Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w PoznaniuWydział Neofilologii

Jarosław Siedlecki

The concepts of honour and chivalry in thelight of selected books fromLe Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory

Praca licencjacka napisana pod kierunkiem

dra Artura Skweresaw Zakładzie Filologii Angielskiej

WPA UAM w Kaliszu

Kalisz, 2013

1

Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w PoznaniuWydział Neofilologii

Jarosław Siedlecki

Pojęcia honoru i rycerskości w świetle wybranych ksiąg z Le Morte d’Arthur Sir Thomasa Malory

Praca licencjacka napisana pod kierunkiem dra Artura

Skweresaw Zakładzie Filologii Angielskiej

WPA UAM w Kaliszu

Kalisz, 2013

2

Imię i nazwisko .......................................................................................................................Kierunek i specjalność .............................................................................................................Numer albumu.........................................................................................................................Instytut Filologii AngielskiejPromotor .................................................................................................................................

1. Oryginalny tytuł pracy dyplomowej

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

2. Tłumaczenie tytułu pracy dyplomowej

a) na język polski (w przypadku prac napisanych w języku obcym)

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

b) na język angielski (w przypadku prac napisanych w języku innym niż język angielski)

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................................

Podpis promotora

...................................................

Podpis studenta

...................................................

Miejsce i data

...........................................

3

OŚWIADCZENIE

Ja, niżej podpisany/a

student/ka Wydziału Neofilologii

Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu

oświadczam,

że przedkładaną pracę dyplomową

pt.

napisałem/am samodzielnie.

Oznacza to, że przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbędnymi konsultacjami, nie

korzystałem/am z pomocy innych osób, a w szczególności nie zlecałem/am

opracowania rozprawy lub jej istotnych części innym osobom, ani nie odpisywałem/am

tej rozprawy lub jej istotnych części od innych osób.

Jednocześnie przyjmuję do wiadomości, że gdyby powyższe oświadczenie okazało się

nieprawdziwe, decyzja o wydaniu mi dyplomu zostanie cofnięta.

(miejscowość, data) (czytelny podpis)

4

Abstract

The aim of this thesis paper is to define the broad concepts of honour and chivalry in

relation to Arthurian and to discuss them in juxtaposition with the contents of selected

books from Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malo. The paper is divided into three

chapters. In the first chapter an attempt is made to clarify the main objectives of the

chivalric ethos, with particular emphasis on honour as an essential attribute of a true

knight. Subsequently, in the first chapter, the question of identity and biography of the

author is discussed, on the assumption that his private experiences influenced his

sources of inspiration and the tone of the work. In the second chapter the information

gathered in the first one are juxtaposed with the contents of the two of twenty-one books

of Le Morte d’Arthur, with the goal of identification and analysis of examples of

honourable and chivalric demeanour of the characters. The third chapter deals with the

main themes of the aforementioned stories and contains an analysis of their influence on

the development of the plot as well as the actions of the characters.

5

Key words

Chivalry, Honour, Arthurian legends, Malory, Launcelot, Nobility, Feudalism

6

Streszczenie

Głównym założeniem tej pracy jest zdefiniowanie obszernych pojęć honoru i

rycerskości oraz omówienie ich w zestawieniu z treścią wybranych ksiąg z Le Morte

d’Arthur Sir Thomasa Malory. Niniejsza praca jest podzielona na trzy rozdziały. W

pierwszy rozdziale podjęta zostaje próba wyjaśnienia głównych założeń etosu

rycerskiego, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem kwestii honoru, jako nieodzownego

przymiotu prawdziwego rycerza. W dalszej części pierwszego rozdziału przedstawiona

jest kwestia tożsamości i biografii autora, z założeniem, że prywatne doświadczenia

miały wpływ na jego źródła inspiracji i ton dzieła. W drugim rozdziale zostają

zestawione informacje zgromadzone w rozdziale pierwszym z treścią dwóch z

dwudziestu jeden ksiąg Le Morte d’Arthur w celu identifikacji i analizy przykładów

honorowego i rycerskiego postępowania postaci opowieści. Trzeci rozdział dotyczy

motywów przewodnich wyżej wymienionych opowieści oraz analizy ich wpływu na

rozwój fabuły jak i postępowanie postaci.

7

Słowa kluczowe

Rycerskość, Honor, Legendy arturiańskie, Malory, Lancelot, Szlachectwo, Feudalizm

8

Table of Contents

Introduction................................................................................................................................10

Chapter 1: The concepts of honour and chivalry........................................................................12

1.1 The dual definition of honour...........................................................................................12

1.2 Chivalry as an ideology....................................................................................................12

1.2.1 Medieval sources of chivalric ethos...........................................................................13

1.2.2 The Code of Chivalry according to Leon Gautier......................................................15

1.3 Sir Thomas Malory – the knight of questionable honour..................................................22

1.3.1 The controversy around the identity of knight-prisoner............................................22

1.3.2 The turbulent life of Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel.......................................24

Chapter 2: Sir Launcelot du Lake and King Arthur as embodiments of chivalric values..............28

2.1 Origins and biography of Sir Launcelot du Lake................................................................28

2.2 Book VI: The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot Du Lac – synopsis and analysis of contents......30

2.3 King Arthur the an archetype of an ideal sovereign..........................................................35

2.4 Book XXI: "The Death of Arthur" - synopsis and analysis of contents...............................37

Chapter 3: Analysis of predominant themes..............................................................................40

3.1 Strength and prowess.......................................................................................................40

3.2 Magic and supernatural....................................................................................................41

3.3 The quest..........................................................................................................................41

3.4 Damsel in distress.............................................................................................................42

3.5 Betrayal............................................................................................................................42

Conclusion..................................................................................................................................44

References..................................................................................................................................45

9

Introduction

Centuries after warriors of the world laid down their swords and grabbed rifles,

traded their armours for uniforms, and descended from their noble mounts into the

trenches, many still look longingly at the depictions of glorious medieval knights and

with vivid interest learn about their legendary adventures. And where else can one find

chevaliers as gallant and valorous, monarchs so righteous, and quests as fantastic as in

the legends of King Arthur and the knights of the round table? This thesis paper is

dedicated to discussion and analysis of the famed ethos of those majestic champions.

The first chapter discusses what the Code of Chivalry imposes upon the knights

according to various sources and authors. It will also briefly touch upon the identity and

biography of Sir Thomas Malory, knight in name only, with a hefty criminal record. The

subsequent chapter will focus on two books from the magnum opus of Sir Thomas

Malory, Le Morte d’Arthur. The contents of the books will be juxtaposed with the

principles of chivalry entailed in the first chapter in an attempt to account for and

analyse examples of chivalric demeanour. The third chapter deals with predominant

themes of pivotal significance found in the aforementioned books and closely associated

with the concepts of honour and chivalry.

10

11

Chapter 1: The concepts of honour and chivalry

1.1 The dual definition of honour

In the early middle ages ‘honour’ could be understood twofold. Firstly, it meant a group

of manors belonging to one lord, synonymous with lordship. The center of the honour

was known as Caput honoris, usually a court of the lord of the honour. In the feudal

society land was of utmost importance and owning a large piece of it gave its holder

high status and dignity (Coredon and Williams. 2004). Secondly, honour could be

defined as an abstract concept entailing a set of intrinsic values connected with the

distinction between what is morally right and wrong, just and unjust, virtuous and

wicked. (Persal et al. 2009). Understood as such, honour was a quality of immense

significance for feudal nobility, closely associated with knighthood and inseparably

connected with the chivalric code. As Cabell (2006) claims, the latter puts God, honour,

and mistresses above all else and compels men of noble birth to serve these three

without any reservation. It requires from them unquestionable obedience, holy virtue,

active piety, gallantry and chastity. To disrespect those noble qualities is to stain one’s

honour.

12

1.2 Chivalry as an ideology

According to “A dictionary of Medieval Terms and phrases” (Coredon and Williams

2004), chivalry was as much about knightly battle prowess as it was about the

aforementioned idealized qualities, further perpetuated by the tales of marvelous knights

and their heroic deeds. As Gauiter (1891:1) claims, chivalry arose from German

customs solidified by Christian religion. It was more of an ideal than an institution and,

as such, it served as a guideline of conduct for medieval nobility. This peculiar hybrid of

warrior traditions and religious piety bore a relatively consistent set of principles,

according to which knights should regulate their demeanor.

1.2.1 Medieval sources of chivalric ethos

Perhaps the most comprehensive list of knightly values is found in the famous medieval

chanson de geste – The Song of Roland as cited in (Alchin, L.K, 2012),, which consists

of seventeen commandments said to have evolved from Charlemagne’s sources, namely:

1. To fear God and maintain His Church

2. To serve the liege lord in valour and faith

3. To protect the weak and defenceless

4. To give succour to widows and orphans

5. To refrain from the wanton giving of offence

6. To live by honour and for glory

7. To despise pecuniary reward

8. To fight for the welfare of all

9. To obey those placed in authority

10. To guard the honour of fellow knights

11. To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit

12. To keep faith

13

13. At all times to speak the truth

14. To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun

15. To respect the honour of women

16. Never to refuse a challenge from an equal

17. Never to turn the back upon a foe

The commandments can be divided into three main areas of duty – to God, to fellow

countrymen, knights and Christians, and to women. Three of the seventeen refer to

honour and correspond with the aforementioned division. A good knight should live

honourably and protect the honour of his fellow knights and women. (Alchin, L.K,

2012)

In Malory’s “Le morte d’Arthur” the knights of the round table take a formal

oath, which is the epitome of the chivalric code, at the feast of Pentacost.

