THE TEXT OF MALORYTHE TEXT OF MALORY
By W.F. Oakeshott
The manuscript of Malory which has lately come to light in the Library of Winchester College, and which is believed to be the only manuscript in existence of the Morte Darthur, is in the handwriting of two scribes. They evidently worked on it at the same time, and it was bound, as was usual, only after their work was complete. Hand A is distinctly decorative, and is very similar to some of the English type of the period-e.g., that used by Machlinia in London about 1486. Both hands seemed to Mr. A.J. Collins, of the British Museum, to have affinities with the Chancery hand, and he read a phrase in blind scratches twice repeated at the top of one page as "Know all men by these presents"; which looks as if the book emanated from a source where legal documents were familiar. Malory was in prison, probably in London (Vinaver, Malory, p. 9, note 7), when he finished his book in 1469, and it is almost certain that somewhere about 1500 the Winchester manuscript was in the hands of a London repairer, so that it is likely to have been written in London also. Hand A was probably in charge of this job, for in two instances he has started off hand B on a new book, and hand B has taken over after six lines or so. Of the two A is the more careless, and unfortunately neither copyist revised his work, corrections being confined almost solely to errors noticed as soon as written.
The major subdivisions of the manuscript are those already indicated by Caxton's footnotes-e.g., between Books III. and IV., between Books VI. and VII., between Books VII. and VIII., and so on. In the manuscript, however, they are marked in most instances by fuller colophons than those which Caxton printed, though his colophons are clearly shortened versions of those in the manuscript-which certainly derive in the form in which we now have them from Malory himself. In the archetype also were the further subdivisions marked by smaller red initials in the manuscript text, for Caxton has utilized these throughout for his chapter divisions, though there were not nearly enough for his purpose. In Book XII., for example, which Caxton divided into fourteen chapters, there are three initials, one for Chapter I., another for Chapter VI., and the other for Chapter XI. Apart from these breaks the text in the manuscript is continuous. The only example of the neglect of one of these initials by Caxton seems to be in Book V., which he rewrote, and this is a single instances out of the eleven in the manuscript version of the book.
To decide the precise character of the copy from which Caxton printed is not easy. His compositor may well be responsible for a number of the errors which the new manuscript corrects. Examples are Book IV., Chapter XXVI., where Caxton gives [Sir Marhaus] "had somtyme doune fourty knyghtes"-where "somtyme" is probably a printer's error for "smitten," the manuscript reading; Book VI., Chapter VI., where Caxton gives "there were scaffoldis and holes that lordes and ladyes myghte beholde," where the manuscript has "scaffoldis and towrys"' or Book X., Chapter LXXVI., where "satte under a fayre welle from the field" is given in the manuscript as "sat under a thorne a good way from the field." It may be also the printer who is at fault in a passage like Book IV., Chapter XVIII., where Caxton's text omits the words in brackets in the following sentence:--
Nay (Caxton "Now") sayde Sir Marhaus we woll nat depte so lyghtly for I woll brynge yhou thorow þe forest [So they rode forth all iii and Sir Marhaus toke wt hym his grettyste spere and so they rode thorow þe foreste] and rode day be day well nye a vii dayes or they founde ony aventure.
-an error easily explained; or for the similar omission in Book X., Chapter L.XXXII.:--
Sir Palomydes that rode and lodged wyth the ii kyngs [al that nyght and on the morne Sir Paloymdes depted frome the ii kyngs] where of they were hevy. . . .
Some of these omissions may have been in Caxton's manuscript copy; but it is not possible to prove they were, and only in instances where Caxton has "sub-edited" to cover traces of an omission can it be stated with some certainty that his copy was defective. A possible example from Gawaine's last speech has been quoted elsewhere. Perhaps more convincing is an instance from Book XIII., Chapter XII., where Sir Melias is asking a request of Sir Galahad, and says:--
. . . Sytthyn ye have made me a knyght ye must of ryght graunte me my fyrst desyre þt ys resonable. Ye say soth seyde Sir Galahad [I graunte hit you gt y (i.e., gramercy) myne owne Lorde sayde he and ] that ye woll suffir me to ryde wt you in thys queste of the Sankgreall.
