What do you think?
Rate this book
Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table
THE BIRTH OF CHIVALRY
The rousing epic of King Arthur and his court has had a lasting effect on the traditions and literature of the English-speaking peoples. These well-known tales represent the bridge between pagan and Christian, Druid and Dominus. Arthur emerges at the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of a British nation.
Keith Baines's splendid new rendition of Le Morte d' Arthur faithfully preserves the original flavor of Malory's masterpiece--that of banners and bloodshed, knights and ladies, Christians and sorcerers, sentiment and savagery. It remains a vivid, medieval tapestry woven about a central figure who symbolizes the birth of an age of chivalry.
512 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1485
2633 people are currently reading
46568 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Malory
886 books752 followersFrom French sources, Sir Thomas Malory, English writer in floruit in 1470, adapted
Le Morte d'Arthur
, a collection of romances, which William Caxton published in 1485.
From original tales such as the Vulgate Cycle , Sir Thomas Malory, an imprisoned knight in the fifteenth century, meanwhile compiled and translated the tales, which we know as the legend of king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
From original tales such as the Vulgate Cycle , Sir Thomas Malory, an imprisoned knight in the fifteenth century, meanwhile compiled and translated the tales, which we know as the legend of king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,402 reviews
August 14, 2014
FINALLY finished this last night. No exaggeration: I have been reading this book for six months. Not six continuous months, mind you. I kept the book by my bed and would try to read a little bit every night, but I could never manage to read more than twenty pages in a single sitting, and I would usually be reading another book in the meantime and forget about Le Morte d'Arthur for weeks at a time.
This thing is a hell of a slog, in other words. Sure, there are knightly adventures and duels aplenty, but once you've read two or three you've pretty much read them all. It's just dudes getting smote off their horses and slicing other dudes in the head and damosels running around being pretty and useless, and wasn't there supposed to be something about a grail quest? (further research tells me that all the stuff about the Holy Grail takes place in Volume Two, which I have absolutely no interest in tracking down)
It got to the point where I had to invent games to keep myself invested in the story, like "How Many of the Fight Scenes Can Be Interpreted as Gay Sex Scenes?" The answer, dear reader, is A Lot.
"By that Sir Launcelot was come, then he proffered Sir Launcelot to joust; and either made them ready, and they came together so fiercely that either bare down other to the earth, and sore were they bruised. ...and so they rushed together like boars, tracing, raising, and foining to the mountenance of an hour; and Sir Launcelot felt him so big that he marvelled of his strength, for he fought more liker a giant than a knight, and that his fighting was durable and passing perilous. For Sir Launcelot had so much ado with him that he dreaded himself to be shamed, and said, Beaumains, fight not so sore, your quarrel and mine is not so great but that we may leave off. Truly that is truth, said Beaumains, but it doth me good to feel your might, and yet, my lord, I showed not the utterance."
"And then they hurled together as wild boars, and thus they fought a great while. For Meliagaunce was a good man and of great might, but Sir Lamorak was hard big for him, and put him always aback, but either had wounded other sore."
This thing is a hell of a slog, in other words. Sure, there are knightly adventures and duels aplenty, but once you've read two or three you've pretty much read them all. It's just dudes getting smote off their horses and slicing other dudes in the head and damosels running around being pretty and useless, and wasn't there supposed to be something about a grail quest? (further research tells me that all the stuff about the Holy Grail takes place in Volume Two, which I have absolutely no interest in tracking down)
It got to the point where I had to invent games to keep myself invested in the story, like "How Many of the Fight Scenes Can Be Interpreted as Gay Sex Scenes?" The answer, dear reader, is A Lot.
"By that Sir Launcelot was come, then he proffered Sir Launcelot to joust; and either made them ready, and they came together so fiercely that either bare down other to the earth, and sore were they bruised. ...and so they rushed together like boars, tracing, raising, and foining to the mountenance of an hour; and Sir Launcelot felt him so big that he marvelled of his strength, for he fought more liker a giant than a knight, and that his fighting was durable and passing perilous. For Sir Launcelot had so much ado with him that he dreaded himself to be shamed, and said, Beaumains, fight not so sore, your quarrel and mine is not so great but that we may leave off. Truly that is truth, said Beaumains, but it doth me good to feel your might, and yet, my lord, I showed not the utterance."
"And then they hurled together as wild boars, and thus they fought a great while. For Meliagaunce was a good man and of great might, but Sir Lamorak was hard big for him, and put him always aback, but either had wounded other sore."
March 18, 2022
COME MAI NON SIAMO IN OTTO?
”La spada nella roccia”, 1963, il mio film d’animazione preferito di sempre.
Perché manca Lancillotto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyKof...
È un falso storico: alla tavola Rotonda sedevano decine, anche centinaia di cavalieri, certo non solo otto.
Erano così numerosi che io arrivo a mettere in dubbio la stessa esistenza della leggendaria Tavola, che secondo me per ragioni di spazio e contenimento, non poteva essere rotonda, sarà stata la classica fratina.
Oppure, una tavola Ikea, di quelle ripiegabili, a scomparsa, a baionetta, a incastro.
”I cavalieri della Tavola Rotonda”, di Richard Thorpe, 1953, il mio primo incontro con un attore che impersona Re Artù (qui era Mel Ferrer).
Letto perché Mario Praz scrisse la sua opera rappresenta la transizione dal romanzo medievale al romanzo moderno, e cioè la trasformazione da romanzo ciclico a romanzo “lineare”, e però, nonostante la dichiarazione del sommo Praz, a me pare più medievale che moderno, e mi pare che Chaucer lo abbia anticipato di circa un secolo, e quindi il romanzo cosiddetto moderno era probabilmente già nato.
”Excalibur”, di John Boorman, 1981, film mitico. Nigel Terry è Artù. Qui Mordred, interpretato da Robert Addie, figlio di Morgana e Artù, trafigge il padre: Artù si infilza la lancia sempre più in profondità in modo da potersi avvicinare al figlio e ucciderlo con la spada Excalibur.
Qui è un lungo costante elenco di nomi e titoli e territori, azioni duelli combattimenti assedi, i cavalieri sono gente concreta e non mostrano incertezze o esitazioni, non si arrovellano nei dilemmi d’onore e d’amore, però svengono in gruppo e piangono in coro, con effetti di comicità involontaria che credo siano sfuggiti a Malory (e non sono gli unici: aggiungerei anche i passaggi introdotti da un Per farla breve).
Malory dichiara che più che scrivere di suo pugno traduce da fonti precedenti (anche francesi, ma non Chrétien de Troyes, che Malory purtroppo non lesse). Quindi, difficile parlare di stile.
”Monthy Python e il Sacro Graal”, 1974. Graham Chapman nella parte di Artù.
Ci parla di gente che trasuda virilità maschia (macha?), e dice cose di questo tipo: Soffro di più per la perdita dei miei buoni cavalieri che per la fuga della mia gentile regina, perché di regine posso averne quante ne voglio, mentre non mi sarà mai più possibile riunire una simile compagnia di valorosi! (parole dello stesso Artù in ‘La morte di Artù’, l’ultimo romanzo, considerato da più parti il capolavoro del lotto).
Indimenticabile Sean Connery, Artù ne “Il primo cavaliere”, 1995.
Mi è mancato “l’amor cortese”, la fiaba, la delicatezza, non ho ritrovato nulla della bellezza struggente degli stessi racconti per mano di Chrétien de Troyes, autore della più bella scena d’amore che io ricordi.