(…)then the king stablished all his knights, and them that were oflands not rich he gave them lands, and charged them never to do outrageousity nor murder, and always to flee treason; also, by nomeans to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy,upon pain of forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore; and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succour, upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law, nor for no world's goods. Unto this were all the knights sworn of the Table Round, both old and young. And every year were they sworn at the high feast of Pentecost. (Mallory [2000]:136)

The content of the oath coincides with both definitions of honour presented in the

opening words of this subchapter. The good King Arthur not only educates his knights

about honourable behavior, but also provided the less affluent ones with land as a

symbol of their dignity and high status.

In the 14th century the Duke of Burgundy formulated yet another set of values that

should be exhibited by a true knight (Alchin, L.K, 2012). The virtues he chose were:

1. Faith

2. Charity

3. Justice

4. Sagacity

5. Prudence

6. Temperance

7. Resolution

14

8. Truth

9. Liberality

10. Diligence

11. Hope

12. Valour

They are remarkably similar to commandments of Charlemagne and, despite their

concise form, convey the messege.

1.2.2 The Code of Chivalry according to Leon Gautier

In Chivalry, Gautier (1891: 26) presents his own take on the chivalric code in a form of

a Decalogue:

I. Thou shalt believe all that the Church teaches, and shalt observe all its directions.

II. Thou shalt defend the Church.

III. Thou shalt respect all weaknesses, and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.

IV. Thou shalt love the country in the which thou wast born.

V. Thou shalt not recoil before thine enemy.

VI. Thou shalt make war against the Infidel without cessation, and without mercy.

VII. Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties, if they be not contrary to the

laws of God.

VIII. Thou shalt never lie, and shalt remain faithful to thy pledged word.

IX. Thou shalt be generous, and give largesse to everyone.

X. Thou shalt be everywhere and always the champion of the Right and the Good

against Injustice and Evil.

The author believes that the first commandment is by far the most important one,

for no man could ever become a knight without first becoming a Christian and, in

similar manner to the biblical great commandment, to obey it is to obey all the other

commandments. (Gautier, 1891:26-34)

The second commandment details the first and, essentially, implies sanctity of

15

war against non-believers, by establishing Christian knights as the force of good, as

opposed to damnable heathen. Gautier (1891:27) adduces a passage from the Aliscans, a

chanson de geste that recounts a fictional battle between Christians and Pagans, in

which one of the characters addresses his fellow knights saying:

" These pagans," he said, " only believe in Antichrist, and all their gods are wretched and miserable things ! But we ourselves believe in the King of Paradise who died and rose again." Then he added, raising his eyes to Heaven, " Think of our souls, God, and reunite them on high. As for our bodies, do as Thou wilt with them."

Such beliefs, a conviction of trueness of Christian faith, surety of the immortality of the

soul and eternal life waiting for the faithful servant of God were characteristic of

medieval chivalry. Their faith was not in pious, empty words but in heroic deeds. To

give one’s life in defense of the church or fellow Christians granted the brave knight

martyrdom and a place in the kingdom of heaven. Atheism, as Gautier (1891:28) claims,

had no place within the chivalric society. He cites a fragment of Raoul de Cambrai, a

French epic poem, in which the titular character rejects God and denies his existence. To

these blasphemous words Ernaut Count of Douai responds "I consider you no better

than a mad dog. The earth and grass themselves will come to my assistance, and so will

the God of glory, if He will have mercy on me!" So convinced was he of the power of

God that even in the time of his imminent doom the count believed that The Lord would

come to his aid against a non-believer. Never, says Gautier (1891:30) has any race on

earth been more profoundly imbued with the idea of the Deity. No overwhelming odds

or foreign, unheard of weaponry, nor fear of pain and death could upset the faith of a

Christian knight. Gautier (1891:38) goes as far as to say “To sum up in a few words,

chivalry has never been, is not, and never will be anything but armed force in the service

of the unarmed truth : and I am not aware that anyone has ever given a higher or more

exact definition of it.”

The third commandment imposes upon knights to respect and defend the weak

and defenseless, especially the women and children, widows and orphans. However,

Gautier (1891:42) speculates, that to assume that feudal barons in the early middle ages

were indeed noble protectors and benefactors of the frail and powerless is an

exaggeration. According to the author of Chivalry, a more realistic realization of this

commandment would be “You shall do them no wrong” then a little later, “You shall

not permit any one to do them harm.” He adduces a passage from Chanson

d'Aspremont, where a noble knight Naimes is described with such words: “He never

16

betrayed confidence, he never deserted a good and true man ; nor the starving widow

and little child” . Similar were the qualities ascribed to Charlemagne, who on his

deathbed lectured his son not to deprive orphans of their land, nor widows of their gold

(The Song of Roland as cited in Gauiter 1891:44). In one of the prayers composed for

the benediction of a knight from eleventh century, a knight is obliged “to be the living

protection of all weaknesses”. In the thirteenth century, the Arch-Priest said unto the

consecrated knights “Be thou the defender and the bold champion of the Church, the

widow, and the orphan!” (1891:44) It would appear that the widow and the orphan were

thought to be the feeblest, and the most bereft of the poor whom knights were supposed

to defend, and thus the most deserving of their protection.

The fourth commandment orders the knights to love and cherish their

motherland. It entails national pride and readiness to make sacrifices for one’s land.

According to Gautier (1891:54), medieval French literature is abundant with examples

of great patriots.

"The tenth echelle," said he, "is composed of the barons of France ; there are one hundred thousand of them, of our best captains. They are of stout frame and haughty demeanour, their heads all white, and their beards grizzled. They mount on horseback and demand battle! 'Montjoie, Montjoie,' they cry. Charlemagne is with them." And wishing to paint them in a single verse, which one may easily remember, the poet adds "These are those Frenchmen who conquer Kingdoms." (Song of Roland as cited in Gautier 1891:54-5)

In every epic poem the reader encounters noble chevaliers loyal to their king and land,

knights who would not falter to defend their country to their last drop of blood. They

display the most excellent qualities of behavior, both on the battlefield as well as at the

court. They are the pride of the nation they so cherish. Even the infidels are full of

admiration for such great heroes. As Gautier (1891:53) quotes The Song of Roland, “Of

a surety, whoever could be constituted like these Frenchmen, whoever could resemble

them and possess their stability, would live all the longer.” When the ambassador of the

Saracens, Balan, leaves the court of King Charles, he cannot help but look back with

affection at the marvelous architecture, peerless nobility, and the beauty of nature found

in France. (Gautier, 1891:54-5)

The fifth commandment evokes the all-important quality of valour, an ancient

concept characteristic for the societies that celebrated the courage and prowess of

17

warriors, further amplified Christian traditions. According to Gautier (1891:55) it was

the greatest shame for a knight and a stain on his honour to be considered a coward.

When cornered, noble Christian warriors would exclaim “We will slay all, or all be

slain!” In an open battlefield they desired to meet their opponent in a close, hand to hand

combat. To use ranged weapons, such as bows and javelins was, to knights, a symbol of

cowardice. As Gautier (1891:56) claims, the quality of valour derives from two sources

– Germanic traditions and the aforementioned Christian principles. Ancient German

tribes loved fighting and held great warriors in high regard; Christianity gave those

warriors a noble cause, sanctified warfare against infidels, and further elevated their

position. “Fight, God is with you.” would be the words of crusaders, “The men at arms

will fight, and God will give the Victory.” Said Joan of Arc (as cited in Gautier

1891:57)

The sixth commandment is inseparably connected with the second one and

entails the necessity of defending Christianity from the heathen as well as provides an

opportunity for practical application of the fifth commandment. It is the very root of the

crusades and expeditions to the pagan lands. In the eyes of medieval knights all that was

not Christian was infidel and deserving to be destroyed. Such was the hatred of Saracens

that companions of Godfrey de Bouillon exclaimed “Were the walls of Jerusalem of

steel we would tear them with our teeth.” (as cited in Gautier, 1891:60) Considering the

inherent differences between the civilizations of Western Europe and the Muslims of the

east and the threat of Europe being overrun with Saracens it becomes apparent why the

former held such hatred for the latter. In a somewhat controversial tirade Gautier

(1891:60) argues that Chivalry has indeed delivered the world by protecting it from

Muslims, whom he considers devoid of all moral sense and honour of existence.

“Without chivalry, the West, vanquished by fatalism and sensuality, might to-day have

been as decomposed and as rotten as the East!” he concludes.

