Editing Thomas Malory (section)

===Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel===
{{Infobox person
| pre-nominals  = [[Sir]]
| name          = Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel
| birth_date    = {{circa|1393}} (contested)
| birth_place   = England
| death_date    = 14 March 1471
| occupation    = Knight, criminal, Member of Parliament
}}

Since [[George Lyman Kittredge]], a professor at [[Harvard College|Harvard]], published the first significant investigation into Malory's identity in 1894, the primary candidate for authorship has been Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel in [[Warwickshire]].<ref>Whitteridge, Gweneth., though this Malory was earlier proposed by H. Oskar Sommer in his edition of ''Le Morte d'Arthur'' published in 1890. ''The Review of English Studies''; 24.95 (1973): 257–65. JSTOR. Web. 30 November 2009.</ref><ref>Riddy, Felicity: ''Sir Thomas Malory''. Leiden: E. J. Brill.</ref> Kittredge discovered a record of this Malory's service under [[Richard de Beauchamp, 13th Earl of Warwick]] in [[William Dugdale]]'s ''Antiquities of Warwickshire'' (1656), stating of Sir Thomas:
{{blockquote| In K. H.5 time, was of the retinue to Ric. Beauchamp, E. Warw. At the seige of Caleys, and served there with one lance and two archers, receiving for his lance and 1 archer xx. Li per an. And their dyet; and for the other archer, x marks and no dyet.}}

In modern English:
{{blockquote| In [[King Henry V]]'s time, [Malory] was of the retinue to Richard Beauchamp, Earl of Warwick at the [[Pale of Calais|siege of Calais]], and served there with one lance and two archers, receiving for his lance and first archer 20 pounds per year and their diet; and for the other archer, 10 marks and no diet.}}

Dugdale's history also revealed that this Malory had served as a [[Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)|Member of Parliament]], and recorded the date of his death, the location of his tomb, and many other details of his life and family. As Dugdale lived in Warwickshire and apparently had access to Malory's home and direct descendants during a time when ''Le Morte'' remained very popular and was still being printed, scholars have noted that any mention of his authoring ''Le Morte'' is conspicuously absent in Dugdale's record. To date, however, this candidate for authorship remains the only Thomas Malory known to be living at the time of writing who was clearly recorded as having been a knight.

Kittredge accepted the details of Dugdale's history at face value: specifically, that he was commissioned to serve at Calais under Henry V; a campaign which took place in 1414–15. Under this view, Malory would have been a junior officer in Henry V's famous [[Battle of Agincourt]] – a member of what [[William Shakespeare]] cemented in popular memory as the Band of Brothers in the famous [[St. Crispin's Day Speech]]. However, subsequent scholars<ref>{{Citation | last = Matt | via = Archive | title = Ill framed knight | date = 20 August 1966 | page = 70 | publisher = Berkeley, University of California Press | url = https://archive.org/details/illframedknights00matt/page/70/mode/2up | quote = "Chambers and then Vinaver"}}</ref> have questioned this interpretation, suggesting that Dugdale's record was erroneous and that Malory instead served under [[Henry VI of England|Henry VI]], at an action in Calais in 1436 – a brief mobilization which was disbanded without combat and which Dugdale, in their view, erroneously called a siege. P.J.C. Field suggests that the first public record of this Malory in 1439 is an indication of when he reached the date of his majority (at the age of 21).<ref>{{cite ODNB|last=Field|first=P.J.C.|title=Malory, Sir Thomas (x1415/18–1471)|url= http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/17899?docPos=3 |year=2004 |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/17899 |access-date=1 January 2013}}</ref>

Scholars consider the question of this timeline to be important in determining authorship, as the original timeline would place Malory's birth in the early to mid 1390s. He would therefore have been at least 75 when ''Le Morte'' was completed, as he must have been at least in his late teens or early 20s at the time of his commission: his peers of the same rank in Dugdale's record were in their mid- to late-twenties. According to the alternate timeline, his birth would have been around 1415–1418 and his age would have been a much more reasonable 55 to 58 years when ''Le Morte'' was completed.