After "Galahad" Caxton reads "melyas said thene that ye wil suffre me to ryde," &c. It looks as though the words in brackets had dropped out of Caxton's copy, and he covers the omission with the lame phrase, "Melias said," which gives the sense required, but does nothing more. The question is one of importance, for if it could be shown that Caxton was using the author's own copy, our attitude towards his text, in spite of the revision it underwent in the printing, would necessarily be particularly respectful. His copy, then, though it may have had fewer accidental omissions than ours, was apparently not Malory's autograph.
If Caxton's copy and the Winchester manuscript were derived, independently, from the autograph, this too had certain obscurities. The following passage from Book XIII., Chapter VIII., is an example:--
So within a whyle they came to a Cyte and a Castel that hyght Vagon / there they entrid Into the castel and the lord thereof was an old man / that hyght Vagon / and he was a good man of hys lyvynge. . . .
The repetition of the name is suspicious, but is made more so by the reading of the manuscript:--
So with in a whyle they rode all to gydirs tyll that they com to a cite and a castell that hyght Vagon and so they entird in to the castell and the lord þr of was an olde man that hyght Vagon. And so they entird in to the castell and þe lorde there off was an olde man and good of hys lyvyng. . . .
It looks as if Malory repeated himself and as if the manuscript text represents exactly what the original autograph copy contained, whereas Caxton has revised the passage as best he could. Again, in Book XV., Chapter VI., Caxton speaks of Sir Launcelot coming to a valley "and there he sawe a ryver and an hyhe montayn." In the sequel more is said of the valley but nothing of the mountain. The manuscript gives "a ryver and an hy3e mortays." What Malory certainly wrote or meant to write was "a ryver that hight Mortoise." For in Book XVIII. he gives this as the river's name, and what is more important, the French source gives it at this point "que on apeloit Marcoise."
The text will therefore have to be reconstructed with the aid of Malory's sources. As an example may be taken Book XV., the French original for which is readily accessible, having been printed in full by Vinaver as Appendix III. to his Malory (1929). In Book XV. the extent of Caxton's revision was small. To recognize it, it is necessary to compare the three texts, Caxton's, the manuscript, and the French, and the assumption will be that the agreement of any two against the other will most probably represent Malory's text. The following are the most important variants, with some minor variants thrown in, to show how the source will often decide even in very small details, between Caxton and the manuscript version:-
Ch. I.
(i.) C. He departed about the houre of none.
MS. He deted untyll the owre of none
French Jusque3 a heure de midi.
(ii.) C. Sire launcelot saide god save yow / god kepe yow sayd the good man.
MS. Sir Launcelot seyde Sir god save you // Sir god kepe you seyde the good man.
Fr. Biaux sire, Dieux vous gart ! - Dieux le face, sire chevaillier. . . .
(iii.) MS With that they say [the fyennd] in an hydeous fygure. Caxton, against MS and Fr., omits the words in brackets.
Ch. III.
C. . . . came a man afore hym alle by compas of sterres.
MS. . . . all by compast with sterres.
Fr. . . . touz avironnés destoilles. Malory possibly wrote "all by compast of."
Ch. IV.
C. And therefor make thou hit knowen openly that he is one of thy gebetynge [on Kynge Pelles doughter, for that wyl be to youre worship and honour and to alle thy kynred]. And I counceyle you, in no place prece not upon hym to have adoo with hym. MS., supported by Fr., omits words in brackets, and adds after the phrase "adoo with hym," "For hit woll nat avayle no knyght to have ado wt hym." Here it is possible that the phrase in brackets is ogirinal for the seven words immediately before it are not in Fr., but are in both C. and MS. The addition is also probably Malory's.
Ch. V.
After "on whyte horses and trappours"
MS. has the sentence "So there began a grete tournament." This appears in Fr. and was certainly in Malory's autograph copy.
Ch. VI.
(i.) C. That thou sholdest knowe good from evylle and vayne glory of the world. MS., with Fr., þat þow sholde know god frome vayne glory of the worlde.
(ii.) C. All the whyte knyghts [with the kevering of whyte by whome was betokeneth vyrgynyte and chastyte.]\ MS., and Fr. omit words in brackets. Here as in Ch. IV. above the few words immediately before the omission are not in Fr., but the words in brackets are nevertheless probably an editorial addition of Caxton's-characteristic of the explanatory additions which he will be found to have made fairly frequently.
