Ask Jot

Chosen Answer by Jallan

There is no particularly accepted summary. There are various attempt to summarize of course. For example, in Walter Scott’s introduction to the Auchinleck “Sir Tristrem” manuscript, Scott refers casually to “a part of the collection, called the /Mort Arthure/, containing great part of the history of the Round Table, extracted at hazard, and without much art of or combination, from the various French prose folios on that favorite topic. This work was compiled by Sir Thomas Malory, or Maleore, in the ninth year of the reign of Edward IV., and printed by Caxon. It has since undergone several editions, and is in the hands of most antiquaries and collectors. Those unaccustomed to the study of romance, should beware of trusting to this work, which misrepresents the adventures and traduces the character, of Sir Gawain, and other renowned Knights of the Round Table. It is, however. a work of great interest and curiously written in excellent old English and a high tone of chivalry.” “Caxton” is misspelled as “Caxon” in this text, and /Morte Arthur/ should be written as /Le Morte Darthur/ or /Le Morte d’Arthur/, and the so-called traducing of Sir Gawain’s character is normal in prose Arthurian texts created after the Vulgate Arthurian Cycle, the so-called Post-Vulgate Arthurian texts in which Gawain is suddenly very much a hypocritical scoundrel whereas in the Vulgate Arthurian Cycle he is still one of the best knights in Arthur’s court. When Malory is reproducing Post-Vulgate material, of course his Gawain fits with that material. Still, this short summary was once much quoted. See http://books.google.ca/books?id=FFYJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR81&lpg=PR81&dq=%22at+hazard+and+without+much+art%22&source=web&ots=7B8uM1Nj2A&sig=oWqqQe4WQJETr5Rhq_BNo9LlTcY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPR80,M1 . At least it should help counteract the tendency of English poets and novelists to take Malory’s word as though it were God in the Arthurian field, and never even try to look beyond them, when at least some of the time it would be reasonable that his unabridged sources might have something to add to his tale. But it seldom counteracted such a tendency. It was easier to take Malory as Arthurian gospel and not look behind him. The Wikipedia article is probably reasonable as such things go, though as pointed out, the anonymous authors in the current revision have not bothered to document their finds. One paragraph explains that the title was probably intended to be “The hoole booke of kyng Arthur & of his noble knyghtes of the rounde table” and that the title “Le Morte Darthur” was a mistake by Caxton the printer. In any case which case a proper summary of the work now called “Le Morte d’Arthur” is very much not “Arthur dies”. It is rather an account, mostly, of Arthur’s life and the activities of some his most prominent knights. Of course it ends with Arthur’s supposed death. What else? Eugene Vinaver who managed to hook onto the newly discovered Malory manuscript in 1934 claimed that the work was composed of separate romances, which explains contradictions between them: they were not supposed to be consistent, they were a sort of Arthurian anthology. Vinaver even called is edition “Works”. Many at the time disputed this, pointing out that Malory again and again added characters and material in which version of one book which linked up with the same characters or same material in another book. Those who examined the manuscript found that Vinaver had sometimes set breaks according to his own feeling about what was right, not based on the manuscript. And even with Vinaver’s theory, there were still contradictions within the individual tales. There are few people today who today accept Vinaver’s theories. Once again we are back at a single complete book which contains some contradictions, much like Malory’s sources, which themselves contained internal contradictions, some of them copied into Malory’s text. But it is not a complete book in the modern sense. There is obviously too much Tristram material, for example. Some abridged editions drop most of it. The Wikipedia writer appears to very much dislike the Sir Gareth story, explaining that battles in that tale have no consequences, as though the many quarrels between Tristram and Palamedes or between Tristram and Bleoberis in the Tristram material have some sort of consequence. Indeed these stories were originally created in French by successful expansion of earlier tales, and in each episode that contains regular characters must of necessity end with them exactly that same as the episode begins. No matter how often Tristram and Palamedes reconcile, another later author can add yet another episode about a battle and reconciliation between them. Some such battles do appear in other versions of the French Prose Tristram, also with no consequences. Using another writer’s work as summary of “Le Morte d’Arthur” is not a good idea. Other writers, whether Sidney Lanier, Thomas Bullfinch, Howard Pyle, Roger Lancelyn Green, or T.H.White, or even Keith Baines all have their own agendas. The story they tell varies from being almost the same to rather different. T. H. White’s comic King Pellinore is not the same as Malory's King Pellinore, who is not comic. That said, T. H. White's version of the Grail Quest provides an excellent commentary on Malory’s Grail Quest. A lot of what will prove useful to you is found here http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/malory.htm . A summary and an expanded summary are found at http://www.arthurian-legend.com/summary-mort-darthur-00.php and at http://www.enotes.com/le-morte .

Chosen Answer by Jallan

You say “even the woman in the story who wanted her son to be the king i guess ''. Why would you guess that? Queen Guinevere doesn’t even have a son in Malory's “Le Morte d’Arthur”. It looks like you have read neither the story nor a summary. Read the story itself. Look up names that appear in the tale at http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/bruce_dictionary/index.htm .

Chosen Answer by TheMoop

Le Morte d'Arthur is about King Arthur Pendragon, if I'm not mistaken, so that's always interesting (that's The Death of Arthur, if you didn't already know). I don't know anything about any of the others, but I'd go with the last one for sure..