The obedience of the vassal to his liege and faithful performance of feudal duties

are the requirements of the seventh commandment. The only exception to this rule is if

the lord demands from his servant a deed that contradicts the law of God. "As soon as

one holds fiefs or land of a baron, one is bound to come to his assistance on every

occasion; provided that he does not attempt to destroy the churches, nor to harm poor

people ; for no one is bound to wage war against God." says the author of one of the

chansons. (as quoted in Gautier, 1891:61) The author approaches feudalism with a

degree of contempt, accepting it only as a necessary, and perhaps a lesser, evil. It was an

18

inevitable outcome of certain circumstances, the necessity for the powerful to protect

and take care of the weak and for the weak to pay back for the protection. Such bond of

gratitude, as Gautier (1891:62) argues, was strong, yet blind one. The obedience of the

vassal to his liege knew no boundaries. When Raoul de Cambrai burns down the

convent of Origni, Bernier, his vassal, whose mother is within the walls of the

monastery does not attempt to stop him. As we exclaims, "My lord Raoul is a greater

traitor than Judas but he is my lord. I would not fail him for the world." (Gautier,

1891:63) Even upon seeing the charred corpse of his mother and despite all the rage and

hatred he calmly endures beating and humiliation from his sovereign. The bounds of

feudalism were far stronger than bounds of family. To exemplify that Gautier (1891:64)

adduces a story of a great traitor Fromont, who murdered his sovereign Girart de Blaines

and his entire family, except for one little boy who was remaining under the care of a

faithful vassal of lord Blaines, Renier, and his wife. Upon being forced to give up the

little one to the traitor, Renier decided to disguise his own child as the offspring of his

liege and allow him to be murdered before his eyes. In a less morbid fashion, count

William fulfilled his feudal duty by leaving his bride at the altar. During the ceremony

of marriage, a messenger entered the church bringing alarming news about King Louis

being in danger. Without hesitation, William stormed out of the church to immediately

venture forth to rescue his lord. Gautier (1891:65) Christian principles only served to

reinforce the feudal bonds by enriching the majesty of the king with divine qualities and

praising the virtue of obedience and dutifulness.

The eighth commandment, the commandment of veracity, was obeyed with

remarkable zeal. To this day truthfulness and dependability remain the qualities of an

honourable man. The code of honour obliged the knight to always keep his word and to

break an oath or parole was to sully his honour and disgrace his name. In light of the

materialistic definition of honour, to swear on one’s honour is to offer one’s estate as a

pledge and a guarantee (Coredon and Williams 2004:168). According to Gautier

(1891:68) it did not matter whether the word was given over the holy bible, a gold

encrusted relic or simply exclaimed during a conversation for the parole to be binding.

When Count William was leaving for Paris to seek assistance in his conflict with

Saracens, his wife questioned whether he would remain faithful to her among women

far younger and prettier than her. To reassure her, he promised not to cut his hair and

beard until his return. He fulfilled his promise.

The ninth commandment entails charity and generosity. In times of trouble, it

19

was characteristic for the people of faith to make vows. In exchange for a divine favour

the more affluent ones would pledge to help the poor in some way, for example by

building a hospital or an alarm house. (Gautier, 1891:69) However, as the author of

“Chivalry” argues, this particular commandment was difficult to obey for the medieval

nobility. According to a legend he evokes, even Charlemagne, to many an embodiment

of a perfect ruler, did not fully honour this rule. When Saracen king Marsilius, a

prisoner of Charlemagne, was given a choice between turning to Christianity or death he

had a look around the hall of the great sovereign. There he noticed vast discrepancies

between the appearance of the king himself, richly dressed and pompous, the fat and

flaunting bishops, the meek friars and commoners, and finally the poverty ridden

beggars. Having asked the king about each of the groups he finally exclaimed "and so

that is the way in which you treat your poor, irreverently, and to the dishonour of Him

whose faith you profess! Well, no: I shall certainly not be baptized I prefer death."

(Gautier, 1891:70) In Chanson d'Aspremont (as quoted in Gautier, 1891:70), Naimes, a

noble and valiant knight, addresses Charlemagne and begs him to be generous to the

poor. As his own personal sacrifice, he asks the king to first distribute his own wealth

among the impoverished knights.

The tenth commandment establishes chivalry as the champions of good and

justice. As Gautier (1891:72) argues, it derives entirely from the principles of

Christianity and bears no resemblance to the values of the pre-Christian traditions. A

prayer found within the pontifical of William Durand perfectly exemplifies the manner

in which knights deemed themselves warriors of God.

"God, Thou hast only permitted the use of the sword to curb the malice of the wicked and to defend the right. Grant, there- fore, that Thy new knight may never use his sword to injure, un- justly, anyone, whoever he may be ; but that he may use it always in defence of all that is just and right!" (as quoted in Gautier 1891:72)

During the accolade in the Roman basilica of St. Peter, along with a sword he would

receive the following words of wisdom: "Remember, knight, that you are to act as the

defender of Order and as the avenger of Injustice. It is on this condition, living here

below as a copy of Christ, that you will reign eternally above with your Divine Model."

(as quoted in Gautier 1891:73)

Church would even go as far as to attempt to create a most noble institution of

Peacemakers, an order of knights whose sole purpose was to ensure peace within

Christendom and prevent pointless internal wars. Although the project failed, the

20

intention itself speaks volumes about medieval ideas of chivalry.

The commandments of the code od chivalry were the fundaments of chivalric

orders, fellowships of knights which started appearing in fourteenth century, inspired by

idealized military orders during the crusades and, to a great extent, by highly

romanticized Arthurian legends of the knights of the round table. (Coredon and

Williams 2004:83) Members of such orders took great care about preserving their

honour and reputation with accordance to the code of chivalry. To emphasize just how

serious feudal nobility was about preserving chivalric qualities the authors of “A

dictionary of Medieval Terms and phrases” (Coredon and Williams 2004:83) present the

case of Sir Hugh Despenser, one of the most influential people at the court of King

Edward II, who was hanged and quartered for having dishonoured the order of chivalry.

For further discussion of the topic it is crucial to elaborate on the manner in

which the chivalric code was preserved within medieval society and for many centuries

honoured by feudal nobility. Without a doubt, the chivalric legends, the songs of deeds

and epics, in both written and spoken form played a pivotal role in shaping of the

Christian feudality. The tales of legendary heroes, the knights of virtue and their

fabulous adventures, the just and honourable kings, loved and respected by their loyal

subject provided a source of inspiration to the respective members of the feudal system.

Sir Tristram of Lyonesse, Sir Gewaine, or Sir Launcelot du Lac embodied the ideal

qualities of masculinity and chivalry that every knight desired. They were their role

models, their points of reference, idols and mentors, shining stars of virtue in the dark

and gritty ages. In similar fashion, a king would dream of becoming as exemplary a

ruler as King Arthur or Charlemagne. The virtue, piety, prowess, dedication, and valour

of those legendary figures influenced the real noblemen to hone their own excellence;

their fame and glory motivated them to obey the code and to strive for greatness. The

wandering minstrels were cherished as the sources of new tales of courage and glory,

while some of the most apprized accounts were immortalized in form of manuscripts.

In the subsequent chapter an attempt will be made to account for and analyse examples

of chivalry and honourable behaviour in two of twenty-one books of “Le Morte

d’Arthur” (2000), that is Book VI: The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot Du Lac and Book

XXI: The Death of Arthur. Sir Launcelot du Lac will be discussed as an ideal knight and

an embodiment of chivalric values, while the malignant and treacherous Sir Mordred

will be presented as an antithesis of everything that is noble. In analogous fashion, King

will be presented as an exemplary monarch and an archetype of inherent qualities of a

21

perfect sovereign.

Before that, however, the subject of the identity and biography of the author will

be be briefly touched upon.

1.3 Sir Thomas Malory – the knight of questionable honour

Despite the fame of Le Morte d'Arthur the true identity of its author was, for many

years, an object of uncertainty and controversy among researchers. As Eugene Vinaver

(1929:VII), a world renowned scholar, one of the founders of the International Arturian

Society, and the editor as well as the publisher of the 1947 edition of Malory's magnum

opus claims, to many, the knight-prisoner was more of a legendary figure inseparably

identified with his work, rather than a real person. In this chapter an attempt will be

made to gather and analyse information regarding the identity of Sir Thomas Malory

and, based on these, account for his sources of inspiration as well as personal

experiences and their influence on his work.

1.3.1 The controversy around the identity of knight-prisoner

Driven seemingly by the modesty typical for a medieval author, Malory says very little

abouthimself in his work. From the passage:

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 ThomasMaleore, knight, as Jesu help him for his great might, as he is the servant of Jesu both day and night. (Mallory [2000]:1264-5)

one can learn that Thomas Malory was a knight who lived in the second half of the

fifteenth century. Furthermore, the short passage towards the end of book IX „that is the

22

greatest pain a prisoner may have” (Mallory [2000]:535) is believed to be

autobiographical and establishes the author as a prisoner during the time the book was

being written. It is also fair to assume that Malory was already dead years before the

book was published. The manuscript was brought before William Caxton, an English

writer and printer, who revised and modified the text before publication, in a manner

that A. W. Pollard describes as careless in the preface to Le Morte d’Arthur. (Mallory

[2000]:5). Beyond that, Caxton also inserted into the final print a lengthy preface, in

which he dedicates the book to the king Edward the Fourth and briefly summarizes the

chapters, into which he himself had divided Malory's text, hardly mentioning the

original author at all.

The pronunciation of the author's name, Maleore, is one of the few present in

extant records, next to Maloret, Malore and, finally, Malory. It might stem from an Old

French verb orer, meaning „to frame”, „to surround”, in which case the nickname would

mean ill-framed, ill-set (Vinaver 1929). Such cognomen would correspond with

turbulent biography of Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel, Warwickshire. The

connection between the fabled author of Arthurian tales and a particular historical figure

was first established by Professor George Lyman Kittredge of Harvard University and

recorded in Johnson Universal Cyclopædia in 1894 (Hicks 1928: 3). Further references

to Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel come mostly from judicial documents. In 1896

T.W. Williams announced that he had discovered a document which excluded „Thomas

Malorie, miles” from a general pardon in 1468. He did not, however, realize the knight

of Newbold Revel and the ”Malorie” from his document were, in fact, the same person.