Clive Owen-Re Artù in “King Arthur” di Antoine Fuqua, 2004.
La biografia di Malory sembra essere un mix di realtà e leggenda proprio come quella di re Artù. Nato a inizio del ‘400, partecipò all’assedio di Calais nel 1436, e fece parte del Parlamento. Fu cavaliere, usò spada e lancia, e nelle sue pagine descrisse e narrò cose che conosceva di prima mano (anche se il suo personaggio protagonista è, o sarebbe, vissuto quasi mille anni prima).
Morì nel 1471 e si portò nella tomba accuse di furto, stupro, tentati omicidi (il duca di Buckingham), abigeato, estorsione.
Fu arrestato diverse volte, rinchiuso perfino nella famigerata Torre di Londra, una volta liberato su cauzione, altre volte riuscì a evadere.
Ma tutto questo non è certo né provato.
Però, la sua tomba è nella chiesa dei Grey Friars presso la prigione di Newgate, e quindi forse del vero c’è.
Re Artù è personaggio, protagonista o meno, di almeno una dozzina di film, incluso il musical “Camelot” del 1967, dove lo interpretava Richard Harris.
Qui ho inserito immagini dai film che sono stati per me i più importanti.
E questo è il prossimo Artù, Charlie Hunnam, nel nuovo film di Guy Ritchie, non ancora uscito, “Re Artù: Il potere della spada”.
”La spada nella roccia”, 1963, il mio film d’animazione preferito di sempre.
Perché manca Lancillotto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyKof...
È un falso storico: alla tavola Rotonda sedevano decine, anche centinaia di cavalieri, certo non solo otto.
Erano così numerosi che io arrivo a mettere in dubbio la stessa esistenza della leggendaria Tavola, che secondo me per ragioni di spazio e contenimento, non poteva essere rotonda, sarà stata la classica fratina.
Oppure, una tavola Ikea, di quelle ripiegabili, a scomparsa, a baionetta, a incastro.
”I cavalieri della Tavola Rotonda”, di Richard Thorpe, 1953, il mio primo incontro con un attore che impersona Re Artù (qui era Mel Ferrer).
Letto perché Mario Praz scrisse la sua opera rappresenta la transizione dal romanzo medievale al romanzo moderno, e cioè la trasformazione da romanzo ciclico a romanzo “lineare”, e però, nonostante la dichiarazione del sommo Praz, a me pare più medievale che moderno, e mi pare che Chaucer lo abbia anticipato di circa un secolo, e quindi il romanzo cosiddetto moderno era probabilmente già nato.
”Excalibur”, di John Boorman, 1981, film mitico. Nigel Terry è Artù. Qui Mordred, interpretato da Robert Addie, figlio di Morgana e Artù, trafigge il padre: Artù si infilza la lancia sempre più in profondità in modo da potersi avvicinare al figlio e ucciderlo con la spada Excalibur.
Qui è un lungo costante elenco di nomi e titoli e territori, azioni duelli combattimenti assedi, i cavalieri sono gente concreta e non mostrano incertezze o esitazioni, non si arrovellano nei dilemmi d’onore e d’amore, però svengono in gruppo e piangono in coro, con effetti di comicità involontaria che credo siano sfuggiti a Malory (e non sono gli unici: aggiungerei anche i passaggi introdotti da un Per farla breve).
Malory dichiara che più che scrivere di suo pugno traduce da fonti precedenti (anche francesi, ma non Chrétien de Troyes, che Malory purtroppo non lesse). Quindi, difficile parlare di stile.
”Monthy Python e il Sacro Graal”, 1974. Graham Chapman nella parte di Artù.
Ci parla di gente che trasuda virilità maschia (macha?), e dice cose di questo tipo: Soffro di più per la perdita dei miei buoni cavalieri che per la fuga della mia gentile regina, perché di regine posso averne quante ne voglio, mentre non mi sarà mai più possibile riunire una simile compagnia di valorosi! (parole dello stesso Artù in ‘La morte di Artù’, l’ultimo romanzo, considerato da più parti il capolavoro del lotto).
Indimenticabile Sean Connery, Artù ne “Il primo cavaliere”, 1995.
Mi è mancato “l’amor cortese”, la fiaba, la delicatezza, non ho ritrovato nulla della bellezza struggente degli stessi racconti per mano di Chrétien de Troyes, autore della più bella scena d’amore che io ricordi.
Clive Owen-Re Artù in “King Arthur” di Antoine Fuqua, 2004.
La biografia di Malory sembra essere un mix di realtà e leggenda proprio come quella di re Artù. Nato a inizio del ‘400, partecipò all’assedio di Calais nel 1436, e fece parte del Parlamento. Fu cavaliere, usò spada e lancia, e nelle sue pagine descrisse e narrò cose che conosceva di prima mano (anche se il suo personaggio protagonista è, o sarebbe, vissuto quasi mille anni prima).
Morì nel 1471 e si portò nella tomba accuse di furto, stupro, tentati omicidi (il duca di Buckingham), abigeato, estorsione.
Fu arrestato diverse volte, rinchiuso perfino nella famigerata Torre di Londra, una volta liberato su cauzione, altre volte riuscì a evadere.
Ma tutto questo non è certo né provato.
Però, la sua tomba è nella chiesa dei Grey Friars presso la prigione di Newgate, e quindi forse del vero c’è.
Re Artù è personaggio, protagonista o meno, di almeno una dozzina di film, incluso il musical “Camelot” del 1967, dove lo interpretava Richard Harris.
Qui ho inserito immagini dai film che sono stati per me i più importanti.
E questo è il prossimo Artù, Charlie Hunnam, nel nuovo film di Guy Ritchie, non ancora uscito, “Re Artù: Il potere della spada”.
November 27, 2009
I just recently finished reading "Le Morte d'Arthur", and it was an interesting experience. It defies categorization. Not a novel, not an epic poem, not exactly a collection of myths, more than a collection of folk stories, certainly a product of a Christian imagination, but very earthy. Repetitive, but after I got into the rhythm of it, not boring. Once you submit your prejudices to the vision of the author, you become able to enter into this strange world of kings, knights, ladies, wars and tournaments. When we do, we discover that Arthur and his court represent an ideal. For Malory and his audience, a true king was noble at all times and able to marshall his forces in service of the good. A true knight trusted God to uphold his cause in the test of arms. A true lady was virtuous and worthy of being defended at all costs. There is much in these ideals that is noteworthy, and we look down our nose at these ideas at our own peril, I think.
There is a rhythm, a pattern in how the tales of King Arthur and his knights are told. There is always a quest in need of a knight, a lady in need of a champion, and a knight in need of proving his mettle. He will do so in the only way available to him at that time; through jousts and combat at arms with other errant knights he meets on his way. Courts, juries and judges are few and far between, so wrongs can only be righted by a gentle knight who will prove with his puissance that his cause is just. Again, when you sit back and accept that this is the pattern Malory used, the tales are enjoyable even though we know the formula and can predict with ease what is going to happen.
"Morte d'Arthur", though, is more than jousts and hunts. Digging beneath the surface, the reader discovers that the stories are filled with symbols and metaphors that show that Malory was telling more than stories of jousting knights. The legends of King Arthur are filled with Biblical allusions. Arthur, the once and future king, is a type of Christ. HIs knights bear resemblances to many of the apostles; Gawain is Peter, Modred is Judas, and so on. Even hunting excursions mean more than just a hunt. A white hart sometimes symbolizes Christ Himself, and the hunt becomes a pursuit of salvation.