William Matthews emphasizes the importance of Malory's age thus: "There is considerable evidence that the medieval view was that by sixty a man was bean fodder and forage, ready for nothing but death's pit... it might be best to find out how old the Warwickshire knight really was in 1469."<ref>Matthews, p.68</ref> Researching the question, Matthews made an original discovery: Sir William Dugdale's surviving 15th century notes and papers in the [[Bodleian Library]] on the Agincourt campaign contain a lengthy military roster (apparently in Dugdale's own hand) with the following detail:

{{blockquote|text=
Thomas Mallory est retenuz a j lance et ij archers pr sa launce ouve j archer xx li par an et bouche de court et pour lautre archer x marcs saunz bouche de court.
}}

Because this original French note perfectly matches the English translation in Dugdale's published work, and because a number of the other knights listed on the same commission roster are known to have died long before 1436, Matthews concludes that these commissions cannot refer to the 1436 campaign; and therefore Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel must have been commissioned into Henry V's Agincourt campaign around 1414 or 1415, confirming Kittredge's original timeline and making this Malory in his mid-70s to early 80s at the time the book was completed. Matthews asserts, "seventy-five is no age at all to be writing ''Le Morte Darthur'' in prison."

Linton comes to Dugdale's defense, disputing the need for an alternative timeline. She notes that scholars have accepted Dugdale's account of this Malory without question, except for the matter of his age. She agrees with other scholars that Dugdale knew the Malorys of Newbold Revel and suggests that he would have certainly made the connection between this Malory and ''Le Morte'' if there were any connection to be made.<ref>Linton, pp. 235-40.</ref>

Much more detail was added to Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel's biography by Edward Hicks in 1928, revealing that this Thomas Malory had been imprisoned as a thief, bandit, kidnapper, attempted murderer, and rapist; which hardly seemed in keeping with the high [[Chivalry|chivalric]] standards of his book.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hicks|first=Edward|title=Sir Thomas Malory: His Turbulent Career|year=1928|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge (Mass)|url=https://www.questia.com/library/80962094/sir-thomas-malory-his-turbulent-career-a-biography}}</ref> [[Helen Cooper (literary scholar)|Helen Cooper]] referred to his life as one that "reads more like an account of exemplary thuggery than chivalry". Shortly before his death, [[C. S. Lewis]] stated that this issue was a grave one for readers of ''Le Morte d'Arthur''.<ref name="Matthews, p. 43"/>

E. K. Chambers emphasizes the importance of the problem by quoting the author himself:

{{blockquote|text=
"What?" seyde Sir Launcelot, "is he a theff and a knyht? and a ravyssher of women? He doth shame unto the Order of Knyghthode, and contrary unto his oth. Hit is pyte that he lyveth."
}}

In Modern English:

{{blockquote|text=
"What?" said Sir Lancelot, "is he a thief and a knight, and a rapist of women? He does shame to the Order of Knighthood, contrary to his oath. It is a pity that he lives."
}}

Chambers comments, "Surely the Sir Thomas of [[Monks Kirby]] [the parish in which Malory of Newbold Revel lived] could not have written this without a twinge."<ref>Matthews, p 43</ref>