Throughout this book the only cases where the French definitely supports Caxton against the manuscript are where omissions occur in the manuscript text. In Chapter I. it omits two phrases, in Chapter IV. it telescopes two phrases into one, and there are a few other minor omissions.
The evidence of Book XV. then seems to confirm the theory of an independent derivation of the Winchester manuscript and Caxton's copy, for we have examples of agreement between themanuscript and French against Caxton, and (where omissions in the manuscript occur) agreements between Caxton and the French against the manuscript. The same results are obtained from a comparison of the three texts in Book V., the source in this case being English, the alliterative Morte Arthure (E.E.T.S., 1904); and even here, though Caxton rewrote the book, his version cannot be altogether neglected for the reconstruction of the text. The list of names (for example) in Chapter XII. is given by Caxton as Pleasance and Pavia, Petersaint and the Port of Tremble. The manuscript omits Pavia, but it was in Malory's source (l. 3142), and can therefore be unhesitatingly accepted. But where in the earlier list of names (Chapter II.) Caxton includes "Cayer and Gallacye," they are additions of his own (the corresponding passage in M.A., ll. 572-608, omits them), and the manuscript addition of "Prester John's Lands" is certainly correct (cf. M.A., l. 588). In this same passage there is, perhaps, an example of inaccuracy in Caxton's copy. He talks of "Hermonye (Armenia) where as the ryver of Eufrates renneth into Asye." M..A., line 573, indicates that the manuscript is right in saying "Ermony that rever of Eufreate rennys by" and then continuing with Asia, &c. Other instances in this same book of faults in Caxton's copy are in Chapter IV., where there is, surely, no reason for the change from Beare to Boar, unless it was so written in the copy (unless perhaps Caxton found it difficult to credit a Beare with tusks and characteristically failed to notice the difficulty of crediting a Boar with "paws as big as a post"); in Chapter VI., where Caxton prints "one of the strengest of Pauye" (Pavia), whereas what Malory wrote was of "pavynes londis" (cf. M.A., l. 1377, Paynime); in Chapter VII., where it was evidently the King of Lybye (as the manuscript reads) that was slain; and in Chapter XII., where Caxton seems to have read "avayled" where Malory wrote "of Walys" (for the phrase, cf. M.A., l. 320), while later in the same chapter he gives "seized the town" evidently as a rendering of Malory's "cesed the sawte" (i.e., ceased the assault), which he presumably read as "seized the city."
The manuscript text of Book V. raises incidentally the problem of how close to the Lincoln version of the Morte Arthure (the only version now extant) was that which Malory used. He clearly appreciated the alliterative style of the Morte, and many of the alliterative phrases in the manuscript text which have no parallels in the Morte Arthure as we have it certainly came out of Malory's own head. And the purpose of the considerable modifications which he makes in the narrative is often obvious, and does not require us to suppose a different original. He is concerned, for instance, that Launcelot should play a greater part than he does in the Morte Arthure. He begins well by multiplying Launcelot's offer of knights for the expedition from six score (M.A., l. 380) to twenty thousand, and his importance is, correspondingly increased throughout. But when this has been said, there remains the strong impression that many passages have behind them an alliterative original that the Lincoln manuscript does not provide, for one often catches in the lines not only alliteration but also rhythm. When Arthur says he will "Ryde into Rome with my ryallest knights" it may be an adaptation of line 432, but it might equally be from another text, as might be the line "And the Greekis were gadird and goodly arrayed" (cf. l. 602) or the line "Discover the woods both the dalys and the downys" (cf. l. 1641), but there is nothing in the parallel speech in Morte Arthure (ll. 1662-1670) very near "[Thy lord] wenys with his knights to wynne all the world." Examples might be multiplied, but it is perhaps more conclusive to point to another small piece of evidence. The Morte Arthure speaks (l. 3128) of the taking of Combe-i.e., Como. In Caxton's version the town is called Urbino. This is only what Caxton thinks the name of an Italian town ought to sound like, for what Malory wrote was no doubt something very similar to the manuscript reading Virvyn (i.e., Verona). Malory's geography is notoriously weak, and this is too good a shot for him. It came directly out of his source as does the rest of his geography in this section. But to decide precisely what his debt to this other version of the Morte Arthure may have been is not possible-unless a lucky chance should bring a copy of it to light.
[Times Literary Supplement, Thursday September 27, 1934]
Back