No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
One of the most important recent publications in the field of late mediaeval literature is Eugène Vinaver's edition of The Works of Sir Thomas Malory,1 which has made available a more accurate text for the study of Malory's writings than any scholar has previously had at his disposal. As Vinaver points out in the Preface to this work (i, vi), his edition, which is based on the recently discovered Winchester MS.,2 is much closer to what Malory actually wrote than is Caxton's emended version, and consequently invalidates many conjectures made by those who have known Malory only as he is presented by Caxton. A careful examination of this MS. and a painstaking comparison of it with the sources on which Malory drew have caused Vinaver to reverse several opinions that he previously supported by cogent argument3 and have led him to two general conclusions: (1) that Malory's writings should not be regarded as a unified account of the rise and fall of King Arthur and the Round Table, but rather as eight separate romances whose subjects were drawn independently from the Arthurian cycle (I, XXIX-XXXV) and (2) that the order of composition of the tales was not in the sequence presented by both Caxton and the Winchester MS., since evidence shows (I, XXV-XL) that the story of the war with Rome, which Vinaver calls the Tale of the Noble King Arthur and the Emperor Lucius (Caxton Book v), was written before the Tale of King Arthur (Caxton Books I, II, III, and IV).4
1 References in parentheses to Malory's tale throughout this article are to this edition (Oxford, 1947).
2 Discovered in 1934 by Mr. W. F. Oakeshott, librarian of the Fellows' Library at Winchester College.
3 See not only Vinaver's Malory (Oxford, 1929), which was published before the discovery of the Winchester MS., but also two articles written after he began work on it: his “Malory's Morte Darthur in the Light of a Recent Discovery”, Bull. John Rylands Library, xix (1935), 438–457; and E. V. Gordon and E. Vinaver, “New Light on the Text of the Alliterative Morte Arlhure”, Med. JEv., vi (1937), 81–98.
4 Following Vinaver's practice, I shall hereafter refer to the Tale of the Noble King Arthur and the Emperor Lucius as the Tale of Arthur and Lucius.
5 Vinaver points out that, because of inconsistent readings, the Thornton MS. of the Morte Arlhure (the only surviving copy) evidently does not preserve the version which Malory must have used. He also comments on Malory's discarding the last 1120 lines of the poem as an item of proof in his contention that the Tale of Arthur and Lucius was written as an independent story.
6 See also the comments on Malory's style in Vinaver's Malory, pp. 103–105.
7 This point of view was once held by Vinaver and is expressed in his article written in collaboration with E. V. Gordon, “New Light”, etc., pp. 84–85. The arguments used in the present article, however, will go beyond those earlier employed by Vinaver.
8 J. A. W. Bennett, in his review of The Works of Malory, RES, xxv (1949), 163. Margaret Schlauch—N. Y. Times Book Review (Sept. 12, 1948), p. 28—also accepts the new chronology.
9 Vinaver's contention is that the story of Marhalt and the giant is an example of Malory's tendency to reproduce scenes from his own work. Since the French source of the Tale of King Arthur offers no satisfactory analogue of the incident and the similarity of Malory's two accounts is apparent (both giants using iron clubs, both sitting near trees— two firs in Arthur and Lucius and under a holly tree in King Arthur—and both dying in water), Malory's source for the story of Marhalt and the giant must have been either his own Tale of Arthur and Lucius or the poem from which it was taken, the Morte Arthure. Vinaver eliminates the suggestion of the Morte Arthure as the direct source of both incidents, because then “it would be impossible to account for the fact that in both cases Malory has made exactly the same choice of words and phrases and has adapted them in the same way (cf. where he syghe hym sytte in the first passage, syghe where he sate in the second, and the syghte had he rechide how unsemly pat soft salt sowpande in the Morte Arthure). The only reasonable theory seems to be that the first passage was modelled on the second, i.e. on Malory's own version of the Tale of Arthur and Lucius. This work must, therefore, have been written before the Tale of King Arthur.” The poor logic of these deductions is pointed out by J. A. W. Bennett (RES, xxv, 163–164); by R. H. Wilson in his review of The Works (MP, XLVI [1948], 136); and by the critic for the TLS (June 7,1947), pp. 273–274. All three reviewers call attention to the weakness of Vinaver's argument; in drawing his analogy, they remark, Vinaver depends largely on the fact that Marhalt's giant sits under a holly tree and Arthur's between two fir trees, but that actually the “two fyrys”, which Vinaver glosses as “two firs”, would seem by their context to mean “two fires.”
10 For Vinaver's discussion of this structural theory, see Works, i, xxx-xxxv, and the Commentary passim. Bennett (RES, xxv, 161) accepts Vinaver's theory with qualifications; Wilson (MP, XLVI, 136–137) tentatively rejects it, but remarks that Vinaver's inferences have made it impossible any longer to assume the unity of Malory's work without a careful re-examination of the tales. In English Literature at the Close of the Middle Ages, Oxford History of English Literature (Oxford, 1945), n, ii, 190–191, Sir Edmund Chambers, who had some knowledge of Vinaver's conclusions before the publication of The Works, accepts the proposed chronology of Arthur and Lucius, but rejects the theory of the “separate romances.”
11 In his Introduction (i, xxxii) and in the Commentary, Vinaver cites inconsistencies in the tales, such as knights appearing before their births and other knights reappearing after their deaths, to substantiate his theory of the separate romances. It is possible, however, that these inconsistencies derive from Malory's difficulty in “reducing” the large body of material which he had before him to a more compact form; it is also possible that Malory's narrative skill, which, though great, was not highly refined, was inadequate for resolving all such problems.