Twenty four years later Edward F. Cobb stumbled upon a passage in De Banco Rolls of

Henry the Sixth from 1443 mentioning ”Thomas Malory, miles” was charged with

violent assault at Sprotton, Northants. However, the matter appears to have been

resolved out of the court. Subsequently, according to the reasearch of Sir E. K.

Chambers from 1922, Malory was involved in a conflict with Carthuasian Order in

1451, ended by an intervention of Henry the Sixth. The research of Edward Hicks at the

Public Record Office reveals Malory's involvement in a much more serious affair

connected with the aforementioned conflict, namely an assault on Carthuasian Coombe

Abbey as well as organizing an ambush on Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham, a very

powerful noble and the uncle of Richard Neville - the Kingmaker (Hicks, 1928: 4-5).

However, no reference to Thomas Malory can be found in the Year Books

covering the years 1455-1470. Numerous extant documents have been examined in vain,

23

by the researchers, for any mention of Malory, including the Assize Rolls for

Warwickshire and Leicestershire, the Close Rolls, the Patent Rolls, and Coram Rege

Roll for 1468, the year in which Malory was excluded from two pardons (Hicks, 1928:

6). In XVIth century Bishop John Bale declared Malory a Briton by race and country,

attributing his cognomen to a Weslsh district of ”Mailoria”. However, according to

Professor Kittridge: "Bale's biographical statements are of the good old- fashioned sort,

and convey no information. He admits that he does not even know under what king that '

Mailorius' flourished -- something that he might have discovered from the closing words

of the Morte." (Hicks, 1928: 7)

Furthermore, Malory was, at one point, believed to have been a Welsh priest,

with the ”Sir” being an equivalent of „reverend” in translation. Hicks (1928:8) also

brings to light fallaciousness of place-names, pointing out how the existence of a small

town in Denbighshire called Maelor might have made one to jump to a conclusion that

the place and the author of Le morte d'Arthur are somehow connected. However, such a

connection would have been impossible, for Welshmen did not bear surnames until

many years after Malory's death. Another candidate was Thomas Malory of Papworth

St. Agnes in Huntingdonshire, introduced by A. T. Martin and briefly discussed by

A.W. Pollard in the preface to Le Morte d'Arthur (Mallory [2000]). The Lancastrian

knight left after himself a very detailed will, which seemed as if its author was in

immediate expectation of death. To the author of the note the document appeard to

correspond with an autobiographical passage from „Le Morte d'Arthur” - ”pray for me

while I am alive that God send me good deliverance and when I am dead pray you all

for my soul” (Mallory [2000]:4). Yet another controversial theory was put forward by

William Matthews (1966) in his work „The Ill-Framed Knight: A Skeptical Inquiry into

the Identity of Sir Thomas Malory”, where he assumes the role of devil's advocate

regarding previously known candidates for the real Malory, while simultaneously

introducing his own - Thomas Malory of Hutton and Studley in Yorkshire.

24

1.3.2 The turbulent life of Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel

In spite of multitude of theories, Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel is agreed

upon, with reasonable certainty, to be the author of Le morte d'Arthur by contemporary

scholars, especially Edward Hicks and Eugene Vinaver. Both researchers put great

emphasis on the noble descent of the Warwickshire gentleman. According to Vinaver

(1929:1) aristocratic tone can be felt throughout the romance. One of Malory's favourite

themes was establishing the distinction between noble and churl. His characters,

oftetimes mere shepherds or kitchen knaves, prove their noble descent through feats of

prowess, with Arthur himself being the prime example of that. Said characters

accomplish such feats not thanks to their individual cleverness and valor, but due to

their knightly ancestry. It is their noble blood, not personality or experience, that

provides them with magnificent qualities. Such views, claims Vinaver (1929:2), are

characteristic for a high born individual. Indeed, Malory belonged to an old

Warwickshire family, with pedigree that can be traced back to thirteenth century. There

are mentions of Simon Malory, lord of Draughton and Northhamtpon as early as in

1277. According to Hicks (1929:8), Malory's ancestors came to Britain with William the

Conqueror and settled in Kirkby Malory, Leicestershire. Sir Thomas' great-grandfather,

Sir Stephen Malory married Margaret Revell, heiress to the Fenny Newbold estates. His

grandson, and the father of Sir Thomas, Sir John Malory the second, who was on two

occasions a Commissioner for the peace, a member of the Parliment for Warwickshire

in 1413 and held the office of a Warwickshire sheriff in 1416 and 1429. He died of old

age and in 1433-1434 his son succeeded to the ancestral position. Sir Thomas was, by

this time, a renowed knight, having served in the retinue of Richard Beauchamp, Earl of

Warwick. Vinaver (1929:2) emphasizes the importance of Malory's relationship with

Beauchamp with regard to chivalric character of his work. The Earl of Warwick was

considered an embodiment of knightly qualities. The Holy Emperor Sigismund of

Luxemburg himself said to Henry the fifth that ”no prince Cristen for wisdom, norture

and manhood, had suche another knight, as he had of the Earl of Warwick, adding

25

thereto that if all courtesy were lost, yet might it be found again in him.” (Vinaver

1929:3). Furthermore, stories and legends surrounding Beauchamp seem to have been a

source of inspiration for Malory. One such story described by Vinaver (1928:3) is

remarkably similar to Book VII of Le morte d'Arthur.

On hearing of a great gathering near Calais, he 'cast in his mynde to do sume newe poynt of chevalry, and styling himself now as the Green Knight, then as a 'Chevalier Attendant', he sent three challenges to the French court, and three French knights accepted them. Richard un- horsed the first. Appearing the next day in another armour he smote down the second; and on the third day he 'performed his owne persone', and defeated the last of his opponents.

Additionally, the name of Malory's own character, Beaumains, as well as his subsequent

battles at the tournament with knights of three colours leave little reason to doubt that

the author of Le Morte d'Arthur based parts of his romance on actual events.

In 1445 Sir Thomas reaches the peak of his career as a member of Warwickshire

parliment. After that point, it would seem, he falls from grace on numerous instances. In

1445 Malory involved himself in the aforementioned dispute with Kirby monks

transfered to Epworth by Henry the fifth. Vinaver (1929:4) believes, that the source of

the conflict was Malory's attack on the monastic property and subsequent acts of

exortion. Richard Neville – The King-maker and the Duke of Buckingham were ordered

to arrest Malory as well as his servant John Appelby. Regardless of how serious the

offence against the priory actually was, it had Malory imprisoned. A mere month later

Malory was accused of several other wrongdoings at a Nuneaton Inquisition presided by

Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham. After being taken into sheriff's custody on Sunday,

25th July 1451 Malory reportedly broke out of prison on Tuesday night and along with

his servant John Appelby, as well as several yeomen broke into the Abbey of Blessed

Mary of Coombe, looted two chests belonging to the abbot, stole several items of value,

broke eighteen doors of Coombe Abbey and insulted the abbot. Additionally, Malory

was accused of lying in ambush to attack the Duke of Buckingham, another case of

exortion, and breaking into the house of Hugh Smyth and raping his wife Joan. Vinaver

(1929:5) is rather sceptical towards the accussations raised against Malory, especially

the rape charge. Professor Kittredge, as quoted by Hicks(1929:52) makes an attempt at

reconstruction of events:

26

' Malory and his servants had searched Smyth's house in vain. Smyth's wife, who objected to the search, may have been roughly treated; perhaps she was forcibly removed from the dwelling while it was ransacked. That would have been raptus. Then, on the first of August, the search was repeated with similar violence and with complete success. . . . On neither occasion is there any likelihood that Goodwife Smyth was actually ravished. The duplication of this particular charge is reason enough for rejecting such an idea: it is ridiculous to suppose that Malory actually ravished the woman twice.'

When brought before King's court in Westminster Malory pleaded ”in no wise guilty”

and was handed back to sheriff for custody and soon released. The affair was ended.

(Vinaver, 1929:6)

It was around that time that Malory married Elizabeth, a woman there is little

information about. They had a son who died between 1466 and 1471. Vinaver (1929:6)

believes that, once again, these events influenced Malory's magnum opus. In Book VIII

he calls the Queen of Lyoness Elizabeth instead of Isabel, unlike the French version, and

the laments of Perceval's mother in Book XI might have been an echo of his own tragic

loss.

Malory's trouble with law continue. He was arrested again in 1452 but it wasnt

until 1460s that he faces the most serious sentence. Sir Thomas took part in the

Lancastarian uprising. Captured and imprisoned, he was excluded from two subsequent

pardons and there is no definite proof that he was ever freed. It was in jail that he wrote

most of Le morte d'Arthur. He shares some of the ordeal he had endured with the reader

in Book IX (Mallory [2000]:535-536):

So Sir Tristram endured there great pain, for sickness hadundertaken him, and that is the greatest pain a prisoner may have.For all the while a prisoner may have his health of body he may endureUnder the mercy of God and in hope of good deliverancebut when sickness toucheth a prisoner's body, then may a prisonersay all wealth is him bereft, and then he hath cause to wail and to weep.

As Vinaver (1929:8) points out, this passage cannot be found in the French version of

the story and thus is indeed a deeply personal note.

