Talk:Thomas Malory

New Research

For those interested, a sizable new scholarly work was just published on the identity of Thomas Malory for the first time in decades, entitled The Knight Who Gave Us King Arthur: Sir Thomas Malory, Knight Hospitaller. The author, as I hinted a year ago on the talk page below, is Cecelia Lampp Linton, PhD. She's my mother, so in order to avoid conflict of interest I won't add any information from her work to the Article and will leave it to the community to decide what's appropriate. The work is about 400 pages and includes a lot of original research from over the past 20 years, and new analysis of previous scholarship. I won't go into any of the content here either, other than to point out that you can tell a lot about her theory from the title. — Preceding comment added by Jeblinton (talk • contribs) 16:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Needs improvement

Much is wrong here. Will try to fix later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geogre (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 November 2003 (UTC)

I'm working on a much more detailed examination of the competing Newbold-Revel timelines as analyzed by Kettridge, Vinaver, Field, Matthews and Spisak that should clear things up. Coming soon. Jeblinton (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking this a bit at a time; corrected a factual error in the summary section - Caxton did not identify Malory as a knight prisoner; this was suspected based on some passages in which the author showed personal knowledge of the hardship of imprisonment; this is the reason Hicks and others went delving into prison records and turned up Malory of Newbold Revel's crime spree, publishing the details in 1928. The 'knight presoner' quote is from Malory himself and comes from the Winchester manuscript (which revealed Malory's words that Caxton had left out) - this wasn't discovered until 1934. Jeblinton (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I also rephrased the intro section a bit to be more in keeping with neutral tone on the identity controversy. More to come in this vein. Jeblinton (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that's "knyght presoner" in Malory's Middle English or "knight prisoner" in modern. Jeblinton (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Much more is wrong here than I originally realized. Full disclosure: I'm biased based on a new work that's about to be published, and I have a personal interest in it, so I'll only try to clean up the record using well-established previous sources. The short version of my concern is that there are two competing timelines for Malory of Newbold Revel; most of the scholarly work until the late 20th century assumed he was born around 1393. This is because Dugdale's history of Warwickshire notables way back in 1656, just a century or so after Le Morte's publication while it was still very popular and being reprinted, showed him being commissioned around 1414 for Henry V's Calais campaign - i.e. he was one of what Shakespeare called the 'Band of Brothers' in Henry V's famous Agincourt campaign. This makes his story really interesting as he apparently turned to crime (according to this timeline) when he was 50-ish to late 60s. P.J.C. Field and Matthews seem to agree that it's implausible that he wrote Le Morte if this timeline is correct - he would be in his mid to late 70s (and in prison) when the writing was finished. Field proposed an alternate timeline that has become the dominant story, placing his birth around 1415, and his reasoning seems to require that one of the major pieces of historical evidence (Dugdale) points to the wrong Thomas Malory altogether. If this timeline were true and Dugdale had the wrong guy, there's no reason to believe that the author served under Beauchamp. This timeline seems highly questionable, since Dugdale's original notes were dug up by Matthews and confirmed to refer to the Agincourt campaign... Malory of Newbold Revel was almost certainly one of the Band of Brothers at Agincourt, which Field and Matthews say makes him too old to have finished Le Morte in prison at age 77-ish. Jeblinton (talk) 05:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Delving deeper into Field and Matthews, some of what I wrote here is wrong - it looks like Chambers, Vinaver, and possibly also Field accept part of Dugdale's record, such that that Malory of Newbold Revel did actually serve under Beauchamp, but in the abortive 1436 action rather than Agincourt in 1414/1415. Field suggests that this Malory never saw any real military action, but if I'm reading it right, Matthews (arguing for the original timeline with the much older Malory of Newbold Revel) seems to believe that he served under Beauchamp in France for upwards of 25 years. I'll try to make sure that the article text reflects the nuances. Jeblinton (talk) 04:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed a chunk of it. The problem was that it depended on a source from the 1880s (!). Modern biographies (i.e., since 1896) have pinpointed the actual historical person believed to be him. The opening paragraph's from this 1911 encyclopedia article explain [1]:

Previous to the publication of Professor Kittredges monograph, Who was Sir Thomas Malory? [Mrwojo: pub. 1896] the identity of this writer remained an unsolved problem. Mr. Sidney Lee, in the Dictionary of National Biography, was compelled to admit that he could find no one of that name fulfilling the necessary conditions. Of direct evidence we have very little; in the concluding passage of the book the author asks the prayers of the reader for Syr Thomas Maleore knyght, and states that the book was ended the ix. yere of the reygne of Kyng Edward the fourth. Caxton, in his preface, says that he printed the book after a copye unto me delivered whyche copye Syr Thomas Malorye dyd take oute of certeyn bookes of frensshe and reduced it in to Englysshe ; in his colophon he repeats this statement, adding that he himself is responsible for the division of the work into books and chapters, and that it was printed in 1485. It will be noted that Caxton does not say that he received the book from Malory, only that he had received a copy made by Malory; from this Professor Kittredge draws the conclusion that the compiler was no longer living. The problem then is to find a Thomas Malory who was (a) a knight, (b) alive in the ninth year of King Edward IV. (Mar. 4, 1469Mar. 3, 1470), and (c) who was, no longer living in July (or June) 1485.

All these conditions Professor Kittredge finds fulfilled in the life of Sir Thomas Malory, knight, of Newbold Revell (or Fenny Newbold), M.P. for Warwickshire ~n. 1445. The date of Sir Thomass birth is uncertain, but he succeeded his father, Sir John, in 1433 or 1434. Previously to this he had served in France, in the retinue of the earl of Warwick, most probably during the time that that nobleman held the office of captain of Calais. It seems probable that he is also to be identified with a Thomas Malone, miles, who in 1468 was, on account of the part played by him in the Wars of the Roses, excluded with several others from the operation of a pardon issued by Edward IV. As, however, on the death of Sir Thomas on the 14th of March 1470, there was no difficulty as to inheritance, his estates passing to his grandson, he must, if this identification be correct, have come under the general amnesty of 1469. It will be seen, therefore, that so far as it is in our power to state the question this Sir Thomas Malory fulfils all the necessary conditions.

The dates rule out the "c. 1430" birth originally mentioned. It's likely the bit about him possibly being a priest could also be axed. Once the old bits are excised or rewritten, I think the "from an 1880s encyclopedia" warning could go. Also note his death date is listed as 14 March 1470; 25 March was the traditional start of the new year in Britain until the 18th century, so the 1471 year is correct in modern calendars. --Mrwojo 16:50, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of small updates to clear up the current state of scholarship on Malory of Newbold Revel. Several of these are third-source from Matthews and need to be replaced by second-source in order to comply better with the gold standard of second sources. At this point it looks like we should probably put Newbold Revel on the same level as Hutton Conyers and Papworth - too many scholarly works in the late 20th century throw doubt on Newbold Revel, especially Matthews's strong evidence that he was way too old to have written Le Morte in prison. Also, the author's birth and death dates are completely in question. I'll hold off for a bit on making major changes to this stuff to see if anyone else cares to weigh in. In any case, I anticipate that major changes will come when the new book gets published with lots of evidence not available in the scholarship to date. Jeblinton

As promised, I restructured the article to put the candidates on a more equal footing. I also added more substance to the Papworth candidate that was badly lacking, and a bit more on why the very early Welshman theory isn't considered a real possibility by modern scholars. Jeblinton — Preceding undated comment added 01:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Also changed the section subtitle to remove "poet" - not sure who if anyone asserted that he was a poet, even assuming this candidate ever existed at all. Jeblinton (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed

Malory calling himself a "servant of Jesu" does not seem like very compelling evidence that he could have been a priest; it was a common way to speak of oneself at the time, and basically just identifies him as a Christian. If we cannot cite this as a reputable scholar's opinion, it probably is not worth the speculation here. --BDD 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to whoever added the reference. I'm very reluctant to add those tags, so I'm glad such an equitable goal was reached. --BDD 05:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Complete 1911 EB article

I thought it might be helpful to have the complete 1911 article accessible somewhere.