Sir Thomas Malory of Newbold Revel was born to Sir John Malory of [[Winwick, Northamptonshire]], who had served as a [[Justice of the peace|Justice of the Peace]] in Warwickshire and as a Member of Parliament, and Lady Phillipa Malory, heiress of Newbold. He was knighted before 8 October 1441, became a professional soldier, and served under [[Henry de Beauchamp, 1st Duke of Warwick]]. While it is not recorded how he became distinguished, he acted as an elector in [[Northamptonshire]]. However, in 1443 he and accomplice Eustace Barnaby were accused of attacking, kidnapping, and stealing 40 pounds' worth of goods from Thomas Smythe, though nothing came of this charge. He married a woman named Elizabeth Walsh,<ref>Field, P.J.C. ''The Life and Times of Sir Thomas Malory''. Cambridge: D.S. Brewer, 1993. Print</ref> with whom he had at least one son, named Robert,<ref name="LMD"/> and possibly one or two other children.<ref name="Field ODNB">Field ODNB</ref> Despite the criminal charges against him, he seems to have remained in good standing with his peers<ref name="LMD" /> because in that same year, Malory was elected by the men of Warwickshire to [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]] to serve as a [[knight of the shire]] for the rest of 1443, and was appointed to a royal commission charged with the distribution of money to impoverished towns in Warwickshire.  In 1449–50, he was returned as member of Parliament for [[Great Bedwyn (UK Parliament constituency)|Great Bedwyn]], a seat controlled by the [[Duke of Buckingham]].<ref name="hop">{{cite book |last1=Wedgwood |first1=Josiah C. |title=History Of Parliament (1439-1509) |year=1936 |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210096/ |page=567 |language=en}}</ref>

Malory's status changed abruptly in 1451 when he was accused of ambushing [[Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham]], a prominent [[House of Lancaster|Lancastrian]] in the [[Wars of the Roses]], along with 26 other men sometime in 1450. The accusation was never proved. Later in 1451, he was accused of extorting 100 shillings from Margaret King and William Hales of Monks Kirby, and then of committing the same crime against John Mylner for 20 shillings.<ref name="LMD" /> He was also accused of breaking into the house of Hugh Smyth of Monks Kirby in 1450, stealing 40 pounds' worth of goods and raping Smyth's wife, and with attacking her again in [[Coventry]] eight weeks later. At this period, a charge of rape could also apply to some acts of consensual sex and some nonsexual crimes; several scholars have suggested that the accusation did not refer to rape as it is now defined. However, Field's analysis of the specific Latin terminology of the charges concludes that they were intended to refer to actual rapes.<ref name="Cooper p. x">Cooper p. x</ref>

On 15 March 1451, Malory and 19 others were ordered to be arrested. Nothing came of this and, in the following months, Malory and his cohorts were charged with a series of crimes, especially violent robberies. At one point, he was arrested and imprisoned in [[Maxstoke Castle]], but he escaped, swam the moat, and returned to Newbold Revel.<ref name="LMD" /> Nellie Slayton Aurner points out that most of these crimes seem to have been targeted at the property and followers of the Duke of Buckingham; and that as Malory was a supporter of the family of Buckingham's former rival, the Duke of Warwick, there may have been a political motive behind either Malory's attacks or Buckingham and others bringing charges against him. Aurner suggests that Malory's enemies tried to slander him, giving evidence that the Duke of Buckingham was Malory's long-time enemy.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Aurner |first=Nellie Slayton |date=June 1933 |title=Sir Thomas Malory – Historian? |jstor=457782 |journal=PMLA |publisher=Modern Language Association |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=362–391 |doi= 10.2307/457782|s2cid=163479195 }}</ref>

Malory finally came to trial on 23 August 1451, in [[Nuneaton]], a town in the heartland of Buckingham's power and a place where Malory found little favour as a supporter of the Beauchamps.<ref name="Field ODNB" /> Those accused included Malory and several others; there were numerous charges. Malory was convicted and sent to the [[Marshalsea Prison]] in London, where he remained for a year. He demanded a retrial with a jury of men from his own county. Although this never took place, he was released. By March 1452, he was back in the Marshalsea, from which he escaped two months later, possibly by bribing the guards and gaolers. After a month, he was back in prison yet again, and this time he was held until the following May, when he was released on bail of 200 pounds, paid by a number of his fellow magnates from Warwickshire.<ref name="LMD" /><ref name="Field ODNB" /> Malory later ended up in custody in [[Colchester]], accused of still more crimes, involving robbery and the stealing of horses. Once again, he escaped and once again was apprehended and returned to Marshalsea Prison.<ref name="LMD" />

