000 lbs
and then 450 lbs in January and October 1457, and then 100 lbs if not
captured when he was somehow at large again despite no formal release
in 1458. Malory was released as part of a general pardon at the
accession of King Edward IV in 1461.

After 1461, few records survive which scholars agree refer to Malory
of Newbold Revel. In 1468-1470, King Edward IV issued four more
general pardons which specifically excluded a Thomas Malory. The first
of these names Malory a knight; and applied to participants in a
campaign in Northumberland in the North of England by members of the
Lancastrian faction. Field interprets these pardon-exclusions to refer
to Malory of Newbold Revel, suggesting that Malory changed his
allegiance from York to Lancaster, and that he was involved in a
conspiracy with Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick to overthrow
King Edward. Matthews, having shown that Malory of Newbold Revel was
likely in his seventies by the time of the Northumberland campaign and
living much further to the South, interprets this record as referring
to a different candidate for authorship.

No record survives of Malory of Newbold Revel (or any other Thomas
Malory) being in prison at the time 'Le Morte' was completed. As Field
describes, "Repeated scholarly searches of legal records have found no
trace of arrest, charge, trial, or verdict" that would place any
Thomas Malory in prison at the time documented by the author in the
Winchester manuscript. Field suggests that Malory's political rivals
"simply put him in prison without formal charge" and that he could
have been released from prison in October 1470, at the collapse of the
Yorkist regime and the temporary return to the throne of Henry VI.

In 1462, Malory settled his estate on his son Robert and, in 1466 or
1467, Robert fathered a son named Nicholas, Malory's grandson and
ultimate heir. Malory died on 14 March 1471 and was buried in Christ
Church Greyfriars, near Newgate Prison. His interment there suggests
that his misdeeds had been forgiven and that he possessed some wealth.
However, it was certified at the granting of probate that he owned
little wealth of his own, having settled his estate on his son in
1462. Malory's grandson Nicholas eventually inherited his lands and
was appointed High Sheriff of Warwickshire in 1502.

Dugdale, writing in the early to mid-17th century, recorded that the
following inscription had been engraved on Malory's tomb: "HIC JACET
DOMINUS THOMAS MALLERE, VALENS MILES OB 14 MAR 1470 DE PAROCHIA DE
MONKENKIRBY IN COM WARICINI," meaning: "Here lies Lord Thomas Mallere,
Valiant Soldier. Died 14 March 1470 [new calendar 1471], in the
parish of Monkenkirby in the county of Warwick." The tomb itself had
been lost when Greyfriars was destroyed in 1538 under King Henry VIII
in the Dissolution of the Monasteries.

Linton, in her defense of Dugdale's account, notes that he never
offered a connection between the Newbold Revel Malory and 'Le Morte,'
even though the book was well known in Dugdale's time.

Thomas Malory of Papworth St. Agnes
=====================================
Shortly after Kittredge's original article on Malory of Newbold Revel,
a second candidate was presented in an 1897 article in 'Athenaeum' by
A.T. Martin, who proposed that the author was Thomas Malory of
Papworth St Agnes on the Huntingdonshire-Cambridgeshire border.
Martin's argument was based on a will made at Papworth on 16 September
1469 and proved at Lambeth Palace on 27 October the same year. This
identification was taken seriously for some time by editors of Malory,
including Alfred W. Pollard, the noted bibliographer, who included it
in his edition of Malory published in 1903.

This Thomas Malory was born on 6 December 1425 at Moreton Corbet
Castle, Shropshire, the eldest son of Sir William Mallory, member of
Parliament for Cambridgeshire, who had married Margaret, the widow of
Robert Corbet of Moreton Corbet. Thomas inherited his father's estates
in 1425 and was placed in the wardship of the King, initially as a
minor, but later (for reasons unknown) remaining there until within
four months of his death in 1469.

Richard R. Griffin later provided further support for this candidate
in 'The Authorship Question Reconsidered'. Published after Matthews's
book promoting the Hutton Conyers candidate (as described below),
Griffin makes several arguments; most notably that the Papworth
candidate's dialect would match that of 'Le Morte' more closely than
either of the other candidates. As detailed below, a leading dialect
expert identified the language of 'Le Morte' as being most
characteristic of Lincolnshire. Griffith points out that while the
current candidate lived in Shropshire as a child and on the
Cambridgeshire-Huntingdonshire border in adulthood, both his father
and grandfather were from Lincolnshire; and that neither of the other
two major candidates had any known connection to Lincolnshire.

