Editing Thomas Malory (section)

===Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers===
{{Infobox person
| name          = Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers
| birth_date    = {{circa}} 1425-1435
| birth_place   = Yorkshire, England
| death_date    = Unknown
}}

The third contender emerged in the mid-20th century: Thomas Malory of [[Hutton Conyers]] and [[Studley Royal Park|Studley Royal]] in [[Yorkshire]]. This claim was put forward in 1966 in ''The Ill-Framed Knight: A Skeptical Inquiry into the Identity of Sir Thomas Malory'' by William Matthews,<ref>{{cite book|last=Matthews|first=William|title=The Ill-Framed Knight: A skeptical inquiry into the identity of Sir Thomas Malory|year=1966|publisher=University of California Press|isbn=9780520008304|url=https://archive.org/details/illframedknights00matt}}</ref> a British professor who taught at [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]] (and also transcribed the [[diary of Samuel Pepys]]). This contender is also championed by Linton.<ref name="Linton" />

Matthews makes many arguments for this candidate, with his main focus on linguistic clues both in the Winchester manuscript and the Caxton edition of ''Le Morte d'Arthur''; including distinctive dialectal and stylistic elements such as alliteration that are characteristic of northerly writing. His claim drew scholarly attention including a review co-written by eminent medievalist [[E. F. Jacob]] and the famed linguist [[Angus McIntosh (linguist)|Angus McIntosh]]. Neither reviewer accepted Matthews's claims entirely. Jacob agrees that the dialect of ''Le Morte'' is not that of Warwickshire, deferring to McIntosh for a more detailed dialectal analysis while noting that Matthews makes a good case for reopening the question of Malory's identity. Linton, however, disputes several of McIntosh's arguments, presenting a data driven analysis of the dialect in the ''Morte.''<ref name="Linton, p. 43">Linton, pp. 101-13.</ref> Besides this analysis, she dismisses some of McIntosh's arguments as trivial, noting quibbles between what dialect is northern and what is northerly, for example.<ref>Linton, pp. 107-11.</ref>

McIntosh's dialectal analysis states that: “To put the matter simply, the original ''Le Morte Darthur'' contained various forms which are too northerly for the everyday language of Newbold Revel”. While McIntosh does not specifically support Matthews' claim of an origin in the Hutton Conyers area of Yorkshire, he ultimately concludes that the language would have been "most at home" in [[Lincolnshire]] but is characteristic of roughly anywhere north of a line from [[Chester]] to [[the Wash]] (see inset map). He suggests that Malory “simply had access to, and was deeply steeped in, far more northerly romance material" than the specific texts which he is thought to have used.<ref name="jstor.org"/>

Two central elements of Matthews's argument for the Hutton Conyers candidate include his evidence of the advanced age of the Newbold Revel candidate at the time of writing, described in that section above; and Matthews' analysis of the exclusion of a ''Thomas Malarie, knight'' from a general pardon issued in 1468. The question of the identity of the Malory listed in this document is widely regarded as critical to the final identification of the author. In Field's words: "the Sir Thomas Malory who was exempted from pardon must have been the author of the ''Morte''. No other conclusion is possible."<ref>Field, p. 33</ref> While Field's conclusion is widely accepted, Linton suggests he has attributed it to the wrong Malory, arguing that Malory of Hutton Conyers, a close associate of Neville, is the likely knight exempted from that pardon.<ref>Linton, pp. 247-62.</ref>

The pardon applied to a group of Lancastrians in a military campaign in the winter of 1462 in the Northern county of Northumberland near the Scottish border. Matthews shows that Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers was closely related to the ''Humphrey Neville, knight'' listed just before him in the short list of those excluded. Matthews also points out that this Northern campaign was geographically much closer to Hutton Conyers in Yorkshire than to Newbold Revel, and concludes that the document referred to the Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers - not to Malory of Newbold Revel, who was a Yorkist and would have been something in excess of 70 years old; far too old to have taken part in this Northern military campaign. Matthews therefore promotes this document as strong evidence that Malory of Hutton Conyers was indeed a knight after all and the author of the ''Morte''.<ref>Matthews, pp. 117, 121, and 132-135</ref> Linton offers additional evidence to illustrate the close connection between Humphrey Neville and Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers.<ref>Linton, pp. 293-320.</ref>

Matthews's interpretation was not universally accepted, primarily because he could not find evidence that the Yorkshireman was a knight. Linton, however, has removed that principal objection, providing extensive detail about the Malorys of Yorkshire and offering evidence that Thomas of Yorkshire was a [[Knight Hospitaller]], a knight of the church.<ref>Linton, pp. 61-73.</ref> She also examines the provenance of some of the known sources of the Morte and demonstrates that this Malory would have had ready access to these documents.<ref>Linton, pp. 75-92, 115-25.</ref>

In spite of Matthews's strong evidence of the Newbold Revel knight's advanced age, Field has long argued that the 1468 exclusion from pardon refers to Malory of Newbold Revel and instead shows that that candidate changed his lifelong Yorkist loyalty to become a Lancastrian. It seems equally plausible, however, to realize that the Knight Hospitaller from Hutton Conyers, who was close to Neville, was excluded from pardon, rather than to think the Newbold Revel knight changed political stripes.

Outside of the contested pardon-exclusion, Thomas Malory of Hutton Conyers was not recorded as having been a knight in the generally accepted secular sense, though his elder brother John and most of his recent forefathers were knights.<ref>Matthews, p.161</ref><ref name="LMD"/> If to accept Linton's argument that the Yorkshire Thomas was a Knight Hospitaller, the primary objection to his authorship is removed and the contradictions presented by the Newbold Revel knight become irrelevant.