Introduction: Caxton, Malory, and an Authentic Arthurian Text

Abstract

Introduction: Caxton, Malory, and an Authentic Arthurian Text ROBERT L. KINDRICK THE WORK The essays that follow were written over a period ofseveral years by one of the most distinguished scholars in Arthurian studies. They reflect the last state ofWilliam Matthews's thinking on a variety ofissues, including the relationship between the Caxton version of Malory's work and the Malory Manuscript, the general question ofCaxton's integrity as a printer, and other aspects ofArthurian scholarship. The central thesis ofMatthews's study involves the first issue. Matthews was never one to shirk a battle, and his argument about the pre-eminence ofthe Caxton edition as the 'better text' challenges many cherished notions in modern Arthurian scholarship. Since 1947, when Eugène Vinaver published his landmark edition of the Malory Manuscript for the Clarendon Press, his ideas about the value of the manuscript, the structure ofMalory's work, and the nature ofthe revisions in the Caxton text have gained a remarkable, ifoccasionally questioned, ascendancy in Arthurian studies.1 Like the authors of Malorys Originality,2 Matthews argues that Malory had a greater role than Vinaver acknowledged in organizing and unifying his work. Matthews relies almost entirely on evidence in the text itself. In the first two essays, he deals straightforwardly with Caxton's integrity and reputation, establishing a framework forCaxton's professional trustwotthiness which is critical to his assertions about Caxton's treatment ofMalory's work. He then makes a frontal attack on the issues, turning to the heart of his argument which concerns the revision ofthe Roman War episode. Previous critics have asserted that Caxton revised this section. However, Matthews shows by a careful analysis ofthe nature of the revisions that Caxton would have needed the same familiarity with Arthurian materials that Malory had in order to make the revisions. He further argues that Caxton's role as a man ofaffairs and a businessman-printer makes it unlikely that he would have had the time to give Arthurian materials such concentrated attention. Scholarly ARTHURIANA 7.I (1997) INTRODUCTION7 discussion about Malory's own wide range of sources currently supports Matthews's contention.3 To one generation of scholars who have willingly accepted Vinaver's arguments and to another generation raised on them as gospel, Matthews's contentions may sound surprising, even shocking. But, as recent critical dispute demonstrates, there is no denying Matthews's logic, close examination ofthe text, and skills of persuasion. Even the most ardent supporter of the preeminence of the Malory Manuscript and Vinaver's theories will find that Matthews's arguments demand attention. RECENT SCHOLARSHIP Since Matthews's death, there have been many developments in Arthurian studies, some ofthem in response to Matthews's 'short version' ofthe chapter on the 'Roman War,' presented on his behalf by Roy Leslie in 1975 at the Congress of the International Arriiurian Society in Exeter. These and other issues are presented by Michael Salda and others in a recent issue of Arthuriana.4 Some matters (perhaps unfortunately) appear to have become 'articles offaith' since at least two incomplete drafts ofMatthews's final chapter have been 'leaked' to the scholarly community. The debate has intensified because ofone subsequent discovery by Lotte Hellinga which is so important to Matthews's thesis that it deserves special consideration in the analysis to follow. At least in this introductory essay, no personal attack on N.F. Blake or Eugène Vinanver is intended. Both have made exceptional contributions to our understandingofthe fifteenthcentury. Because their names areassociated with their ideas, questions about those ideas may suggest questions about individual integrity. Such is not the case. The merits ofthe arguments—not individual motives—should be the focus of this dialogue. The goal of this edition is to present the final version ofMatthews's argument as far as we can determine it in order to provide a focal point for further discussion of the issues without personal affront or acrimony. In these essays, Matthews addresses the most problematic issue in recent Malory scholarship, the establishment ofa 'best text.' Until 1934, Caxton's Le Morte Darthurvfas the onlyversion available, but the discovery ofthe Malory Manuscript at Winchester College in 1934 aroused speculation about the audienticity of Caxton's text...