MALORY, SIR THOMAS, translator and compiler of the famous English classic, the Morte dArthur. Previous to the publication of Professor Kittredges monograph, Who was Sir Thomas Malory? the identity of this writer remained an unsolved problem. Mr. Sidney Lee, in the Dictionary of National Biography, was compelled to admit that he could find no one of that name fulfilling the necessary conditions. Of direct evidence we have very little; in the concluding passage of the book the author asks the prayers of the reader for Syr Thomas Maleore knyght, and states that the book was ended the ix. yere of the reygne of Kyng Edward the fourth. Caxton, in his preface, says that he printed the book after a copye unto me delivered whyche copye Syr Thomas Malorye dyd take oute of certeyn bookes of frensshe and reduced it in to Englysshe ; in his colophon he repeats this statement, adding that he himself is responsible for the division of the work into books and chapters, and that it was printed in 1485. It will be noted that Caxton does not say that he received the book from Malory, only that he had received a copy made by Malory; from this Professor Kittredge draws the conclusion that the compiler was no longer living. The problem then is to find a Thomas Malory who was (a) a knight, (b) alive in the ninth year of King Edward IV. (Mar. 4, 1469-Mar. 3, 1470), and (c) who was, no longer living in July (or June) 1485.

All these conditions Professor Kittredge finds fulfilled in the life of Sir Thomas Malory, knight, of Newbold Revell (or Fenny Newbold), M.P. for Warwickshire in 1445. The date of Sir Thomas's birth is uncertain, but he succeeded his father, Sir John, in 1433 or 1434. Previously to this he had served in France, in the retinue of the earl of Warwick, most probably during the time that that nobleman held the office of captain of Calais. It seems probable that he is also to be identified with a Thomas Malone, miles, who in 1468 was, on account of the part played by him in the Wars of the Roses, excluded with several others from the operation of a pardon issued by Edward IV. As, however, on the death of Sir Thomas on the 14th of March 1470, there was no difficulty as to inheritance, his estates passing to his grandson, he must, if this identification be correct, have come under the general amnesty of 1469. It will be seen, therefore, that so far as it is in our power to state the question this Sir Thomas Malory fulfils all the necessary conditions.

It is interesting to note that the career of the earl of Warwick in France was maFked by certain picturesque and chivalric features which might well impress the imagination of a young retainer. John Rous, in his Life of Richard Earl of Warwick, tells us that at a certain tourney held near Calais at Christmastide, Earl Richard appeared three days running in different armour, overthrowing his adversary on each occasionan exploit obviously imitated from the chivalric romances of the period.

The work with which Malorys name is connected is an abridged compilation of the great body of Arthurian romance in its latest form. The Merlin (Vulgate and Suite), Tristan, Lancelot, Queste and Mort Anus are all represented, the only branch omitted is that dealing with the early history of the Grail the Joseph of Arimathea and Grand S. Graal. Thanks mainly to the labors of Dr Oskar Sommer, we can now assign thi majority of the books to their separate sources, although certair stories, such as the adventures of Sir Gareth under the pseudonym of Beaumains, the handling of Sir Urre of Hungary, and th details of the abduction of Guenevere by Meleagaunt, still remain unidentified. But we do not yet know whether Malory himself was responsible for this selection, or whether be found it ready to hand in a MS., the Frensshe Booke to which he often refers. To make such a compilation at first hand, considering the extent of the ground covered, would involve an enormous amount of study and selection, and the access to a very large libraryconditions which scarcely seem to fit in with the social position and activities of Sir Thomas. On the other hand it is undeniable that the medieval copyists, at the instance of their patrons, did make compilations from the various romances within their reach, such as e.g. the enormous codex 112 (fonds Franc.) of the Bibliothque Nationale, which includes large sections of the Tristan, the Lancelot, and the Merlin Suite. Taking into consideration alike what Malory retains and what he omits, it seems most probable that he was in possession, not of complete copies of the romances, but of one or more volumes of compilations from these sources.

From the point of view of matter it must be admitted that the Monte d Arthur does not represent the Arthurian cycle at its best, but rather in the period of its decadence; nor does Malory in any way endeavour to overcome the difficulties caused by the juxtaposition of a number of independent (and often contradictory) versions. This is especially noticeable in his treatment of Gawain; in the section derived from the Lancelot and Mort Artus he is a good and valiant knight, a ful noble knyghte as ever was borne1 in those derived from the Tristan and the Queste, he is treacherous, dissolute, and a murderer of good knights.