But Malory was no mere idealist. King Arthur and his knights and ladies are deeply flawed. Sir Tristram and Queen Iseult indulge in an adulterous relationship for years under the protection of Lancelot. Lancelot himself uses his skill in battle to prove the innocence of himself and Guenevere, something few believe and even the king doubts. Gawain's impetuous nature is as much to blame for the fall of Camelot as Modred's treason. And in the quest for the holy Grail, the knights of the round table are all held accountable for their manifold sins.
The quest for the Grail came as a surprise to me. I always thought that the goal of the quest was to obtain the cup and give it to the king, and it is often presented in this manner. Malory, though, saw it differently. The quest for the Grail was a quest for the beatific vision, to be admitted into the presence of Christ while still on Earth. This is the reason it could only be accomplished by one who was as sinless as Galahad. This is also the reason that so many of the knights die in this quest. In their pride they pursued the Grail as an object to be possessed and manipulated. They embark on the quest unworthy of the quest itself, let alone the Grail. Half of them will pay for this affront with their lives.
Another surprise for me was the way in which "Le Morte" made it clear that Arthur, Camelot, and Logres are inextricably connected. The life of each follows the same arc. Camelot and Logres only begin to enjoy their greatness when Arthur becomes king. They grow and age with him, and his fate is their fate. As he waxes in strength, wisdom and goodness, so do they. They are at their height when he is at his, and when he falters and fails, they must also fall. The death of King Arthur is the death of his court and all that it stood for when at its best. The hope that he will return is the hope that true nobility, true chivalry has not died but only slumbers to awaken at need.
"Le Morte" is written in almost a perfunctory fashion. There is not much beauty to its prose. But the story itself is beautiful enough in its promise and tragedy to ameliorate any defect of technique. It is the font from which nearly all of our Arthurian stories springs. There is not a single book, poem, play, or movie about kings, knights and wizards that does not owe a certain debt to "Le Morte". There is much to reward the reader today who is willing to let Malory tell his tale his way. I encourage you to do so.
There is a rhythm, a pattern in how the tales of King Arthur and his knights are told. There is always a quest in need of a knight, a lady in need of a champion, and a knight in need of proving his mettle. He will do so in the only way available to him at that time; through jousts and combat at arms with other errant knights he meets on his way. Courts, juries and judges are few and far between, so wrongs can only be righted by a gentle knight who will prove with his puissance that his cause is just. Again, when you sit back and accept that this is the pattern Malory used, the tales are enjoyable even though we know the formula and can predict with ease what is going to happen.
"Morte d'Arthur", though, is more than jousts and hunts. Digging beneath the surface, the reader discovers that the stories are filled with symbols and metaphors that show that Malory was telling more than stories of jousting knights. The legends of King Arthur are filled with Biblical allusions. Arthur, the once and future king, is a type of Christ. HIs knights bear resemblances to many of the apostles; Gawain is Peter, Modred is Judas, and so on. Even hunting excursions mean more than just a hunt. A white hart sometimes symbolizes Christ Himself, and the hunt becomes a pursuit of salvation.
But Malory was no mere idealist. King Arthur and his knights and ladies are deeply flawed. Sir Tristram and Queen Iseult indulge in an adulterous relationship for years under the protection of Lancelot. Lancelot himself uses his skill in battle to prove the innocence of himself and Guenevere, something few believe and even the king doubts. Gawain's impetuous nature is as much to blame for the fall of Camelot as Modred's treason. And in the quest for the holy Grail, the knights of the round table are all held accountable for their manifold sins.
The quest for the Grail came as a surprise to me. I always thought that the goal of the quest was to obtain the cup and give it to the king, and it is often presented in this manner. Malory, though, saw it differently. The quest for the Grail was a quest for the beatific vision, to be admitted into the presence of Christ while still on Earth. This is the reason it could only be accomplished by one who was as sinless as Galahad. This is also the reason that so many of the knights die in this quest. In their pride they pursued the Grail as an object to be possessed and manipulated. They embark on the quest unworthy of the quest itself, let alone the Grail. Half of them will pay for this affront with their lives.
Another surprise for me was the way in which "Le Morte" made it clear that Arthur, Camelot, and Logres are inextricably connected. The life of each follows the same arc. Camelot and Logres only begin to enjoy their greatness when Arthur becomes king. They grow and age with him, and his fate is their fate. As he waxes in strength, wisdom and goodness, so do they. They are at their height when he is at his, and when he falters and fails, they must also fall. The death of King Arthur is the death of his court and all that it stood for when at its best. The hope that he will return is the hope that true nobility, true chivalry has not died but only slumbers to awaken at need.
"Le Morte" is written in almost a perfunctory fashion. There is not much beauty to its prose. But the story itself is beautiful enough in its promise and tragedy to ameliorate any defect of technique. It is the font from which nearly all of our Arthurian stories springs. There is not a single book, poem, play, or movie about kings, knights and wizards that does not owe a certain debt to "Le Morte". There is much to reward the reader today who is willing to let Malory tell his tale his way. I encourage you to do so.
December 24, 2018
It happened one Pentecost when King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table had all assembled at the castle of Kynke Kenadonne and were waiting, as was customary, for some unusual event to occur before settling down to the feast, that Sir Gawain saw through the window three gentlemen riding toward the castle, accompanied by a dwarf.
I fully expected to dislike this book. The prospect of five hundred pages of jousting knights struck me as endlessly tedious, and I only opened the book out of a sense of respect for its status as a classic. But immediately I found myself entranced. This is a thoroughly engrossing read. And I should not have been surprised, since it delves so heartily into the two staples of popular entertainment: sex and violence. Indeed, one of the most amusing aspects of this book is how completely out of harmony is the chivalric code with the Christian religion; the characters do nothing but mate and slaughter, while the name of “Jesu” is on everybody’s lips.
Sir Thomas Malory assembled Le Morte d’Arthur out of several pre-existing legends, some of which he translated from French manuscripts, with a few stories of his invention thrown in. His major innovation was to arrange these traditional tales into a semi-coherent order, beginning with Arthur’s ascension to the throne and ending with his death at the hands of his son. The result is a patchwork of stories nested within stories, all told at a pace which, to a modern reader, can seem ludicrous. Major developments occur on every page, one after the other, in a staccato rhythm which can make the stories appear bluntly humorous, even if it was not Malory’s intention.
The world depicted in these pages is so frankly unreal, the level of violence so constant and gratuitous, that its final impression is that of a cartoon: “They fought once more and Sir Tristram killed his opponent. Then, running over to his son, he swiftly beheaded him too.” Daily life is entirely hidden from view. There are no peasants, no merchants, no artisans; there are no friends or happy families. There are only questing knights, heavily armed men who are obsessed with challenging one another. And though they profess a knightly code of conduct, even the most chivalrous of knights are seen to be unscrupulous murderers and, with few exceptions, unrepentant adulterers. The hero of this book, Sir Launcelot, feels very few pangs of guilt for continuously sleeping with his liege’s wife, Gwynevere; and he is the best of knights.
