Once Again King Arthur and the Ambassadors: A Textual Crux in Malory’s Morte Darthur

Abstract

Abstract: From the perspective of textual studies, ‘King Arthur and Emperor Lucius’ is the most interesting part of Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte Darthur. Its linguistic tone color is unique in the Morte Darthur, which seems to have disquieted the producers of the early copies, for both medieval witnesses to the text, the Winchester Manuscript and William Caxton’s printed edition,show signs of deliberate interference. P. J. C. Field’s recent edition uses both witnesses to attempt to restore Malory’s authorial text. However, the unusual textual situation complicates the application of Field’s critical method of editing. Caxton sometimes uses Malory’s words and sometimes his own; some of his summarizations contain many of Malory’s original words but often in a frame of his own devising, and at times he completely rewrites passages in his own words. Because Winchester has also been abridged, wherever the two diverge, and particularly within the first page or two, the possibilities will be that one or the other witness will retain Malory’s original text, that both contain parts of Malory’s original, or that Malory’s words have been lost from both texts. Determining which is most likely at any given point is further complicated by the fact that the Roman War was often considered to be a legitimate part of history in the Midle Ages and, therefore, was often retold, greatly increasing the number of potential sources, which proportionately increases the possibility of false correspondence between a possible source and the reading of the witness. Finally, one must try to make due allowance for the fact that Malory adapted and abridged his account creatively, rather than merely rendering the alliterative poem into prose. However, Field proceeds mainly on the premise that for the first few pages Winchester and Caxton have abbreviated alternately. This article argues that the two versions of the ambassadors’ demands that Field has included in his reconstruction are actually independent mutations of a common original, which can be partially reconstructed. The corrections proposed here render Malory’s text more like its sources, provide the benefit of removing more of Caxton’s rewriting, and are consistent with the very philosophical underpinning of Field’s new edition: the premise that it is important to try to recover Malory’s authorial text in every possible detail, bringing us ever closer to the exact words of a great author.