Sir Thomas had a lot of time to contemplate his life and and reflect upon the

actions that lead to his miserable state. To the very end he stayed loyal to his cause.

Nothing else could inspire such strong stance than the matter of his prose. In Le morte 27

d'Arthur Malory produces a variety of idealized knights and a faultless king. Chivalrous,

virtuos, courageous nobles, a perfect embodiment of Englands past glory, so diffrent

from the elite among which he lived. The reflection of such thoughts can be seen in his

bitter commentary to Book IX, the book of Mordred's rebellion.

As it was mentioned before, researchers are uncertain whether or not Sir Thomas

Malory was ever released from prison. He might have benefitted from the general

amnesty in 1469 or let out between 1470 and 1471. Malory died on 14 March 1471 and

was buried in St. Francis at Greyfiars chapel in London, with ”dominus Thomas

Mallere, valens, miles, ob. 14 Mar. 1470 de parochia Monkenkyrkby in comitatu

Warwici.” written on his grave. His wife died in 1479. Malory's only descendant, his

grandson Nicholas, died without a male hier in 1513 thus ending the Malory bloodline.

(Vinaver, 1929:9)

Chapter 2: Sir Launcelot du Lake and King Arthur as embodiments of chivalric values

2.1 Origins and biography of Sir Launcelot du Lake

Launcelot is, without a doubt, the most famous and recognisable of the mythical knights

of the round table. The tales of his valour and piety, his battle prowess and benevolence,

and his loyalty to King Arthur, upset by his tragic love for Queen Guenever, leading to

the ultimate downfall of Camelot have been repeated for many centuries. According to

Corley(1999:VII), the earliest mentions of Launcelot are found in romances of Chrétien

de Troyes, Erec et Enide and The Knight of the Cart , and then reoccur in an abundance

of medieval literary works. R.S Loomis, as quoted in Bruce (1999:305), argued that

Launcelot stems from the Welsh warrior Llwch Llenlleawg, who, in turn, is based on an

Irish god Lug. The word Llwch was Welsh for ‘lake’, which would correspond with the

cognomen of the famous knight. The second part of the name, according to the theory,

28

was altered to ‘Launcelot’ by a common name ‘Lancelin’. Although, as Bruce

(1999:305-6) argues, the essential elements of the story of Launcelot remain relatively

unchanged, there is an abundance of details regarding the birth, life, and deeds of the

knight of the lake that differ amongst various literary works related to him. The model

Launcelot that is famous to this day is immortalised in Sir Thomas Malory’s Le Morte

d’Arthur. There, Launcelot is the son of King Ban of Benwick and Queen Eliane and a

brother of Ector. (Mallory [2000]:138) An enemy and a nighbour of King Ban, King

Claudas, attacks the castle of King Ban at Trebe. Launcelot’s family manages to escape

but the father soon falls dead. The Lady of Lake takes Launcelot from his mother and

into her enchanted land. There, he learns courtesy and knightly values, along with his

younger cousins Bors and Lionel. Launcelot becomes a great warrior and when he

reaches the age of eighteen, he is brought before King Arthur’s court to be knighted. He

falls in love with Queen Guenever at first sight. (Bruce. 1999:305) On the court of King

Arthur he exhibited his unmatched combat skills and had many adventures. He bore a

son, Galahad, the purest of knights and one of the achievers of the Holy Grail. He took

revenge on King Claudas, as Merlin prophesied:

Take none heaviness, said Merlin, for this same childwithin this twenty year shall revenge you on King Claudas, thatall Christendom shall speak of it; and this same child shall bethe most man of worship of the world, and his first name is Galahad, that know I well, said Merlin, and since ye have confirmed him Launcelot. (Mallory [2000]:139)

He enters an adulterous affair with queen Guenever, which will later on be the reason of

his conflict with King Arthur and lead to his downfall.

Nevertheless, between his accolade and the siege of Benoic and the ultimate clash with

the sons of Mordred, Sir Launcelot enjoyed numerous adventures, during which he

exhibited unmatched courage, mastery of sword skills, deep faith, and loyalty. In the

following subchapter an attempt will be made to encapsulate and analyse his glorious

deeds, accounted for in Book VI of Le Morte d’Arthur, in terms of honour and relevance

to the Chivalric Code. The basis for the analysis will be the previously discussed

Decalogue of Chivalry by Leon Gautier (1891:26), the Code of Charlemagne (Alchin,

L.K, 2012), and the Pentecostal Oath (Mallory [2000]:136).

29

2.2 Book VI: The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot Du Lac – synopsis and analysis of contents

Book VI opens with an account of tournaments and jousts in celebration of the return of

King Arthur from Rome to England. During their stay at the court of the king, knights of

the round table honed their skill in fighting contests and performed noble deeds. None of

the knights, however, matched Sir Launcelot in battle prowess and virtue. In words of

Malory: “For in all tournaments and jousts and deeds of arms, both for life and death,

he passed all other knights, and at no time he was never overcome but if it were by

treason or enchantment.”( Mallory [2000]:230)

Subsequently, Malory references the mutual love of Sir Launcelot and Queen

Gunever. The author fails to mention the adulterous character of their affection, instead

praising Launcelot for his commitment and for the glorious deeds he will perform for

his queen. The noble demeanour he lauds corresponds with one of the strictures of The

Pentecostal Oath: “(..)and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succour,

upon pain of death.” (Mallory [2000]:136)

Following the time of feasts and jousts at the court of King Arthur, Sir Launcelot,

along with his cousin Sir Lionel, depart from the castle to seek adventure. Soon, weary

of the journey, the knights decide to have a nap under a great apple tree. While Sir

Launcelot is fast asleep, Sir Lionel witnesses a clash of great knights. One of the four

easily smites the other three and ties them to his horse. Confident in his abilities and

following the third commandment of chivalry (Gautier, 1891:26), Sir Lionel decides to

test his battle prowess against that of the other knight. However, he is just as easily

bested and kidnapped unconscious by the anonymous knight to be thrown into prison

along with others. (Mallory [2000]:231) Similar fate meets Sir Ector, the brother of Sir

Launcelot, who, upon finding out that his brother had departed for adventure, attempts 30

to pursue and join him. He is bested by the mysterious knight, but not before the latter

can express his admiration for Sir Ector’s skills.

Meanwhile, Sir Launcelot, still slumbering under a tree, is approached by four

queens, traveling through the forest with an escort. Having recognized the noble knight,

the queens devise a plan to paralyse him with magic and take him to their castle to force

him to choose one of them as his mistress. They chain Sir Launcelot to a bed and

present themselves to him as his captors. Morgan la Fay, the sister of King Arthur and

one of the four queens, addresses the knight, giving him a choice of either taking one of

them as his paramour or dying in their prison. To that, Sir Launcelot responds:

This is an hard case, said Sir Launcelot, that either I must die or else choose one of you, yet had I liefer to die in this prison with worship, than to have one of you to my paramour maugre my head. And therefore ye be answered, I will none of you, for ye be false enchantresses, and as for my lady, Dame Guenever, were I at my liberty as I was, I would prove it on you or on yours, that she is the truest lady unto her lord living. Well, said the queens, is this your answer, that ye will refuse us. Yea, on my life, said Sir Launcelot, refused ye be ofme. So they departed and left him there alone that made great sorrow. (Mallory [2000]:235)

Such was his dedication to his one true love that Sir Launcelot would rather die than be

with another woman. His honour would not allow him to break the promise given to his

queen that he would never love another.

He is later approached by another damsel, who promises to deliver him from from

imprisonment in exchange for a favour. She requires nothing more than a word to free

Sir Launcelot of his chains. She believed that a knight of such virtue and so excellent a

reputation would not break the eighth commandment of chivalry and stay true to the

given promise. Said promise, however, was not given until Sir Launcelot could inquire

about the nature of the favour, as not to be forced to perform a deed that goes against the

code of honour. (Mallory [2000]:237) Freed of his chains, Sir Launcelot departs to

fulfill the promise he gave to the damsel and take part in a tournament on behalf of her

father, King Bagdemagus. He spends the night in a pavilion on the side of the road. In

the darkness he is mistaken for the bride of the knight the pavilion belonged to. Tragic

mistake leads to a fight between the knights, in which Launcelot severely wounds his

opponent. The latter yields and Launcelot, staying true to the Pentecostal Oath, grants

him mercy. When both realise their mistake, Launcelot is overcome with sorrow, for he 31

had betrayed The Code of Chivalry and nearly smitten a fellow knight. Having dressed

the wounds of the injured man and obtained from him a pardon, he makes a promise to

him and his angered lady that he would help Lord Belleus become a knight of the round

table. He kept the promise and caused King Arthur to knight Lord Belleaus at the

Pentecostal feast. (Mallory [2000]:270)

Soon after the tragic encounter, Sir Launcelot departs to fulfill the promise he

gave to the daughter of King Bagdemagus. He requests from the king to give him three

of his best knights and provide for him a shield with no blazon, as to obscure his

identity. On the day of the tournament the knights of King of Northgalis face the men of

King Badgemagus, decimating the latter with their superior strength. Then comes Sir

Launcelot. Exhibiting incredible valour and battle prowess he dives in the thickest of the

press and with one spear smites five knights, one of whom was the King of Northgalis

himself. Subsequently, he faces three of his fellow knights of the round table and bests

them all, along with twelve other knights. He wins the tournament for King

Badgemagus and thus was freed of his promise. (Mallory [2000]:243)

Having said goodbye to King Badgemagus and his daughter, Sir Launcelot

departs to seek out his lost cousin, Sir Lionel. On the highway he meets a damsel, who

in exchange for information regarding the location where Sir Lionel is held captive

exerts on Sir Launcelot yet another promise. When the knight of the lake fulfilled his

quest, he was obliged to help the damsel deal with a false knight, who bothers local

ladies. As he made the promise, he ventured to the place revealed by the damsel and

soon encountered the great knight Sir Turquine immersed in the struggle with his fellow

knight Sir Gaheris, brother of Sir Gewain. Having notice that the latter is severely

wounded and clearly losing the fight, Sir Launcelot offers to fight Sir Turquin instead.