But the characters are so flat, their actions so stereotyped, their lives so monotonously dramatic, that I found it impossible to view them as moral actors, praiseworthy or damnable. They are, rather, centers of this bizarre world that Malory constructs. And it certainly is an exciting place. Monsters, magicians, enchantresses, prophesies, curses, visions, and of course endless combat and manic love—the small isle of Britain can hardly contain it all. Sure, there are parts of the book that drag, particularly during the tournaments. Malory’s descriptions of combat are heavily stylized, consisting of the same basic elements over and over again; and, as in the Iliad, large engagements are pictured as a series of individual contests between heroic foes. But for the most part Malory combines his traditional motifs together dexterously, enlivening larger stories with innumerable episodes, creating a raucous forward momentum.
As a result of all this, I greatly enjoyed Le Morte d’Arthur, even if it was not for the reasons that Malory intended. I found the book delightfully absurd, almost parody of itself, a sort of whimsical fantasy novel. What Malory hoped to convey with these stories—whether they are supposed to represent a model of heroism, an ironic comment on violence, or a response to the Wars of the Roses—I cannot say; but his book is better than any television show I know.
June 22, 2019
The ultimate piece of Arthurian legend? Perhaps.
It took me a quarter of a century as a passionate lover of mythology and fantasy to read Le Morte d'Arthur, and in the end I only did so because I've started regularly encountering and listening to people who know much more about Arthurian literature than I do. Sadly, the... academic approach lead me to get little enjoyment out of this. I'm sure it's great, but I couldn't enjoy it like I can modern iterations of the mythos like The Winter King and The Mists of Avalon, my two favourite Arthurian stories.
This work, which I should probably refer to as a masterpiece, has such an interestingly unique position in the literary canon. It is perhaps the most important, most known work, but it occupies a weird middle position between modern adaptations, of which there are seemingly millions, and considerably older works, of which there are also quite many. Geoffrey of Monmouth comes to mind, and I strangely enjoyed his silly "history" much more, possibly because of the attempted "historical" voice.
Still, Malory is thoroughly fascinating in his own right, for his influences on our thinking not just about King Arthur and his buddies, but about knights and chivalry and the Medieval world in general.
And since I'm trying to check off all the important works of Arthurian writing, Le Morte d'Arthur is, of course, unmissable.
It took me a quarter of a century as a passionate lover of mythology and fantasy to read Le Morte d'Arthur, and in the end I only did so because I've started regularly encountering and listening to people who know much more about Arthurian literature than I do. Sadly, the... academic approach lead me to get little enjoyment out of this. I'm sure it's great, but I couldn't enjoy it like I can modern iterations of the mythos like The Winter King and The Mists of Avalon, my two favourite Arthurian stories.
This work, which I should probably refer to as a masterpiece, has such an interestingly unique position in the literary canon. It is perhaps the most important, most known work, but it occupies a weird middle position between modern adaptations, of which there are seemingly millions, and considerably older works, of which there are also quite many. Geoffrey of Monmouth comes to mind, and I strangely enjoyed his silly "history" much more, possibly because of the attempted "historical" voice.
Still, Malory is thoroughly fascinating in his own right, for his influences on our thinking not just about King Arthur and his buddies, but about knights and chivalry and the Medieval world in general.
And since I'm trying to check off all the important works of Arthurian writing, Le Morte d'Arthur is, of course, unmissable.
November 27, 2008
At long last hath I enchieved the goodliest quest of 937 pages of Ye Olde English!
937 pages of damosels and knights smiting everych other and breaking their spears all to-brast, and tourneys and "justing" and villainous kings who traitorly slew... oops, there I go again. I'm just! so! happy! I've been reading this book since February (it's now November) and inasmuch as I thought I was prepared because of that one Christmas that Mr. Murray wrote the family Christmas letter in Ye Olde English... really, he did... I had no way of comprehending what I was getting myself into. It got to be a point of pride that I had to get through this book, even though it took me about 500 pages or so to really get the rhythm of it. Of course that means I should probably re-read the first 500 pages, since I don't remember much of what happened, but that's just not an option right now. At any rate, it's been a fun, what, nine months or so of reading, or at least trying to read, a little bit whenever I could, until I really hit my stride at around page 600 and knocked off 300 pages in a week. And I was wood wroth out of measure that it took me that long to figure out what was going on. By the end, I had gotten a good handle on it and was able to fully appreciate the tragedy of the story.
I do have a complaint, and a recommendation to anyone who wants to enchieve this goodly quest.
Complaint: the quest for the Holy Grail took about 50 pages, and it was, like, the freakin' easiest quest in the book. And could have been a lot easier if anyone paid attention to what was going on around them half the time - maybe they would have realized that they knew where the frakking thing was all along. Sigh. Maybe if a woman had been involved... I have to think that if Dame Elaine had been consulted, she would have smacked Launcelot, Galahad, Percivale and Bors upside the head and said something along the lines of, "Do I have to do EVERYTHING around here?"
Recommendation: I typically read two books at once - a big fat hardcover at home and a paperback on the way to work. As it happens, the paperback that I have been reading the last week or so on the subway is Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court. Reading the parody of Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur alongside the original actually has been very helpful - Twain kindly defines some of the Ye Olde English words for you and cracks you up with his take on the discomforts of wearing armor and the silly simplicity of most of the people in Ye Olde England. He definitely captures the head-shaking aspect of certain parts of the book - and I'm glad that he gave a shoutout to La Cote Male Taile, whose story was one of the few that I remembered from the first half of Malory's version - who could forget that shrew that the poor guy had to put up with? Reading Mark Twain alongside Sir Thomas actually clarifies Sir Thomas quite a bit and makes the original a little easier to read.
Happy questing!
937 pages of damosels and knights smiting everych other and breaking their spears all to-brast, and tourneys and "justing" and villainous kings who traitorly slew... oops, there I go again. I'm just! so! happy! I've been reading this book since February (it's now November) and inasmuch as I thought I was prepared because of that one Christmas that Mr. Murray wrote the family Christmas letter in Ye Olde English... really, he did... I had no way of comprehending what I was getting myself into. It got to be a point of pride that I had to get through this book, even though it took me about 500 pages or so to really get the rhythm of it. Of course that means I should probably re-read the first 500 pages, since I don't remember much of what happened, but that's just not an option right now. At any rate, it's been a fun, what, nine months or so of reading, or at least trying to read, a little bit whenever I could, until I really hit my stride at around page 600 and knocked off 300 pages in a week. And I was wood wroth out of measure that it took me that long to figure out what was going on. By the end, I had gotten a good handle on it and was able to fully appreciate the tragedy of the story.
I do have a complaint, and a recommendation to anyone who wants to enchieve this goodly quest.
Complaint: the quest for the Holy Grail took about 50 pages, and it was, like, the freakin' easiest quest in the book. And could have been a lot easier if anyone paid attention to what was going on around them half the time - maybe they would have realized that they knew where the frakking thing was all along. Sigh. Maybe if a woman had been involved... I have to think that if Dame Elaine had been consulted, she would have smacked Launcelot, Galahad, Percivale and Bors upside the head and said something along the lines of, "Do I have to do EVERYTHING around here?"