12 See Tarda Vorontzoff, “Malory's Story of Arthur's Roman Campaign”, Med. Mv., vi (1937), 121, n. 1. Miss Vorontzoff, one of the early scholars to work with the Winchester MS., makes this notation about Malory's style in his account of the Roman wars: “Malory seems to retain … the characteristic set phrases indicating transition: ‘Now leave we … and speak we’ etc., or ‘Now turn we to’ which he found in his French sources (or laisse le conte a parler de … et retourne a parler de').” Although this evidence of Malory's reading in the French romances before writing the Tale of Arthur and Lucius is not conclusive, it suggests that he had done so.
13 The fact that the Tale of Arthur and Lucius contains many alliterative passages not paralleled in the Thornton MS. attests to the probable existence of a lost version of the Morte Arlhure. A discussion of this hypothetical lost MS. may be found in the article by Miss Vorontzoff, cited above, n. 12, and in the article by Gordon and Vinaver, “New Light”, etc. Vinaver summarizes these longer discussions in the Commentary to The Works, i11, 1360–1361.
14 All succeeding references to the Tale of Arthur and Lucius will be to Vinaver's edition of the Winchester MS.
15 In “Malory's Story”, etc., pp. 103–104, Miss Vorontzoff mentions the appearance of this incident in Wace. She does not, however, credit Wace with being Malory's immediate source; instead, she postulates a sequence of lost MSS, which carried the incident down into the “lost” Morte Arthure, where it was read by Malory.
16 This assumption is further supported by Malory's version of the first battle with Lucius; Malory credits Bors with being the first British warrior to seek combat with the Romans, whereas the Morte Arthure, following Layamon, gives the adventure to Gawain. See n. 26 infra.
17 Morte Arthure, or The Death of Arthur, ed. E. Brock, EETS, OS, 8 (London, 1871), 11. 368, 1720, 1999, 2073, 3638, and 4266. It should be noted that 11. 3638 and 4266 occur in the section of the poem not used by Malory. All succeeding references to the Morte Arthure will be to this edition.
18 Gordon and Vinaver, “New Light”, etc., p. 85.
19 Even in the Tale of Arthur, which covers the years before Lancelot was old enough to prove himself as a knight, Malory mentions his future prowess (l, 162, 179–180).
20 In a note on Lancelot's speech, Vinaver remarks that “it is not clear to what lands Lancelot is referring” (in, 1367). If Malory is allowed knowledge of the whole Arthurian legend, however, it would be clear that he means to designate Lancelot's own country in France bordering on Lucius' domain.
21 See iii, 1367. Vinaver's note on the line, Than leepe in yong sir Launcelot de Laake with a lyght herle, shows that he also sees a change in the character of Malory's Lancelot. He makes much the same statement as he does in “New Light”, etc. (quoted supra, p. 883) : that it seems to have been Malory's purpose “to make Lancelot appear young and ‘light-hearted.‘ ??
22 Vinaver earlier felt that Malory's writings had political implications, although he did not suggest any specific significance. (See his Malory, p. 110, and “Malory's Morte Darthur in the Light of a Recent Discovery”, p. 454.) However, a specific political allegory, which comprises not only the interpretation of the Roman war given here by Vinaver but also an explanation of other parts of the story, was worked out by Nellie Slayton Aurner in “Sir Thomas Malory—Historian?” PMLA, XLvni (1933), 362–391.
23 See also Vinaver's notes on this passage, iii, 1373.
24 In the Commentary (iii, 1387) Vinaver points out that the italicized Une in this quotation was Malory's addition to the speech, but draws no conclusion.
25 Gordon and Vinaver, in “New Light”, etc., p. 85, comment on Malory's anticipation of both Tristram and Lancelot in the story of the Roman war.
26 In a note on this passage (iii, 1375) Vinaver remarks the fact that the Morte Arthure follows Layamon in giving this adventure to Gawain, but that all other versions give it to Bors or Gerin. This, in itself, seems further evidence of Malory's knowledge of the “French books” before he began writing Arthur and Lucius.
27 Vinaver, Malory, pp. 35–36, and R. H. Wilson, “Malory's Naming of Minor Characters”, JEGP, XLii (1943), 364–385.
28 Bors (under the name “Boice” and its variants) is mentioned only five times in the Morte Arthure: 1) 1. 1263 in a list of knights sent as messengers to the Romans; 2) 1. 1378 as having killed an enemy; 3) 11. 1426–1456 among other knights doing battle with the Romans; 4) 11. 1483–1485 as being rescued in battle by Gawain; and 5) 1. 1605 in the list of knights who are to convoy the prisoners to Paris.
29 See Morte Arthure, 2165–2196, for the death of Kay, and 2234–2241, for the death of Bedivere.
30 See Gordon and Vinaver, “New Light”, etc., p. 85. This is another convincing argument presented by Vinaver and later discarded in favor of the “separate romances” theory.
31 The preparation of this article has been facilitated by Dr. R. M. Lumiansky, to whom I am indebted for helpful suggestions. I have been unable to consult two Malory studies that include a consideration of Malory's use of sources in the Tale of Arthur and Lucius: Miss Helen I. Wroten's dissertation, now in preparation at the University of Illinois, and Dr. R. H. Wilson's article, “Malory's Early Knowledge of Arthurian Romance”, Univ. of Texas Studies in English (forthcoming).