Doing so, he abides to the third commandment of chivalry, which obliges the knight to

defend the weaker. Sir Launcelot and Sir Turquin set of to fight. Both are knights of

great might and both injure each other severely. So impressed is Sir Turquine with

volour and prowess of Launcelot that he stops the fight to praise his skill:

32

Thou art the biggest man that ever I met withal, and the best breathed, and like one

knight that I hate above all other knights; so be it that thou be not he I will lightly

accord with thee, and for thy love I will deliver all the prisoners that I have, that is three

score and four, so thou wilt tell me thy name. And thou and I we will be fellows

together, and never to fail thee while that I live. (Mallory [2000]:245)

However, the knight that Sir Turquine so hated turns out to be Sir Launcelot himself,

who slain many of his friends in the past. Nevertheless, the noble knight does not

hesitate to reveal his true name to his opponent. A lie that would have saved him

unnecessary combat with unknown outcome and possible death did not come out of the

mouth of Sir Launcelot, for it goes against the Code of Chivalry to give false testimony.

The two great knights fight for two more hours until Sir Turquine is ultimately

overcome by Sir Launcelot. Having slain his opponent, the knight of the lake sends the

wounded Sir Gaheris to free the prisoners of Sir Turquine, while he himself departs to

fulfill the promise he gave to the damsel he had met on the highroad. Informed of the

extent of the crimes of the false knight, Sir Launcelot is outraged; he exclaims “What,

(...) is he a thief and a knight and a ravisher of women? He doth shame unto the order of

knighthood, and contrary unto his oath; it is pity that he liveth.” To Sir Launcelot, a

knight who commits such crimes, who betrays the Code of Chivalry is no knight at all.

Having caught the false knight in the act, he confronts and slays him in combat. Once

again, Sir Launcelot saves a damsel in distress, proves himself to be a protector of the

weak and a champion of good against all that is false and evil.

In his next adventure, Sir Launcelot frees a castle from its illegitimate occupants

and slays two giants in process. Once again, he is requested to do so by distressed ladies.

Subsequently, he witnesses an ambush on a fellow knight by three other knights.

Recognizing dishonour in such disproportionate engagement, Launcelot decides to

defend the overwhelmed fellow. Sir Launcelot bests them in battle and forces to yield to

Sir Kay, the knight they pursued. Having learned that Sir Kay is in deadly danger in

those lands, in an act of great benevolence he replaces his arms and horse do disguise

himself as Sir Kay and from now on face his enemies instead.

In his next quest Sir Launcelot must obtain magical sword and piece of cloth

from Chapel Perilous to heal a mortal wound of his fellow knight of the round table, Sir

Meliot de Logres, at the request of his sister. On his way to the chapel he encounters an

33

army of ghastly, black knights but in his great courage he does not falter and goes right

through them to enter the shrine. Upon retrieving the artifacts and leaving the chapel he

encounters a sorceress. Trice she tries to deceive him from his quests: first by saying he

will surely die if he takes the hallows away, second by claiming that he will never see

Queen Guenever if he continues, and third by asking Sir Launcelot to kiss. The knight

does not oblige to any of the requests. To the latter enquiry he responds: “Nay, (…) that

God me forbid.” (Mallory [2000]:263). The noble knight abstains from giving in to his

lust and puts honour and true love above bodily pleasures. Even when the damsel

exclaims how she had loved Sir Launcelot for seven years and without his affection she

will surely perish, he remains indivertible. The artifacts he obtained manage to cure Sir

Meliot, to great delight of his sister.

During his subsequent adventure, Sir Launcelot encounters a female falconer,

whose bird escapes and lands high on a nearby tree. Distressed damsel begs the knight

for help, fearing that her angered husband will slay her for losing his valuable

possession. Somewhat underwhelmed by such petty mission, the noble knight decides to

help the lady and leaves his arms on the ground to climb the tree. Upon having reached

the top of the tree, he is ambushed by fully armed man, the husband of the falconer lady,

who orchestrated the whole scenario. Much like Sir Peris de Forest Savage, the thief and

ravisher of damsels from previous story, Sir Phelot is a knight without honour, whose

demeanour goes against the Code of Chivalry. In a treacherous manner he attempts to

slay Sir Launcelot when he is unarmed and defenseless. In words of the noble knight:

“That were shame unto thee, (…) thou an armed knight to slay a naked man by treason.”

and “Truly, (…) that shall be thy shame, but since thou wilt do none other, take mine

harness with thee, and hang my sword upon a bough that I may get it, and then do thy

best to slay me an thou canst” (Malory [2000]:133). The despicable Sir Phelot refuses

even that challenge and waits by the tree, sword in hand, for Sir Launcelot to come

down. However, the noble knight managed to pull out a branch from the tree, jump

down, disarm the treacherous villain and slay him with his own sword. To the cries of

his wife he responded saying that the fault was on her and her husband for trying to slay

him in such foul manner, and that they only got what they deserved.

Soon after that, he encounters yet another tragic couple; a husband, convinced of his

wife’s infidelity, chasing her through the plains trying to kill her. The woman begs Sir

Launcelot to defend her, to which he obliges by steering his horse between them and

34

trying to reason with the enraged husband. Much to his dismay, the husband manages to

cross the distance between him and his wife and cut her head off. Furious, Sir Launcelot

cries out: “Traitor, thou hast shamed me for ever!”. The lady he took under his care is

now dead because he could not protect her. When Launcelot dismounts his horse and

pulls the sword out of the sheath to serve justice, the murderer cries for mercy.

Conflicted between rage boiling within him and the oath that he swore, which entails

“(…)by nomeans to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy.” (Mallory

[2000]:136), Sir Launcelot decides to spare the life of the killer, however worthless it

was, and instead send him with the corpse of his wife before Queen Guenever for her to

judge him.

The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot Du Lake concludes with the return of the

protagonist to the court of King Arthur to feast and rest after his numerous adventures.

There he encounters many of the characters he had helped during his journey, who

praise his noble before the king and other knights.

2.3 King Arthur the an archetype of an ideal sovereign

King Arthur is the central figure of a myriad of legends and literary works. He is a

legendary warlord and conqueror, the founder of the fabled knights of the round table,

and the mythical ruler of the land of Camelot. According to the author of The Arthurian

Name Dictionary (Bruce. 1999) it is not certain whether or not he actually existed.

There is remarkably little historical evidence concerning the period between Roman rule

over Britain and the end of the Saxon conquest. De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae,

one of the few written sources from sixth century makes no mention of King Arthur

himself, but does reference some of his alleged ancestors, as well as historical events to

which Arthur was connected. Anthropological research can provide little information

regarding names from that period. Nevertheless, Bruce (1999) believes it might help

solve some of the questions, such as the uncertainty of existence of Camelot, which

might have indeed been Cadbury, as John Leland argued. Continental sources offer little

help as well. Although none of the literary evidence from that period mentions Arthur

specifically, the name Riothamus, a late fifth-century king of Britons, whose connection

35

with a place known as Avalon is referenced in Jordanes’s Gothic History. It is not until

five hundred years after the alleged reign of King Arthur that his name is specifically

mentioned in historical sources. Nennius’s Historia Brittonum references twelve great

battles lead by King Arthur against the Saxons, while Annales Cambriae mentions the

conflict between Arthur and Mortred. However, Bruce (1999) questions reliability and

historical significance of those records, based on some of the absurd claims they make.

An interesting occurrence was the rise of popularity of the name “Arthur” in the

centuries following the so called “Arthurian Period”, implying, perhaps, existence of

some notable historical figure bearing this name in earlier years. The name itself is

almost certain to be British derivation of Roman name “Artorius”, a remnant of the

Roman occupation of Britain (Bruce 1999).

According to Bruce (1999), the person responsible for bringing King Arthur to

the world is Geoffrey of Monmouth with his Historia Regum Brittaniae. Although it is

an account of limited reliability, riddled with supernatural elements and inconsistencies,

the fact that the contemporaries of Geoffrey recognised its authenticity was enough to

create a self-perpetuating myth. It contains the first biography of Arthur and his

ancestry. He was the son and successor of King Uther, a mighty warrior who wielded a

sword called Caliburn. He married Queen Guenever and fought many battles before

being slain by treacherous Mordred. Subsequet texts, from the period of Vulgate and

Post-Vulgate romances changed the biography of King Arthur considerably and

enriched the legend by connecting it with the quest for Sangreal, the deeds of the

knights of the round table, and further developing the Christian aspect of chivalry in the

story. The form of the legend of King Arthur which developed in that period became

canonical and remained relatively unchanged in later accounts, including Le Morte

d’Arthur. (Bruce, 1999)

There is no doubt that in Malory’s magnum opus King Arthur is an embodiment

of chivalric values, accompanied by a set characteristics of an ideal ruler. However,

even in this highly idealised setting, the king is not without a flaw. As Bruce (1999)

rightfully points out, Malory’s Arthur is far more humane than in previous texts. He is

unfaithful to his wife on numerous occasions, he fails to keep his promises, and the

tragic war, which lead to his ultimate downfall is, to a great extent, a result of his poor

decision making and succumbing to foolish influences. Nevertheless, for his every

failure there is a dozen noble gestures and acts of charity and virtue. The following

subchapter will focus on Arthur in his final days, his thoughts and deeds and their

36

relevance to the Code of Chivalry and the concept of honour. Some attention will be

paid to other characters whom the life and death of King Arthur deeply influenced,

namely Queen Guenever, Sir Gewain, Sir Launcelot, the noble knight, and Sir Mordred,

the traitor and villain.