Recommendation: I typically read two books at once - a big fat hardcover at home and a paperback on the way to work. As it happens, the paperback that I have been reading the last week or so on the subway is Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee In King Arthur's Court. Reading the parody of Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur alongside the original actually has been very helpful - Twain kindly defines some of the Ye Olde English words for you and cracks you up with his take on the discomforts of wearing armor and the silly simplicity of most of the people in Ye Olde England. He definitely captures the head-shaking aspect of certain parts of the book - and I'm glad that he gave a shoutout to La Cote Male Taile, whose story was one of the few that I remembered from the first half of Malory's version - who could forget that shrew that the poor guy had to put up with? Reading Mark Twain alongside Sir Thomas actually clarifies Sir Thomas quite a bit and makes the original a little easier to read.
Happy questing!
May 13, 2021
Sir Thomas Malory's "The Whole Book of King Arthur and of His Noble Knights of the Round Table", shortened thankfully by his editor to the title of the last chapter "Le Morte d'Arthur". (original English:"The Hoole Book of Kyng Arthur and of His Noble Knyghtes of The Rounde Table") Most scholars consider it the definitive English-language version of the story. It takes nearly a 1,000 years of prior history, tradition and lore and creates this "final" version.
What is interesting about this version is how Malory, using an extensive library, managed to incorporate all the various myths into a "complete" history of Arthur. While the book may be slightly difficult for a modern reader, take heart, for this is English from the 1400's or Middle English. The Middle English of Le Morte d'Arthur is much closer to Early Modern English than the Middle English of Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. If the spelling is modernized, it reads almost like Elizabethan English, thus most Shakespeare readers will have no issue with Malory.
This is also a different version in that Malory makes no effort at historical accuracy and has this Arthur story go off from places as varied as England and France to Rome. Malory also conflates his England with Celtic England, as often has Arthur out of London. The replacement of the Saxons by the Turks as the foreign invader is also telling of the times when it was written.
Still, I enjoyed this classic work of literature. It can be considered the "final" version of the Arthurian legend remade for the 1400's world. While, not my favorite interpretation of Arthur it is a vital one in the entire historical record of the Arthurian literature.
What is interesting about this version is how Malory, using an extensive library, managed to incorporate all the various myths into a "complete" history of Arthur. While the book may be slightly difficult for a modern reader, take heart, for this is English from the 1400's or Middle English. The Middle English of Le Morte d'Arthur is much closer to Early Modern English than the Middle English of Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. If the spelling is modernized, it reads almost like Elizabethan English, thus most Shakespeare readers will have no issue with Malory.
This is also a different version in that Malory makes no effort at historical accuracy and has this Arthur story go off from places as varied as England and France to Rome. Malory also conflates his England with Celtic England, as often has Arthur out of London. The replacement of the Saxons by the Turks as the foreign invader is also telling of the times when it was written.
Still, I enjoyed this classic work of literature. It can be considered the "final" version of the Arthurian legend remade for the 1400's world. While, not my favorite interpretation of Arthur it is a vital one in the entire historical record of the Arthurian literature.
December 26, 2021
Very much recommend this edition -as for MORTE itself, the interminable quest for the grail drags it down, but the high points are remarkable. Lancelot and Guinevere...Tristram and Isolde...Gawain, such great characters. I come from TH White and that will always be my favorite version of this myth, but there are innumerable revelations about the nature of storytelling here.
April 25, 2015
(I read this book as part of a reading project I have undertaken with some other nerdy friends in which we read The Novel: A Biography and some of the other texts referenced by Schmidt.)
This book reads like some jag-off had some time to kill in prison and was just putting words down on paper to keep himself from being super bored.
Oh, wait.
So no one really knows who Thomas Malory was, apparently, which is a story in and of itself much more interesting than this collection of loosely connected thoughts. Consensus is that Malory was probably this one guy who did a bunch of bad things and spent a lot of time in jail, so I'm also going to go with that idea because I can't be bothered to think about this much more than I already have. Point is, apparently in the 15th-century the name Thomas Malory was sort of like John Smith, without the benefit of Facebook or Google to narrow things down, so what we know about Malory may actually be a composite of a bunch of other Thomas Malories running around at the time. Again - whatever.
Then this other guy, William Caxton, came along and broke this behemoth into various Books inside, and published the whole thing after Malory died. So, that happened.
I don't really know who to blame overall, but this book is crazy boring. I wanted to enjoy it so much, and believe me, early language doesn't normally bother me. But this was such a drag. Each sentence started either with the word "Then" or "And", so it was (paraphrasing here, as well as modernizing) all "And then Launcelot said 'Yo'. Then King Arthur fell off his horse. And then damosels." Y'know, pretty much like that, for 938 pages, as though written by a child with no expressive vocabulary. The chapters are short (thank GOD), so if you give yourself some time you can breeze through quite a few at once, unless you become so bored you forget what day it is and your eyes begin to bleed. The Books themselves that Caxton created were much longer at times, or once in a while super short; I guess just to fuck with us.
My boyfriend had this argument going for the four months I read this book about how can't be boring since Malory just took information from all those French people who wrote about this stuff first, and that might be true, except you know how there's always that one person who comes into a fun conversation and sucks the fun right out of the room? Like every single time? I think Malory was that guy. Everyone would be standing around the 15th-century version of a water cooler shooting the shit and whatnot, and here comes Sir Malory to, I don't know, rape someone, and it's all "Man, who invited Tommy??"
I give this book two stars not because I actually enjoyed much of it (though the bit about Launcelot getting shot in the ass with an arrow amused me enough to read that section a few times - shut up, he had it coming), but because I can appreciate the importance of it in the realm of literature, etc. etc. Oh, and it aches me to say that. The first book I read for this project of mine was The Travels of Sir John Mandeville which was published in the 14th-century, and I have to say that store was much more rich than this one was. Which is crazy, right? Because we all know about King Arthur and Camelot and the knights of the Round Table, and it should all be dashing and exciting. For fuck's sake, there was nothing dashing or exciting about it by Malory's account. But it's one more step towards the modern novel as we know it and love it today, so huzzah for that. Hence the second star. (The second star may also symbolize just how fucking happy I am to be done reading it.)
Also, Malory didn't even tell the story right. I mean, how do you leave out the most important scene in Arthurian history?
Seriously.
But, yes, let's talk about one more joust, because those weren't represented nearly enough in this story. Again, keep in mind it's just talking about. Malory was not about show-not-tell back then, clearly.
Next up:The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia, Sir Philip Sidney
Actually, I just realized I also intended to read Utopia, Thomas More, for the second chapter in Schmidt's book. So I will head that direction before hitting Sidney.
This book reads like some jag-off had some time to kill in prison and was just putting words down on paper to keep himself from being super bored.
Oh, wait.
So no one really knows who Thomas Malory was, apparently, which is a story in and of itself much more interesting than this collection of loosely connected thoughts. Consensus is that Malory was probably this one guy who did a bunch of bad things and spent a lot of time in jail, so I'm also going to go with that idea because I can't be bothered to think about this much more than I already have. Point is, apparently in the 15th-century the name Thomas Malory was sort of like John Smith, without the benefit of Facebook or Google to narrow things down, so what we know about Malory may actually be a composite of a bunch of other Thomas Malories running around at the time. Again - whatever.
Then this other guy, William Caxton, came along and broke this behemoth into various Books inside, and published the whole thing after Malory died. So, that happened.