Little else is known of this Malory, apart from one peculiar incident
discovered by William Matthews. A collection of Chancery proceedings
includes a petition brought against Malory by Richard Kyd, parson of
Papworth, claiming that Malory ambushed him on a November evening and
took him from Papworth to Huntingdon, and then to Bedford and on to
Northampton, all the while threatening his life and demanding that he
either forfeit his church to Malory or give him 100 pounds. The
outcome of this case is unknown, but it seems to indicate that this
Malory was something other than an ordinary country gentleman.
However, while this candidate's father and several other close family
members were knights, no clear evidence survives showing that this
Malory was ever actually knighted.

Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers
=================================
The third contender emerged in the mid-20th century: Thomas Malory of
Hutton Conyers and Studley Royal in Yorkshire. This claim was put
forward in 1966 in 'The Ill-Framed Knight: A Skeptical Inquiry into
the Identity of Sir Thomas Malory' by William Matthews, a British
professor who taught at UCLA (and also transcribed the diary of Samuel
Pepys). This contender is also championed by Linton.

Matthews makes many arguments for this candidate, with his main focus
on linguistic clues both in the Winchester manuscript and the Caxton
edition of 'Le Morte d'Arthur'; including distinctive dialectal and
stylistic elements such as alliteration that are characteristic of
northerly writing. His claim drew scholarly attention including a
review co-written by eminent medievalist E. F. Jacob and the famed
linguist Angus McIntosh. Neither reviewer accepted Matthews's claims
entirely. Jacob agrees that the dialect of 'Le Morte' is not that of
Warwickshire, deferring to McIntosh for a more detailed dialectal
analysis while noting that Matthews makes a good case for reopening
the question of Malory's identity. Linton, however, disputes several
of McIntosh's arguments, presenting a data driven analysis of the
dialect in the 'Morte.' Besides this analysis, she dismisses some of
McIntosh's arguments as trivial, noting quibbles between what dialect
is northern and what is northerly, for example.

McIntosh's dialectal analysis states that: “To put the matter simply,
the original 'Le Morte Darthur' contained various forms which are too
northerly for the everyday language of Newbold Revel”. While McIntosh
does not specifically support Matthews' claim of an origin in the
Hutton Conyers area of Yorkshire, he ultimately concludes that the
language would have been "most at home" in Lincolnshire but is
characteristic of roughly anywhere north of a line from Chester to the
Wash (see inset map). He suggests that Malory “simply had access to,
and was deeply steeped in, far more northerly romance material" than
the specific texts which he is thought to have used.

Two central elements of Matthews's argument for the Hutton Conyers
candidate include his evidence of the advanced age of the Newbold
Revel candidate at the time of writing, described in that section
above; and Matthews' analysis of the exclusion of a 'Thomas Malarie,
knight' from a general pardon issued in 1468. The question of the
identity of the Malory listed in this document is widely regarded as
critical to the final identification of the author. In Field's words:
"the Sir Thomas Malory who was exempted from pardon must have been the
author of the 'Morte'. No other conclusion is possible." While Field's
conclusion is widely accepted, Linton suggests he has attributed it to
the wrong Malory, arguing that Malory of Hutton Conyers, a close
associate of Neville, is the likely knight exempted from that pardon.

The pardon applied to a group of Lancastrians in a military campaign
in the winter of 1462 in the Northern county of Northumberland near
the Scottish border. Matthews shows that Thomas Malory of Hutton
Conyers was closely related to the 'Humphrey Neville, knight' listed
just before him in the short list of those excluded. Matthews also
points out that this Northern campaign was geographically much closer
to Hutton Conyers in Yorkshire than to Newbold Revel, and concludes
that the document referred to the Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers -
not to Malory of Newbold Revel, who was a Yorkist and would have been
something in excess of 70 years old; far too old to have taken part in
this Northern military campaign. Matthews therefore promotes this
document as strong evidence that Malory of Hutton Conyers was indeed a
knight after all and the author of the 'Morte'. Linton offers
additional evidence to illustrate the close connection between
Humphrey Neville and Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers.

