The occasion for this survey of editions of Malory is the appearance of Sir Thomas Malory's Morte Darthur, Dorsey Armstrong's 'new modern English translation of based on the Winchester manuscript' in the Parlor Press Renaissance and Medieval Studies Series. It appears as a competitor to a multiplicity of editions old and recent that are widely used for teaching and, one hopes, for reading. These come in all lengths and degrees of difficulty or helpfulness. The master Arthurian Eugene Vinaver himself produced three editions of different sizes for different readerships. The earliest, emphatically not a student or starter edition, is the magisterial three-volume Works of Sir Thomas Malory, the first to be based on the Winchester manuscript, and increasingly refined through to its third edition revised by P.J.C. Field. The one-volume student edition of that followed, under the title Malory: Works; being complete, unmodernized, and in paperback, is commonly chosen both for reference and for courses, despite its comparative austerity. The third, still widely used as a class text, is the shorter and more student-friendly 'selected tales' of King Arthur and his Knights. Also based on Winchester are Stephen Shepherd's complete Norton Critical Edition, Sir Thomas Malory: Le Morte Darthur (2004), the first full new critical edition since Vinaver; my own Oxford World's Classics edition of 1998 (slightly abridged, to about three-quarters the length of the original); and various editions of Parts 7 and 8 alone, notable among them being those of D.S. Brewer (1968) and P.J.C. Field (1977, revised 2008). Of editions of Caxton, Janet Cowen's two-volume Penguin edition (1969) is perhaps the most widely used; less well known, though in a single cheap paperback, is the Wordsworth Classics edition by Helen Moore (1996). This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it is enough to provide the basis for some comparisons. For the editor, the major question is which text, Caxton or Winchester, to use. Caxton has the advantage over Vinaver of being out of copyright, whether in the original or in H. Oskar Sommer's 1890 reprint. It is especially likely to be used for illustrated versions. Some earlier editors go back to Sommer; Paul Needham's 1976 facsimile is an alternative exemplar, or, now, Early English Books Online. Moore identifies the text she uses as Pollard's 1900 modern-spelling version of Sommer, and adds her own paratextual material. Winchester is available in the Early English Text Society facsimile, but that has to be supplemented from Caxton at the very least for the opening and closing quires that are missing from the manuscript, and for improved readings or missing phrases throughout. Since Vinaver did so full a comparison between the different texts and the sources, every later editor has to take account of his work, and it is not unknown for 'the manuscript' to be a silent periphrasis for 'Vinaver's edition.' Shepherd's edition and my own are based in the first instance on the facsimile, though Shepherd also went through the whole manuscript to check its rubrication of proper names and the size of its Lombardic capitals: his is the only edition to indicate these typographically. He also used the Pierpont Morgan copy of Caxton and its 1976 facsimile for variants and emendations. If which text to use is the biggest question, the point from which an editor starts may be whether, or how much, to modernize; and teachers too are likely to have that in their sights as the major consideration in choosing an edition. All the complete editions of Winchester (Vinaver's two, and Shepherd's), keep the original spelling, as does Field's edition of books 7 and 8. Oxford World's Classics had to be persuaded to accept a modern-spelling version rather than a full update, and it is the earliest untranslated text in the series. All the paperback editions of Caxton likewise modernize spelling. Modern spelling needs less glossing than old, but editors vary greatly in their comprehensiveness (Cowen offers eleven short columns, Moore twenty). …