I don't really know who to blame overall, but this book is crazy boring. I wanted to enjoy it so much, and believe me, early language doesn't normally bother me. But this was such a drag. Each sentence started either with the word "Then" or "And", so it was (paraphrasing here, as well as modernizing) all "And then Launcelot said 'Yo'. Then King Arthur fell off his horse. And then damosels." Y'know, pretty much like that, for 938 pages, as though written by a child with no expressive vocabulary. The chapters are short (thank GOD), so if you give yourself some time you can breeze through quite a few at once, unless you become so bored you forget what day it is and your eyes begin to bleed. The Books themselves that Caxton created were much longer at times, or once in a while super short; I guess just to fuck with us.
My boyfriend had this argument going for the four months I read this book about how can't be boring since Malory just took information from all those French people who wrote about this stuff first, and that might be true, except you know how there's always that one person who comes into a fun conversation and sucks the fun right out of the room? Like every single time? I think Malory was that guy. Everyone would be standing around the 15th-century version of a water cooler shooting the shit and whatnot, and here comes Sir Malory to, I don't know, rape someone, and it's all "Man, who invited Tommy??"
I give this book two stars not because I actually enjoyed much of it (though the bit about Launcelot getting shot in the ass with an arrow amused me enough to read that section a few times - shut up, he had it coming), but because I can appreciate the importance of it in the realm of literature, etc. etc. Oh, and it aches me to say that. The first book I read for this project of mine was The Travels of Sir John Mandeville which was published in the 14th-century, and I have to say that store was much more rich than this one was. Which is crazy, right? Because we all know about King Arthur and Camelot and the knights of the Round Table, and it should all be dashing and exciting. For fuck's sake, there was nothing dashing or exciting about it by Malory's account. But it's one more step towards the modern novel as we know it and love it today, so huzzah for that. Hence the second star. (The second star may also symbolize just how fucking happy I am to be done reading it.)
Also, Malory didn't even tell the story right. I mean, how do you leave out the most important scene in Arthurian history?
Seriously.
But, yes, let's talk about one more joust, because those weren't represented nearly enough in this story. Again, keep in mind it's just talking about. Malory was not about show-not-tell back then, clearly.
Next up:
Actually, I just realized I also intended to read Utopia, Thomas More, for the second chapter in Schmidt's book. So I will head that direction before hitting Sidney.
December 23, 2008
I'm so glad I finally read Le Morte Darthur. I've loved the King Arthur stories ever since I was little and read what I think was a retelling by Enid Blyton. I actually read this for my Late Medieval Literature class, but I'd have read it someday anyway. The copy I read was an abridgement, which is probably a good thing as parts of it got quite tedious as it was. The introduction to this version is pretty interesting -- and, by the way, my lectures on it were wonderful.
I subscribe to the view that this is not necessarily intended to be a novel in the modern sense. The tales are too repetitive in parts and each can stand alone. I do agree that they're all related to each other, though. Throughout the course of the book, the tales get better and more lovingly written, I think. I do suspect Sir Thomas Malory would rather like to have married Lancelot on the astral plane. It's odd to notice how much of a stinking liar Lancelot is, and yet the text makes no judgement on him at all for that. I'm aware of the public honour system's part in that, but still...
I'm not sure one can say anything new on this text that hasn't been said, to be honest. I loved it, and if you're into King Arthur and you don't mind a bit of a challenge, I suggest you go for it.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
(Because in some secret part of my heart, I believe that one day King Arthur will come again.)
I subscribe to the view that this is not necessarily intended to be a novel in the modern sense. The tales are too repetitive in parts and each can stand alone. I do agree that they're all related to each other, though. Throughout the course of the book, the tales get better and more lovingly written, I think. I do suspect Sir Thomas Malory would rather like to have married Lancelot on the astral plane. It's odd to notice how much of a stinking liar Lancelot is, and yet the text makes no judgement on him at all for that. I'm aware of the public honour system's part in that, but still...
I'm not sure one can say anything new on this text that hasn't been said, to be honest. I loved it, and if you're into King Arthur and you don't mind a bit of a challenge, I suggest you go for it.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
(Because in some secret part of my heart, I believe that one day King Arthur will come again.)
August 9, 2019
This text isn't the original one, but a short version adapted for English learners. In my opinion, the editors of this book have summarized the original text too much and there are still passages of the text that are too slow and repetitive, but there are also passages where the action is very quick and superficial. But the CD narration is very good, so I'm giving 3 stars for this. If it weren't for the CD, I would give it 2 stars.
February 11, 2008
This is the ONLY version of Le Morte d'Arthur that you should EVER read. Complete with Early Modern English and absolutely NO dumbing down of the material. Great stuff.
April 25, 2025
I read through this book the first time in 11th grade and many times since.
August 7, 2022
کاش گودریدز خلاصه کتاب هم داشت.
خلاصه کتاب به انگلیسی خووندم.
اما خووب بود.
خلاصه کتاب به انگلیسی خووندم.
اما خووب بود.
November 8, 2013
Of all the patriarchal, Christianity biased interpretations of Arthurian myth, this is the most misogynistic. Yes, I know one must judge a book by it's time period, but if ever a book infuriated me by illustrating the virgin-whore paradigm, this one has. Not only do most of the female characters completely fail to have names, but those that do are either shrewish sluts or purely chaste and looking to die for God. Also, Sir Gawain is ruined. Also, Merlin is the son of the devil. Also, the Lady of the Lake is first killed by one of Arthur's knights and then later--for no explained reason--Nyneve, who buries Merlin alive because he loves her.
Although I hadn't realized that the story of Tristram and Iseult was told in this book, because one does not think of Tristram as a knight of the round table. I found the depiction of King Mark as treacherous and evil to make for somewhat disappointing tale.
Indeed, overall I found this to be a disappointing retelling, not merely because of the plot, but for the telling itself. With the exception of one truly awesome giant disemboweling by King Arthur, the fight scenes were a lot of "Sir Somebody knocked King Thatguy down and broke his lance, but was therefore able to rehorse Sir So-and-so." Fight scenes should not be as dry as biblical lineages.
As a retelling of the Arthurian legends, I have to recommend pretty much any other book on the subject.
Although I hadn't realized that the story of Tristram and Iseult was told in this book, because one does not think of Tristram as a knight of the round table. I found the depiction of King Mark as treacherous and evil to make for somewhat disappointing tale.
Indeed, overall I found this to be a disappointing retelling, not merely because of the plot, but for the telling itself. With the exception of one truly awesome giant disemboweling by King Arthur, the fight scenes were a lot of "Sir Somebody knocked King Thatguy down and broke his lance, but was therefore able to rehorse Sir So-and-so." Fight scenes should not be as dry as biblical lineages.
As a retelling of the Arthurian legends, I have to recommend pretty much any other book on the subject.
Read
August 25, 2018Nach über 20 Jahren SuB... geschafft!
December 21, 2007
As a piece of engaging fiction Le Morte D'Arthur is bound to disappoint unless you are unabashedly entertained by similar cycles of knights questing again and again. Structurally Mallory's work is repetitive and contains a questionable moral structure.
But as an origin of British legends and the development of the English Language it is an essential work.
Its been interesting for me to look at one of the most definitive entries into the canon of England's national pride but it becomes strange when each knight seems to have their own chivalric code that may change depending on that particular knight's own whims, especially Sir Tristram. Though this knight is seen by the author as incredibly valiant by the author, when it suits his purpose he sleeps with other men's wives, kills, and even breaks oaths. Though these things may seem commonplace today, it seems significantly contrary to the high moral purpose which Mallory attributes to his heroes.
Still, a very interesting read if you can get past the irony.
But as an origin of British legends and the development of the English Language it is an essential work.