2.4 Book XXI: "The Death of Arthur" - synopsis and analysis of contents

Book XXI begins with Sir Mortred’s betrayal. Capitalising on King Arthur’s absence

the treacherous knight usurps the throne of England. He tries to convince the nobility

that King Arthur was slain presenting them with fabricated letter. He gains their support

and is crowned in Canterbury. Part of his plan is to marry Queen Guenever, the wife of

his still alive father. Upon realizing this, the queen flees to London and locks herself in a

tower. Despite her previous adulterous relationship with Sir Launcelot, in this dark hour

Queen Guenever remains faithful to her husband, the king. Mordred, filled with rage,

besieges the tower of London to take his mother-in-law by force. There he is approached

by the Bishop of Canterbury, who lectures the knight about the extent of his sin:

Sir, what will ye do? will ye first displease God and sithen shame yourself, and all knighthood? Is not King Arthur your uncle, no farther but your mother's brother, and on her himself King Arthur begat you upon his own sister, therefore how may you wed your father's wife? Sir, said the noble clerk, leave this opinion or I shall curse you with book and bell and candle.(…), wit thou well I shall defy thee. Sir, said the Bishop, and wit you well I shall not fear me to do that me ought to do. Also where ye noise where my lord Arthur is slain, and that is not so, and therefore ye will make a foul work in this land. (Mallory [2000]:1223)

To that replies Sir Mordred with defiance “Do thou thy worst.” (Mallory [2000]:1223).

Blinded with the shine of gold and overwhelmed with the hunger of power, he had long

forgotten the Code of Chivalry. He raised his hand against his sovereign, he lied and

deceived, he besmirched his faith by defying a clergyman, and put his fatherland in

turmoil with an unnecessary civil war. In Le morte d’Arthur, Sir Mordred is the

antithesis of Sir Launcelot. While the former embodies ideal knightly values, the latter

represents everything that is foul and rotten about human nature. He is a knight without

honour.

37

Having learned of his terrible deeds, King Arthur sails home with a great army to

crush Sir Mortred. He lands in Dover and is met by the forces of the usurper, consisting

of King Arthur’s own bannermen. They, too, are guilty of a great crime – turning

against their rightful sovereign. A terrible battle ensues, during which Sir Gewain, a

nephew of King Arthur is mortally wounded. On his deathbed, the knight bemoans

having exerted pressure on King Arthur to go to war with Sir Launcelot. With his last

ounce of strength he writes a letter to Sir Launcelot, begging him to forgive him him and

to return to England, both to visit his grave and to rescue his uncle in his hour of need.

Upon the death of Sir Gewain, King Arthur, distraught with grief engages in another

battle with Sir Mortred’s forces and drives them back to Canterbury. The next night

King Arthur has a wondrous dream of Sir Gewain in heavenly splendor. The ghost

warns him not to fight on the following day, otherwise he will be slain. Such is the faith

of King Arthur that he decides to honour the warning and negotiate truce with Sir

Mortred. It is important to note how highly respected King Arthur was among his men.

Nobody questions the decision that was influenced by what could have been a simple

dream and not a divine vision. However, due to a tragic turn of events, negotiations are

cut short and a decisive battle ensues. At the end, there are only three men standing on

the side of King Arthur, including his majesty himself. Mad with wrath and grief,

having spotted Sir Morted in the distance, King Arthur decides to ignore the advice of

Sir Gawain’s ghost and charges at the usurper, spear in hand. Sir Mortred is finally

slain, but not before dealing a mortal blow to King Arthur’s head. Expecting imminent

death, the king bemoans his poor decisions. He wishes he had Sir Luncelot, his finest

knight, by his side in this dark hour. Subsequently, he orders Sir Bedivere to cast

Excalibour, his legendary sword and the symbol of his power, into the water. Twice

does the knight fail to execute the order, tempted to keep the valuable artifact for

himself. King Arthur’s supernatural connection to the blade allows him to know whether

it had returned to whence it came. For his lies, the noble king chastises the knight,

exclaiming:

Ah, traitor untrue, said King Arthur, now hast thou betrayed me twice. Who would have

38

weened that, thou that hast been to me so lief and dear? and thou art named a noble

knight, and would betray me for the richness of the sword. But now go again lightly, for

thy long tarrying putteth me in great jeopardy of my life, for I have taken cold. And but

if thou do now as I bid thee, if ever I may see thee, I shall slay thee with mine own

hands; for thou wouldst for my rich sword see me dead. (Mallory [2000]:1245)

The third time Sir Bedivere executes the order and casts Excalibour into the water.

There, the sword is immediately caught by a mysterious hand and taken to the bottom.

The king, finally pleased, asks but one more favour of Sir Bedivere – to take him to the

river where he cast the sword into the water. There, they encounter grieving damsels,

including Queen Morgan le Fay, the Queen of Northgalis, Queen of the Wastelands, and

Nimue, who take King Arthur to Avalon. Even the sister of King Arthur and his mortal

enemy, Morgan le Fay, is within his funeral retinue. Upon resting her brother’s head on

her womb, she exclaims: “Ah, dear brother, why have ye tarried so long from me? Alas,

this wound on your head hath caught over-much cold”(Malory [2000]:1246)

In Chapter VII, Malory briefly touches upon the subject of the opinions of King

Arthur after his death. Some man, the author claims, would not believe that Arthur was

indeed dead, and instead convinced themselves he would come back and win the holy

cross. This nigh blasphemous statement is a testament to the immense fear and respect

he aroused among his subjects. To ascribe him such messianic quality shows, that, to

many, King Arthur was far more than a mortal.

Queen Guenever, unable to deal with the loss of her beloved husband and

conviction, that these were her actions that lead to his death, goes to Almesbury and

becomes a nun. Sir Launcelot, having received the latter from late Sir Gewain, stricken

with grief immediately departs for England. There, he fulfills the request of King

Arthur’s nephew and prays on his grave. There, he learns that it is too late to save the

king himself and overcome with sadness he calls off his bannermen. His last wish is to

see for the last time his queen, whom he after much trouble in the aforementioned

convent. Unable to ever realise his love for her, he chooses a similar fate and, along with

Sir Bedivere and the ex-bishop of Canterbury becomes a hermit. Years later experiences

a divine vision, in which he is informed that Queen Guenever died. Surrounded by many

of his fellow knights, now turned holy men, he transports her remains to the place of

burial of King Arthur and inhumes her earthly remains alongside her husband. After this

point mundane, earthly matters do not concern Sir Launcelot anymore, he fully commits

himself to never-ending, passionate prayer, essentially starving himself to death in the

39

process. His last years and dead are as perfect and idealised as was the time if his prime.

He passed away a devout Christian, making atonement in prayer for whatever sins he

had committed. Constantine becomes the next King of England and rules fairly and

lawfully, much like his predecessor. So ends the final tale of “Le morte d’Arthur”.

Chapter 3: Analysis of predominant themes

From the account of events presented in previous subchapters and their analysis in relation to the chivalric code and the concept of honour, it is evident, that the intention of the author was to establish Sir Launcelot as an apotheosis of a perfect knight, an embodiment of chivalrous and Christian qualities. Throughout his journeys he remains valiant and devout, resilient to the temptations of evil, always in control of his emotions, an eager to help the needy. Sir Mordred, in turn, is his polar opposite. He commits crimes against every commandment of the Code of Chivalry, he stains his honour with betrayal, false testimony, and blasphemy. Sir Mortred is a knight in name only, for he has rejected every value that a true chevalier honours in his life. Finally, the noble King Arthur himself, an exemplary ruler is a true knight and a just monarch, bestowed with respect by his loyal subjects. To establish them as such, to put to a test and prove the inherent qualities ascribed to those major characters, the author utilises various literary themes. In this chapter an attempt will be made to account for and analyse major themes and motifs found in the chosen books of Le Morte d’Arthur that lead to development of the plot and help define the characters.

3.1 Strength and prowess

A quality of utmost importance for chivalry and a central theme of the tale is that of physical strength and battle prowess. In each of his adventures, the might of Sir Launcelot is tested. He fights evil giants and bandits, treacherous villains and vindictive knights. He jousts with his fellow chevaliers only to establish himself as the champion among knights. It is not until the tales of Sangreal that Le morte d’Arthur turns to a more conservative, pious tone. The world of Sir Launcelot is, to a great degree, the world of pumping testosterone and clanking swords. The protagonist is very much aware of his superior strength and prowess. It is evident when he takes the armor and the horse of Sir Kay, leaving behind his own equipment to disguise himself as the other knight and mislead his oppressors. He is convinced that he can handle whatever enemies Sir Kay made for himself and that the other knight, in turn, will travel safely disguised as the famed Sir Launcelot du Lake. Such act of benevolence is also an act of audacity.