Matthews's interpretation was not universally accepted, primarily
because he could not find evidence that the Yorkshireman was a knight.
Linton, however, has removed that principal objection, providing
extensive detail about the Malorys of Yorkshire and offering evidence
that Thomas of Yorkshire was a Knight Hospitaller, a knight of the
church. She also examines the provenance of some of the known sources
of the Morte and demonstrates that this Malory would have had ready
access to these documents.

In spite of Matthews's strong evidence of the Newbold Revel knight's
advanced age, Field has long argued that the 1468 exclusion from
pardon refers to Malory of Newbold Revel and instead shows that that
candidate changed his lifelong Yorkist loyalty to become a
Lancastrian. It seems equally plausible, however, to realize that the
Knight Hospitaller from Hutton Conyers, who was close to Neville, was
excluded from pardon, rather than to think the Newbold Revel knight
changed political stripes.

Outside of the contested pardon-exclusion, Thomas Malory of Hutton
Conyers was not recorded as having been a knight in the generally
accepted secular sense, though his elder brother John and most of his
recent forefathers were knights. If to accept Linton's argument that
the Yorkshire Thomas was a Knight Hospitaller, the primary objection
to his authorship is removed and the contradictions presented by the
Newbold Revel knight become irrelevant.

Thomas Malory of Wales
========================
Even only a few years after the original publication of 'Le Morte',
there was speculation as to Malory's identity. The earliest
identification was made by John Bale, a 16th-century antiquarian, who
declared that Malory was Welsh, hailing from 'Mailoria' on the River
Dee. This theory received further support from Sir John Rhys, who
proclaimed in 1893 that the alternative spelling indicated an area
straddling the border between England and North Wales, Maleore in
Flintshire and Maleor in Denbighshire. On this theory, Malory may have
been related to Edward Rhys Maelor, a 15th-century Welsh poet. It was
also suggested by antiquary John Leland that he was Welsh, identifying
"Malory" with "Maelor". However, most modern scholars have disregarded
this early work on the basis that no such place as 'Mailoria' has ever
been identified on the Dee or elsewhere; no Welsh Thomas Malory
appears in the surviving historical record; and Malory identified
himself as English rather than Welsh.

Works
======================================================================
Malory's 'Le Morte d'Arthur' ('The Death of Arthur') is the source of
the modern form of most Arthurian mythology, and is the only major
work of English literature between Geoffrey Chaucer, around a century
earlier, and Shakespeare, around a century later. It has been called
the first English novel. Malory's main sources for his work included
Arthurian French prose romances, mainly the Vulgate ('Lancelot-Grail')
and Post-Vulgate cycles, Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Historia Regum
Britanniae' ('History of the Kings of Britain'), and two anonymous
English works called the Alliterative 'Morte Arthure' and the Stanzaic
'Morte Arthur'.

The entire work is eight romances that span twenty-one books with 507
chapters, which was said to be considerably shorter than the original
French sources, despite its vast size. Malory was responsible for
organizing these diverse sources and consolidating them into a
cohesive whole. The work was originally titled 'The Whole Book of King
Arthur and of His Noble Knights of the Round Table', but printer
William Caxton changed it to 'Le Morte d'Arthur' (originally 'Le Morte
Darthur') before he printed it in 1485, as well as making several
other editorial changes. According to one theory, the eight romances
were originally intended to be separate, but Caxton altered them to be
more unified.

There has been some argument among critics that Malory's 'Le Morte
d'Arthur' was primarily intended as a political commentary of Malory's
own era. Malory portrays an initially idyllic past under the strong
leadership of King Arthur and his knights, but as intrigue and
infighting develop, the utopic kingdom collapses, which may have been
intended as a parallel and a warning against the infighting taking
place during the Wars of the Roses. The seemingly contradictory
changes in King Arthur's character throughout the work have been
argued to support the theory that Arthur represents different eras and
reigns throughout the tales. This argument has also been used to
attempt to reconcile Malory's doubtful reputation as a person who
continually changed sides with the unexpected idealism of 'Le Morte
d'Arthur'. It remains a matter of some debate whether this was a
deliberate commentary or an imaginative fiction influenced by the
political climate. All these arguments depend upon acceptance of the
Newbold Revel Malory as the author.