Its been interesting for me to look at one of the most definitive entries into the canon of England's national pride but it becomes strange when each knight seems to have their own chivalric code that may change depending on that particular knight's own whims, especially Sir Tristram. Though this knight is seen by the author as incredibly valiant by the author, when it suits his purpose he sleeps with other men's wives, kills, and even breaks oaths. Though these things may seem commonplace today, it seems significantly contrary to the high moral purpose which Mallory attributes to his heroes.
Still, a very interesting read if you can get past the irony.
November 25, 2019
Where it all began!
Well, no. But where they were all first brought together, like medieval Justice Society, taking the shape and form and connection they've been in ever since. Its impact on tales and fiction over the centuries is quite immeasurable.
As a narrative, Once And Future King has it beat. But I think everyone should still read both.
Well, no. But where they were all first brought together, like medieval Justice Society, taking the shape and form and connection they've been in ever since. Its impact on tales and fiction over the centuries is quite immeasurable.
As a narrative, Once And Future King has it beat. But I think everyone should still read both.
July 9, 2018
It drags at times but its the legend of King Arthur and his knights.
This audiobook was a whopping 19 hours.
I will likely listen to this again.
OVERALL GRADE: B to B plus.
This audiobook was a whopping 19 hours.
I will likely listen to this again.
OVERALL GRADE: B to B plus.
August 2, 2008
I decided to review Le Morte d'Arthur, even though it has been SO long since I read it. I don't remember everything, but I remember how how fascinating it was. It was a hard read; I remember that. I remember why I decided to read it, too. I had been browsing in the library, and I happened to see the book on some obscure shelf and I noticed it was misfiled. I thought to myself, "is that in French?"
Fast forward to the next day at my state Knowledge Bowl competition (please no nerd jokes here, I'm well aware of the situation), and there was a question about the compiled origin of the King Arther tales. Now, I wasn't the fastest girl on the buzzer, but I guess no one else had any guesses because before I knew it, the judge was looking at me and saying, "well?" So I blurted out the only King Arthur book I could think of, despite it being in a different language (so I thought). Well, that was the right answer, and we won the round. I was pretty uncomfortable with everyone staring at me pretty weird after that (if the nerds think you're a nerd, where do you go then?), so I decided to go read the book so that I could say I had read it.
Anyway, that was a dumb story, but a REALLY interesting book. The tales of King Arthur are fascinating, and hold an allegory of the atonement of Christ. So, if you're into that stuff (fairy tales & Christianity...not state Knowledge Bowl) you might enjoy the book.
Fast forward to the next day at my state Knowledge Bowl competition (please no nerd jokes here, I'm well aware of the situation), and there was a question about the compiled origin of the King Arther tales. Now, I wasn't the fastest girl on the buzzer, but I guess no one else had any guesses because before I knew it, the judge was looking at me and saying, "well?" So I blurted out the only King Arthur book I could think of, despite it being in a different language (so I thought). Well, that was the right answer, and we won the round. I was pretty uncomfortable with everyone staring at me pretty weird after that (if the nerds think you're a nerd, where do you go then?), so I decided to go read the book so that I could say I had read it.
Anyway, that was a dumb story, but a REALLY interesting book. The tales of King Arthur are fascinating, and hold an allegory of the atonement of Christ. So, if you're into that stuff (fairy tales & Christianity...not state Knowledge Bowl) you might enjoy the book.
December 20, 2012
It's a great edition of the text with excellent secondary materials and essays.
However, I am very disappointed that an edition which advertises itself as being "unabridged" and in "original spelling" in fact silently emends all yoghs and thorns to gh and th. Use of u/v and i/j has also been ‘modernized’. It seems utterly bizarre to go to the lengths of reproducing such trivial features as Lombardic rubrication, when the Middle English alphabet this work was written in has been edited out.
However, I am very disappointed that an edition which advertises itself as being "unabridged" and in "original spelling" in fact silently emends all yoghs and thorns to gh and th. Use of u/v and i/j has also been ‘modernized’. It seems utterly bizarre to go to the lengths of reproducing such trivial features as Lombardic rubrication, when the Middle English alphabet this work was written in has been edited out.
May 30, 2025
An amazing read. Over a thousand pages. Not to be completed in a week or more.
It covers the Knights, the Legend of Arthur, Merlin, the beautiful Morgan Le Fey, Excalibur. It's all here.
Not a read for a young child as there is some brutal killing, rape, evil intent, and battle and torture. These were brutal times in legend.
Some beautiful color plates included in the text.
A read for those who love to be lost in myth, magic, and times of heroes and villains.
It covers the Knights, the Legend of Arthur, Merlin, the beautiful Morgan Le Fey, Excalibur. It's all here.
Not a read for a young child as there is some brutal killing, rape, evil intent, and battle and torture. These were brutal times in legend.
Some beautiful color plates included in the text.
A read for those who love to be lost in myth, magic, and times of heroes and villains.
December 1, 2019
I finally finished it! Long and hard to read especially for long periods of time but it was an interesting read.
December 29, 2016
Σε αυτό εδώ το βιβλίο ο μύθος του βασιλιά Αρθούρου μπορούμε να πούμε ότι φτάνει στο αποκορύφωμα του. Αν και ουσιαστικά μπορούμε να πούμε ότι πρόκειται για μια συλλογή ιστοριών γύρω από το θέμα, είναι ουσιαστικά η πρώτη ολοκληρωμένη αφήγηση ολόκληρης της ιστορίας του μυθικού βασιλιά. Οπότε αν θέλουμε να φτάσουμε στο τέλος και να δούμε από πού προέρχεται αυτό που έρχεται στο μυαλό μας όταν ακούμε αυτό το όνομα οφείλουμε να του ρίξουμε μία ματιά. Ως ανάγνωσμα βέβαια αν επιχειρήσεις να το διαβάσεις στην αυθεντική του γλώσσα είναι κάπως δύσκολο αλλά σίγουρα είναι μία ενδιαφέρουσα και ιδιαίτερα διαφωτιστική εμπειρία.
April 22, 2019
King Arthur and Merlin are some of my favorite characters yet somehow I had never read this book. Now I can officially say that it's definitely worth reading. Yes, it is very long, repetitive, meandering, and featuring many character with similar names, but it is still incredibly magical to explore for the first time. Now I feel like digging into more stories featuring the King Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of the Round Table.
July 29, 2025
It’s interesting that Malory’s identity is contested and opaque because here is the central focus of this book:
“What is his name and of what bloode is he com?”
Sir Trystram, in disguise, is asked if he knows Sir Trystram, and responds
“I know not Sir Trystram” seyd Sir Trystram
Sir Gareth of Orkney, in disguise, is mocked as a “kychyn knave” by an ungrateful damsel whom he repeatedly rescues. This is surely a comedy – at least in part. The damsel refuses to consider the obvious fact of Gareth’s knightly virtue because he is not, in her eyes, of the blood and appearance of a knight. Others, such as the amusingly named Sir La Cote Male Taylé, are scorned by the ladies because of his ill fitting clothes.
There are clearly expectations around knightly identity – birth, prowess, dress and conduct – which can be disguised or subverted. What, after all, is knightly identity? If Arthur is the mirror of chivalry, why is he an adulterer? And don’t get me started on Launcelot’s many hypocrisies and betrayals. He refuses to strike Gawain when he is down – making a parade of his knightly virtue and restraint – but he makes excuses for slaughtering Gawain’s unarmed and unresisting brothers in a fit of rage. The most outrageous betrayal of knightliness is surely showing violence towards women – and yet, alas, some don’t seem to see the contradiction here.