40

With similar bravado Sir Launcelot challenges the renowned knight, Sir Turquine, to a duel. The latter, in turn, has such an admiration for the strength and prowess of the knight of the lake that he is willing to release thirty-four of his prisoners, whom he had previously bested in combat, in his honour. The massage here is clear – a strong and valorous knight is a knight is worthy of adoration.

3.2 Magic and supernatural

Another reoccurring theme in The Noble Tale of Sir Launcelot du Lake as well as in The Death of Arthur is the theme of magic. Although it is an unclear and poorly explained concept, it has enormous significance for the flow of the plot. In its nature, magic appears to be neither good nor evil. As Sunders (Archibald et al. 2009:231) argues, “Malory does not explicitly associate practitioners of magic with the otherworld, but leaves their identities vague.” On one hand, Sir Launcelot encounters sorceresses who imprison him and threaten his life, on the other he heals mortal wounds of his friend with a piece of magic cloth and an enchanted sword. King Arthur himself wields a weapon of magical properties, obtained from a supernatural being. In words of Malory, “Then he drew his sword Excalibur, but it was so bright in his enemies' eyes, that it gave light like thirty torches.” (Mallory [2000]:29). The scabbard of the sword is capable of stopping blood loss and healing wounds. (Mallory [2000]:90). King Arthur’s sister, Queen Morgan la Fay, is skilled in the art of magic and necromancy. (Mallory [2000]:16) The dead of the king is in no way natural either. According to Sunders (Archibald et al. 2009:232), there appears to be no conflict between the existence of magic and supernatural and principles of Christianity. Furthermore, it might seem that magic constitutes, in a way, a plot device, which ensures the flow of action and explains the unplausible scenarios. As Greenwood (1907:21) argues: “This indescribable conviction of magic places Malory’s characters outside the sphere of criticism, since, given the atmosphere, they are consistent with themselves and their circumstances.” Indeed, in one of the opening passages of Book VI quotes in the previous chapter, Malory writes: “For in all tournaments and jousts and deeds of arms, both for life and death, he passed all other knights, and at no time he was never overcome but if it were by treason or enchantment.”( Mallory [2000]:230) In this way, the author establishes magic and deception as the only ways in which his idealised characters, such as Sir Launcelot, can be bested or lead astray. It is also a testament to the immense power of magic in the world of Arthurian legends; and so is the fact that the strongest of knights of the round table can be overcome by and enchantment casted by a feeble and frail woman, or that a piece of cloth and a rusty sword can bring a man back from the brink of death.

3.3 The quest

The theme of a quest is omnipresent within the tale. In “Morphology of the folk culture” Vladimir Propp (1928:21) argues, that the quest ensues for one of the three reasons a)

41

misfortune or lack is made known b) the hero is approached with a request or command c) he is allowed to go or dispatched. The author also differentiates between the hero as a seeker – the agent of the story, and a victimised hero, who can be both the agent and the object. While the noble quest for Sangreal described in subsequent books of Le Morte d’Arthur, where the knights are dispatched for a clearly outlined mission, in Book VI Sir Launcelot appears to be traveling the country without any definite goal. To journey and seek adventure is, for the noble knight, a goal in itself. Nevertheless, he finds plenty of missions of both of the aforementioned types. In some he is the victim, enchanted and imprisoned by Morgan la Fay; in other he is the hero, the valiant knight who helps the weak and saves the oppressed. For King Arthur, the return to England upon learning of Sir Morder’s betrayal is a quest; a quest to reclaim his righteous place and punish the traitor. In analogous fashion, the horrible crimes committed by the power-hungry son of King Arthur are a part of a despicable quest as well. The concept so mocked by Cervantes, in Le morte d’Arthur is treated with utmost respect. The sense of a mission is crucial for the hero to stay true to his ideals. Without a quest to ful fill, the knight cannot test his might and valour.

3.4 Damsel in distress

A theme of similar ubiquity and prevalence within the tale is that of a damsel in distress. Nearly every of the adventures of Sir Launcelot opens up with an encounter with a troubled lady, begging the gallant knight for help. Thus starts another quest. As Moore (1967) argues, such development of the plot is intentional and based on contrast. While the women of Arthurian legends are weak, frail, and in need of assistance, the knight, noble and powerful, graciously bestows his helping hand to feeble creatures. The theme, repeated ad nauseam throughout not only Book VI but the entire opus, corresponds with the third commandment of Gautier’s Code of Chivalry (1891:26), which obliges the knight to help and protect the weak, to be the champion of the powerless. Ultimately, the noble Queen Guenever herself becomes a damsel in need of rescue when King Arthur finds out about her infidelity and plans to put her to fire. Sir Launcelot obliges to the unspoken request and saves his paramour, even though it necessitates for him to oppose the will of his sovereign – one of the greatest offenses within the feudal system.

3.5 Betrayal

Finally, betrayal. The ultimate cause of the downfall of Camelot. Queen Guenever betrays her husband and her marriage vow when she enters an adulterous relationship with Sir Launcelot. The noble knight is betrayed by the falconer lady, who condemns him to sure death at the hands of his husband. However, in the feudal setting of Le Morte d’Arthur, for the vassal to betray his sovereign was the greatest offence of all. While one could argue that the sinful affection of Sir Launcelot for Queen Guenever was an example of such betrayal, quite obviously, the most serious and significant act of treachery is that of Sir Mortred against his own father. In his usurpation of the throne of England and subsequent battles against King Arthur, he breaks every oath and commandment imposed upon him as a knight and a Christian. Not even the ever shady and mischievous Sir Mortred could have been expected to commit crimes of this magnitude. In his unquenched hunger for power, he not only betrays his direct superior, but also the ultimate sovereign, that is God, when he attempts to slay the bishop of

42

Canterbury, who dares to lecture him. The last chapter of Le morte d’Arthur is the ultimate testament to the destructive outcome of a betrayal. The crime of Sir Mordred leads to the death of hundreds of noble knights, including King Arthur himself, and causes much grief to those who remain alive. The treacherous knight, too, falls victim to his own ploy. There are victors in the war of betrayal.

43

Conclusion

Le Morte d’Arthur is, without a doubt, a vast source of all information related to

chivalry. The characters of gallant knights distressed damsels, righteous kings and

despicable traitors, despite being rather two-dimensional, are remarkably memorable.

The story of noble quests and great battles remains fascinating to this day, and even

during a task as mundane as writing a thesis paper, the researcher can immerse himself

in the world of great warriors, omnipresent magic, and courtly traditions.

Hopefully, besides having derived enjoyment from his venture to Camelot, the

author managed to sufficiently discuss the topic of chivalric ethos in relation to

Arthurian Legends. The first chapter focused on the introduction and definition of the

very concepts with which this paper is concerned – honour and chivalry. A set of

different takes on the code of chivalry, ranging from that of an early-medieval poeat to

the reaserch of a contemporary scholars, was presented. Subsequently, the author of Le

Morte d’Arthur was introduced as a somewhat hypocritical figure, who praised noble

and virtuous knights when he himself was rotting in prison. The second chapter dealt

with the practical application of the code of chivalry, as exampled in two chosen tales

from Le Morte d’Arthur. In the third chapter an attempt was made to select and analyse

the most significant themes present within the narrative of Malory.

An opus as vast and rich as Le Morte d’Arthur could surely be studied in an

uncountable number of ways, and each time some new and unexpected bit of

information would surface. Nevertheless, analysis of just two of the twenty-one books

provided the author with an abundance of material, that he only hopes he had presented

in sufficiently comprehensive manner in this humble paper.

44

References

Alchin, L.K.”Middle Ages”, http://www.middle-ages.org.uk (Retrieved July 16 2012)

Archibald, Elizabeth and Ad Putter. 2009. The Cambridge Companion to Arthurian

Legend. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Bruce B. Christopher. 1999. The Arthurian Name Dictionary. New York: Garland

Publishing

Cabell, James Branch. 2006. Chivalry, 1st World Library

Coredon C. and Ann Williams. 2004. A dictionary of Medieval Terms and phrases,

Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer Ltd

Corley Corin F. V. 1999. Lancelot of the Lake Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gautier, Leon. 1891. Chivalry. London: G. Routledge and sons, limited

Greenwood, Alice D. 1907. The Cambridge History of English and American Literature

in 18 Volumes – Volume II: Middle Ages. New York: Purnam

Hicks, Edward Sir. 1928. Thomas Malory, His Turbulent Career: A Biography. Oxford :

Oxford University Press

Malory, Sir Thomas. 2000. Le Morte d'arthur. (Edited by Elizabeth Bryan) Modern

Library

Matthews, William. 1966. The Ill-Framed Knight: A Skeptical Inquiry into the Identity

of Sir Thomas Malory, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press

45

Moore, Amelia Smith, 1967. Queens and Damsels in Distress: Medieval Tragedy in

Malory Auburn: Auburn University

Persal Judy and Patrick Hans. 2009. Oxford Dictionary of English, second edition

revised, Oxford: Oxford University press

Propp ,Vladímir. 1928. Morphology of the folk tale. (First edition translated by

Laurence Scott[1968]) Madison: University of Wisconsin

Vinaver, Eugene. 1929. Malory. Oxford: Cleardon Press

46