The sources of the romances that make up 'Le Morte d'Arthur', and
Malory's treatment of those sources, correspond to some degree with
those of a poem called 'The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle';
they also both end with a similarly worded prayer to be released from
imprisonment. This has led some scholars in recent years to believe
that Malory may have been the author of the poem.

In fiction
======================================================================
A young Malory appears as a character at the end of T. H. White's book
'The Once and Future King' (1958), which was based on 'Le Morte
d'Arthur'. This cameo is included in the Broadway musical 'Camelot'
(1960), and in its film adaptation (1967), where his name is given as
"Tom of Warwick"; reflecting the general acceptance of Malory of
Newbold Revel (in Warwickshire) as the author through most of the 20th
century, despite the criminal history of that candidate in his later
life.

In addition to White's treatment, many other modern versions of the
Arthurian legend have their roots in Malory, including John Boorman's
film 'Excalibur' (1981). The discovery of Malory's book and its
acquisition by William Caxton form key elements in 'The Load of
Unicorn' (1959), a children's novel by Cynthia Harnett.

Sources
======================================================================
*Cooper, Helen, 'Le Morte Darthur: The Winchester Manuscript' (OUP
1998)
*Malory, Thomas, Cowen, Janet & Lawlor, John. 'Le Morte D'Arthur.'
Volume II. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books,
1969.[https://books.google.com/books?id=1ES2_CBnThkC&pg=PA531&dq=gentlemen+and+gentlewomen+that+readeth+this+book+of+Arthur&ei=FzNTR_LwCZDeoAK55fjUCw&sig=oJjUISK5mzaHeqLBswqDRuHjeDs
googlebooks] Retrieved 2 December 2007
* Vinaver, Eugène, "Sir Thomas Malory" in 'Arthurian Literature in the
Middle Ages', Loomis, Roger S. (ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.
* Spisak, James W. 'Caxton's Malory: A New Edition of Sir Thomas
Malory's Le Morte Darthur'. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University
of California Press, 1983.
* Field, P. J. C., 'The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory',
Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1993.
* ------ "[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17899 Malory, Sir
Thomas] (1415x18-1471)", 'Oxford Dictionary of National Biography',
Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2011 [1 Jan 2013]
(requires login)
* Smith, Sheila V. Mallory, 'A History of the Mallory Family',
Phillimore, 1985,
* Hardyment, Christina, 'Malory: The Life and Times of King Arthur's
Chronicler', HarperCollins, 2005,
*
* Riddy, Felicity. 'Sir Thomas Malory'. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987.
Print.
* Whitteridge, Gweneth. "The Identity of Sir Thomas Malory,
Knight-Prisoner". 'The Review of English Studies'; 24.95 (1973):
257-265. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2009.
* Malory, Thomas & Matthews, John. 'Le Morte d'Arthur.' London:
Cassell & Co, 2000.
* Matthews, William. 'The Ill-Framed Knight: A skeptical inquiry into
the identity of Sir Thomas Malory', University of California Press,
1966 [https://archive.org/details/illframedknights00matt archive.org]
* Linton, Cecelia Lampp. 'The Knight Who Gave Us King Arthur: Sir
Thomas Malory, Knight Hospitaller'. Front Royal, VA: Christendom
College Press. 2023. ISBN 979-8-9868157-2-5.

External links
======================================================================
*
*
*
*
* [http://faculty.smu.edu/arthuriana/ Arthuriana: The Journal of
Arthurian Studies]
*
[http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/c/cme/cme-idx?type=header&idno=MaloryWks2
Le Morte d'Arthur (Caxton edition, in Middle English)] at the
University of Michigan
*
[https://web.archive.org/web/20040412051838/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m25m/
Le Morte d'Arthur], from [http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/
eBooks@Adelaide]
*

License
=========
All content on Gopherpedia comes from Wikipedia, and is licensed under CC-BY-SA
License URL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
Original Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malory