The great charm of Malorys work lies in his style; stately, earnest and dignified, it has lent to the relations between Lancelot and Guenevere a character of truth and vitality in which the French original is wholly lacking. Malory achieved a remarkable feathe took the Arthurian story in its worst and weakest form and he imparted to it a moral force and elevation which the cycle, even in its earlier and finer stage, had, save in the unique case of Von Eschenbachs Parzival, never possessed. While genuine lovers of the Arthurian cycle must regret that the romances should only be known to the great majority of English readers through the versions of Malory and Tennyson, it isimpossible to withholdfrom the Monte dArt hut the admiration due to an imperishable monument of English language and literature.

See Who was Sir Thomas Malory? C. L. Kittredge (Harvard Studies and Notes, vol. v., 1896); Monte dArthur, ed. by Dr Oskar Sommer (an exact reproduction of the original text in 2 vols.)

vol. iii. a study on The Sources of Malory. The sections on Lancelot and Queste are unfortunately very inadequate; for these cf. The Legend of Sir Lancelot, Grimm Library, vol. xii. (J.L.W.)--FeanorStar7 00:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Birth

"Sir Thomas Malory (c.1399 – March 14, 1471)" is followed shortly after by "He was probably born sometime around 1405" -- let's be consistent! -Phoenixrod 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to 1405, I think that's the conventional suggestion.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't know enough to change factual information. -Phoenixrod 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot more scholarship on Newbold-Revel Malory's birth that I'm going to post shortly - it should clear the matter up on the two competing claims. Jeblinton (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Posted the first major edit on Newbold Revel's date of birth, based on the timelines proposed by the major scholars on the subject. Jeblinton (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

More citations to come - need to shore up the specifics of who discovered/proposed and published which details. Jeblinton (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Birth revisited

Judging by the fact that he attained his majority (at the age of 21) between 1434 and 1439, he was born after 1415 and before 1418.

• Firstly, that date-range is not reflected in the lede, and it should be.
• But secondly, the mathematics of the sentence is dubious at best. If he turned 21 in 1434, he was born in 1413, not "after 1415". If he turned 21 in 1439, he was born in 1418, not "before 1418". The possible birth year range, judging from the ages at which he could have turned 21, is 1413 - 1418. That's six possible years. But "after 1415 and before 1418" brings it down to 1416 or 1417, which is only two possible years.

Something's very amiss here, and it needs correction. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

See my comments above - more references to follow shortly which should make this clearer. Jeblinton (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Criminal?

The article states that he was never actually convicted of any of the charges against him. If so, should he be included in the category British criminals. Or should he be included in a more specific category e.g. Category:English rapists? PatGallacher (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

References

I am a stupid editor who can type and can't program for my life. Having just added quite an amount of info on the author. I found out that I didn't have the patience to cite it, because I probably forgot one closing tag which screwed up everything. Finding myself of less intelligence, than the last time I edited an articel (having successfully cited references) I added mine to the list. My reference is the John Matthews edited edition newly added to the references, so if some one knows how to reference better than I do, thank you. That's my cry of desperation, and when people start yelling at me over all the things I did wrong, I'll be here. --15lsoucy ^{salve.opus.nomen} 02:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

MP?

There is no mention of a William Mallory or Malory as MP on the Cambridgeshire or Cambridge constituency pages in Wikipedia, nor any reference in the published volumes of History of Parliament Online (admittedly incomplete). He has an oft-confused namesake who was MP for Leicestershire. Anyone know otherwise, or is this ripe for removal? Sjwells53 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas Malory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040412051838/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m25m/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/m25m/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Works

This statement in the 'Works' section is completely false: 'Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur (The Death of Arthur) is [..] is the only major work of English literature between Geoffrey Chaucer, around a century earlier, and Shakespeare, around a century later.' First, the English Renaissance happened between Malory and Shakespeare, with Spenser's Faerie Queene being the major work of that era (prior to Shakespeare's plays) and still considered one of the most important texts in English Literature. The plays of Marlowe also precede Shakespeare. Arguments could be made for the 'major' status of other writers who fall between Chaucer and Shakespeare. In short, the statement should be removed swiftly. RobotBoy66 (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)