From Malory's first criminal charge in 1443 through his eighth charge in 1451 after several escapes from captivity, little was done to contain his actions. In 1451, a royal arrest order was issued, followed by increasing fines on the lords overseeing his imprisonment in case of his escape, culminating in a maximum fine of 2000 lbs set by the King's Bench in June 1455. As Malory aged through several subsequent imprisonments, fines for his escape decreased to 1000 lbs and then 450 lbs in January and October 1457, and then 100 lbs if not captured when he was somehow at large again despite no formal release in 1458.<ref>Matthews, pp. 14-30</ref> Malory was released as part of a general pardon at the accession of King Edward IV in 1461.

After 1461, few records survive which scholars agree refer to Malory of Newbold Revel. In 1468–1470, King [[Edward IV of England|Edward IV]] issued four more general pardons which specifically excluded a Thomas Malory.<ref>Griffith, p. 166</ref> The first of these names Malory a knight; and applied to participants in a campaign in [[Northumberland]] in the North of England by members of the Lancastrian faction. Field interprets these pardon-exclusions to refer to Malory of Newbold Revel, suggesting that Malory changed his allegiance from [[Yorkists|York]] to Lancaster, and that he was involved in a conspiracy with [[Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick]] to overthrow King Edward.<ref name="Field, p. 131">Field, p. 131</ref> Matthews, having shown that Malory of Newbold Revel was likely in his seventies by the time of the Northumberland campaign and living much further to the South, interprets this record as referring to a different candidate for authorship.<ref>Matthews, p. 31</ref>

No record survives of Malory of Newbold Revel (or any other Thomas Malory) being in prison at the time ''Le Morte'' was completed. As Field describes, "Repeated scholarly searches of legal records have found no trace of arrest, charge, trial, or verdict"<ref name="Field, p. 131"/> that would place any Thomas Malory in prison at the time documented by the author in the Winchester manuscript. Field suggests that Malory's political rivals "simply put him in prison without formal charge" and that he could have been released from prison in October 1470, at the collapse of the Yorkist regime and the temporary return to the throne of Henry VI.

In 1462, Malory settled his estate on his son Robert and, in 1466 or 1467, Robert fathered a son named Nicholas, Malory's grandson and ultimate heir. Malory died on 14 March 1471 and was buried in [[Christ Church Greyfriars]], near [[Newgate Prison]]. His interment there suggests that his misdeeds had been forgiven and that he possessed some wealth.<ref name="LMD" /> However, it was certified at the granting of probate that he owned little wealth of his own, having settled his estate on his son in 1462.<ref name="Field ODNB" /> Malory's grandson Nicholas eventually inherited his lands and was appointed [[High Sheriff of Warwickshire]] in 1502.<ref name="LMD" />

Dugdale, writing in the early to mid-17th century, recorded that the following inscription had been engraved on Malory's tomb: "HIC JACET DOMINUS THOMAS MALLERE, VALENS MILES OB 14 MAR 1470 DE PAROCHIA DE MONKENKIRBY IN COM WARICINI,"<ref name="LMD" /> meaning: "Here lies Lord Thomas Mallere, Valiant Soldier.  Died 14 March 1470 [new calendar 1471], in the parish of Monkenkirby in the county of Warwick."<ref name= "LMD" /> The tomb itself had been lost when Greyfriars was destroyed in 1538 under King [[Henry VIII of England|Henry VIII]] in the [[Dissolution of the Monasteries]].

Linton, in her defense of Dugdale's account, notes that he never offered a connection between the Newbold Revel Malory and ''Le Morte,'' even though the book was well known in Dugdale's time.<ref>Linton, pp. 234-5, 241-2.</ref>