On January
24th I posted a short précis on the perplexing, dramatic life of Sir
Thomas Malory, author of Le Morte
d’Arthur. Why did someone with such
an ostensibly extensive criminal history write a book so deeply concerned with
chivalric morality? Was he defamed?
Since then,
partly as a result of interest expressed by M. Watkins, R. Lajeunesse and Lynn,
I’ve been following up with what has been slight spare time. I decided to do so by re-reading two versions
of Le Morte d’Arthur, the Caxton and
Winchester, and have acquired two historical texts: The
Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory by P. J. C. Field written in 1993 and
Christina Hardyment’s 2004 Malory: The Knight Who Became King Arthur’s
Chronicler. My goal is to
develop an informed personal opinion of the relation of Malory’s life to his
exceptional book.
Consider,
this a short update, possibly one of several.
I’m not an historian nevertheless I intend to give the topic my best
critical shot. I admit to feeling a bit
like Josephine Tey’s detective in Daughter
of Time. “The game’s afoot,” as
someone more notable was want to quote.
The two
histories are well reviewed. Field is a
preeminent academic text (and expensive unless you find a used copy as I did.) In contrast Hardyment (no academic
slouch: Newnham College Cambridge, St.
Anthony’s College, Oxford) intentionally wrote a more accessible and casually
readable book. There are more recent
contributions to the literature which I’m surveying and I’ll report on them as
they become pertinent.
Malory’s
life story is immediately difficult, literally: my two sources disagree
dramatically on his date of birth. Field
devotes a careful chapter to it and places it between 1414 and 1416. Hardyment places is around 1401 and disperses
her reasoning for it throughout her book.
The consequences for developing a picture of his life are profound. Remember 1451 was the signal year in which
Malory fell from grace and was accused of so many crimes. Was he 35 or 50? When he was fourteen was he part of Henry V’s
Agincourt campaign, one of the Earl of Warwick’s retinue or was he at best
in swaddling clothes at that time?
One piece of
primary evidence sited by both Field and Hardyment is Sir William Dugdale’s
1656 The Antiquities of Warwickshire
Illustrated, which is available online.
On page 56, Dugdale writes,
“…(John Malory) left issue Thomas; who, in King Henry Vth’s time, was of
the retinue to Richard Beauchamp Earl of Warwick at the siege of Caleys, and
served there with one lance and two Archers; receiving for his lance and
1.Archer xx.ii per an. And their dyet and for the other Archer x.marks and no
dyet.
“This Thomas, being a Kt in 23. H. 6, served for this Shire in the
Paliam. …”
Dugdale’s
book was published 240 years after the event.
Both Field and Hardyment go to Dugdale’s references: the muster rolls for the campaigns and draw
different conclusions. I’ve read both
their arguments multiple times and am not yet ready to express a personal
opinion. But the issue is of such obvious
importance I will continue worrying it.
I feel like
I’m walking across unsteady, shifting ground.
I remember feeling this way several times when I was researching As a Black Prince on Bloody Fields. The difference is that then I could appeal to
my imagination for resolution for what were much, much smaller issues.
I must finish with a caution. Everyone has read stories or novels about
dangerous books, books that reveal sacred information or summon devils. Dugdale’s book is one of those. It’s particular hazard is that it devours and
collapses time. If you decide to look at
it, watch out particularly for the illustrations. You’ve been warned. (The image above is from Antonioni's superlative 1966 film "Blow-up" which concerns an unintentional amateur detective.)
Episode 3 is here
No comments:
Post a Comment