There is much here to be enjoyed and much to give one thought. I must confess, though, that it was in places tedious and difficult to read. The Battle of Bedgrayne, for example, is one of the most boring and childish battle scenes I have ever read. Some of the stories are a great deal more interesting than others. But there is a sense of achievement and completeness at getting to the end, and one senses all kinds of subterranean and mythological chords being played at multiple levels. The Holy Grail quest alone is worth the price of admission and there is far more here than just that. I think that real knightly virtue is something we all apprehend instinctively by its absence as well as its presence.
As a child I sang -
When a knight won his spurs in the stories of old
He was gentle and brave, he was gallant and bold.
I thought of this, and of Malory, when I watched some recent footage of the knight Sir Keir Starmer making a speech in the House while next to him, on the front bench, his Chancellor sat with tears rolling down her cheeks as he failed to defend her or even (he later claimed) notice her distress. In the United Kingdom, the monarch still creates knights by touching their shoulder with a sword, but if true chivalry is still to be found, it was certainly not there.
“What is his name and of what bloode is he com?”
Sir Trystram, in disguise, is asked if he knows Sir Trystram, and responds
“I know not Sir Trystram” seyd Sir Trystram
Sir Gareth of Orkney, in disguise, is mocked as a “kychyn knave” by an ungrateful damsel whom he repeatedly rescues. This is surely a comedy – at least in part. The damsel refuses to consider the obvious fact of Gareth’s knightly virtue because he is not, in her eyes, of the blood and appearance of a knight. Others, such as the amusingly named Sir La Cote Male Taylé, are scorned by the ladies because of his ill fitting clothes.
There are clearly expectations around knightly identity – birth, prowess, dress and conduct – which can be disguised or subverted. What, after all, is knightly identity? If Arthur is the mirror of chivalry, why is he an adulterer? And don’t get me started on Launcelot’s many hypocrisies and betrayals. He refuses to strike Gawain when he is down – making a parade of his knightly virtue and restraint – but he makes excuses for slaughtering Gawain’s unarmed and unresisting brothers in a fit of rage. The most outrageous betrayal of knightliness is surely showing violence towards women – and yet, alas, some don’t seem to see the contradiction here.
There is much here to be enjoyed and much to give one thought. I must confess, though, that it was in places tedious and difficult to read. The Battle of Bedgrayne, for example, is one of the most boring and childish battle scenes I have ever read. Some of the stories are a great deal more interesting than others. But there is a sense of achievement and completeness at getting to the end, and one senses all kinds of subterranean and mythological chords being played at multiple levels. The Holy Grail quest alone is worth the price of admission and there is far more here than just that. I think that real knightly virtue is something we all apprehend instinctively by its absence as well as its presence.
As a child I sang -
When a knight won his spurs in the stories of old
He was gentle and brave, he was gallant and bold.
I thought of this, and of Malory, when I watched some recent footage of the knight Sir Keir Starmer making a speech in the House while next to him, on the front bench, his Chancellor sat with tears rolling down her cheeks as he failed to defend her or even (he later claimed) notice her distress. In the United Kingdom, the monarch still creates knights by touching their shoulder with a sword, but if true chivalry is still to be found, it was certainly not there.
January 30, 2014
At present there is no better scholar of Malory to choose to produce a new edition and commentary on Le Morte d'Arthur. His past scholarly output on Malory is truly staggering, beginning with Romance and Chronicle (A Study of Malory's Prose Style), then his biographical study in The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory and his collected essays in Malory Texts and Sources. Alongside these academic studies are his revision of the third edition of Eugene Vinaver's three volume Malory Works and then Field's own edition of the seventh and eighth tales of Le Morte d'Arthur.
This new edition contains two volumes that stretches to nearly two thousand pages. The first volume contains the text and introductory material. The introduction explores palaeographical and manuscript issues and editorial material. For the text itself Field attempts to achieve a composite text by using the Winchester Manuscript as the default text and then uses the Caxton print to fill in missing sections and as an aid in establishing readings of problematic words and sentence constructions. The second volume contains the critical material that includes a comprehensive bibliography and Field's huge new line by line commentary that investigates everything from Malory's source material to In-depth linguistic analysis of problematic words and phrases. Afterwords include Caxton's preface and Roman War.
While I still love the three volume Vinaver edition, I can see myself growing to love this just as much over the long years that this will more than likely become the standard way to read Malory. An excellent publication that was worth the long wait and a must for any serious Malory reader.
This new edition contains two volumes that stretches to nearly two thousand pages. The first volume contains the text and introductory material. The introduction explores palaeographical and manuscript issues and editorial material. For the text itself Field attempts to achieve a composite text by using the Winchester Manuscript as the default text and then uses the Caxton print to fill in missing sections and as an aid in establishing readings of problematic words and sentence constructions. The second volume contains the critical material that includes a comprehensive bibliography and Field's huge new line by line commentary that investigates everything from Malory's source material to In-depth linguistic analysis of problematic words and phrases. Afterwords include Caxton's preface and Roman War.
While I still love the three volume Vinaver edition, I can see myself growing to love this just as much over the long years that this will more than likely become the standard way to read Malory. An excellent publication that was worth the long wait and a must for any serious Malory reader.
February 18, 2023
Unlike anything I’ve ever read. A LOT of jousting. Anytime knights met up (pretty much every page- they jousted) I read a couple of other books while I was reading this one, because there is only so much jousting you can read about in one sitting, and it’s a long book.
But it was entertaining too- for something written in the 1400s I was pretty impressed. These guys lived for adventure, (saving maidens) battles and (often deadly) tournaments! The code of honor, bravery, and chivalry among the knights was amazing. Thinking about the amount of discomfort the knights must have endured under all that armor made me want to research more about medieval life.
If you don’t mind repetition, and pages and pages of swordplay, I recommend it. Unlike many books, this one I will remember forever.
But it was entertaining too- for something written in the 1400s I was pretty impressed. These guys lived for adventure, (saving maidens) battles and (often deadly) tournaments! The code of honor, bravery, and chivalry among the knights was amazing. Thinking about the amount of discomfort the knights must have endured under all that armor made me want to research more about medieval life.
If you don’t mind repetition, and pages and pages of swordplay, I recommend it. Unlike many books, this one I will remember forever.
September 9, 2023
Oh man, even though it was selected excerpts, that was rough to get through.
I definitely have no desire to go back and read the thing in its entirety.
I definitely have no desire to go back and read the thing in its entirety.
December 6, 2007
I still have trouble believing I made it all the way through this. I really did have to struggle through it, and I feel bad saying that because this is a classic. It might not be the oldest written form of Arthurian Legend, but it what all others are based on. It's obviously a classic. However, it was written in the 1490s (yes, that's right, I said 1490s). A lot simply wasn't invented yet. For example, the quotation mark, or any punctuation except for a period. Also, there are a lot of archaic words, like "fain", that aren't really used in English anymore. If you're a King Arthur completist and have to read everything ever written concerning him, I'd check this out but you really do have to work at it. If you're looking to kick back and relax you'd be better off reading one of the more modern adaptations, not for the story, just for the language and punctuation which are both huge hurdles.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,402 reviews