[In the following essay, Thornton offers an account of Arthur as a king prone to failure and tragedy because of his inability to recognize weakness in those around him.]

From its initial tale Malory's Morte Darthur is ostensibly the story of Arthur's rise and fall. Yet Arthur soon fades from view in the tales of Launcelot and Gareth, appearing only briefly to dispatch a knight on some “aventure” or welcome home the adventure-weary. Not until the middle of Malory's work, in The Book of Sir Tristram de Lyones, does the Round Table's king re-emerge. Arthur's role in this book is not markedly different from his role in earlier tales; through much of the Tristram book we see the old Arthur, strong and powerful. He presides over the Round Table and holds his own when he jousts unknowingly with both Lamerake and Tristram, two of the Table's three most “worthy” knights. Yet Malory in this book also shows us a new, weaker Arthur: a knight whose ethics are prey to his situation, a king powerless to control the men and events of his kingdom, a man who refuses to see that those he most loves will betray him.

This is not the Arthur most critics see. As recently as 1988, Terence McCarthy, in his Reading the Morte Darthur, presented the standard interpretation of Arthur's character, arguing that the Arthur we meet in the Tristram book is the epitome of “stable kingship” (35).¹ Arthur's Camelot is set against Cornwall, the province of the corrupt King Mark, and the comparison of course enhances Arthur at Mark's expense.² Arthur's kingdom is stable and powerful, McCarthy suggests, because Arthur is; as McCarthy puts it, “Arthur's kingdom is full of valour because the king is a man of deeds.” In the Tristram book particularly, “Arthur is the king who silences all private doubts to save the kingdom” (35).³ But is Arthur, in fact, the stable, powerful king McCarthy would have us believe? He is not.

We see Arthur's ethical weakening in the double standard he employs between the joust at the Castle of Maidens and those at Roche Deure and Lonezep.⁴ Palomydes' challenge of the wounded Tristram at the Castle of Maidens joust incenses Arthur, who says that Palomydes has earned “grete dishonoure”⁵ by “hys unknyghtly delynge” (329.29). At Roche Deure Tristram again experiences “grete travayle” (343.43) while bearing Morgan le Fay's shield. This time, ironically, Arthur challenges Tristram to joust, ignoring—as Tristram points out—the very principle he had so recently espoused:

‘And ye were a man of worshyp ye wolde nat have ado with me, for ye have sene me this day have had grete travayle. And therefore ye ar no valyaunte knyght to aske batayle of me, consyderynge my grete travayle. Howbehit, I woll nat fayle you, and have ye no doute that I feare nat you. Though ye thynke ye have me at a grete avauntage, yet shall I ryght well endure you.’

(343.40-344.3)

Tristram does “endure,” managing to unhorse the king and garner an apology (344.4-9, 21-5). While the apology may redeem Arthur in Tristram's eyes, we are not so quick to forget the king's momentary disdain for his own earlier-stated principles.

Malory implies that Arthur's choice to fight the disguised Tristram at Roche Deure stems in part from his anger over the shield Tristram carries, a shield which at least hints at the queen's infidelity. Were Arthur's forgotten principles at Roche Deure the lone instance of faltering ethics, we might chalk them up to the emotion of the moment; but they are not. Late in the Tristram section at the tournament at Lonezep, Arthur again chooses the unfair advantage of jousting with weary and wounded knights, this time over the protests of Launcelot:

‘So God me helpe,’ seyde kynge Arthur unto sir Launcelot, ‘this is a grete shame to us to se four knyghtes beate so many knyghtes of myne. And therefore make you redy, for we woll have ado with them!’

‘Sir,’ seyde sir Launcelot, ‘wyte you well that there ar two passynge good knyghtes, and grete worship were hit nat to us now to have ado with them, for they ar gretly travayled.’

‘As for that,’ seyde kynge Arthure, ‘I woll be avenged.’

(446.16-22)

The irony of Arthur's double standard is not lost on Malory. In the ensuing battle Arthur ends up jousting with the disguised Dynadan (446.35-6; 447.1-4), whose knightly prowess is less than legendary. Though Arthur succeeds in unseating Dynadan, this earns little more for him than a second confrontation with Tristram, who “gaff hym suche a buffet that kynge Arthure had no power to kepe his sadyll” (447.23-4). In both instances, Arthur's weakness in allowing his emotions to override his ethics costs him the very worship he seeks.⁶

Not only do Arthur's knightly principles waver, but he also finds himself increasingly powerless to change the course of events that causes first Tristram and then Lamerake to leave the Round Table.⁷ The earliest signs of Arthur's inability to act in the Tristram book revolve around the feud between Tristram and King Mark. Arthur is furious when he learns that Mark has slain Bersules because he would not help in the murder of Tristram, and Arthur only spares Mark “for the grete plesure of sir Trystram, to make them two accordid” (365.33-4). Malory tells us of Mark's false face, a façade of which Arthur is keenly aware (365.31-2); yet Tristram's desire to see La Beall Isode forces Arthur to act as peacemaker (376.23-5), and in the process shows—particularly to Launcelot—the limits of the king's power. Having asked Mark on Tristram's behalf to give up his vendetta, Arthur can only make Mark swear “uppon a booke” (375.29) that he is reconciled with Tristram. In the face of Launcelot's disgust that Arthur would allow Tristram to leave with Mark, Arthur in effect admits that he has no choice: “‘Sir, hit was his owne desyre,’ seyde kynge Arthure, ‘and therefore I myght nat do wythall, for I have done all that I can and made them at accorde’” (376.1-3).

And, as Vinaver points out, Launcelot's specific placing of the blame for Tristram's departure on Arthur (375.42-4) is Malory's addition; in the French Tristan, Launcelot simply states that Tristram is gone (Vinaver, “Notes” 3.1493). Though Tristram holds a seat at the Round Table, which places him within Arthur's command,⁸ the king is essentially powerless to do more than to effect the token peace between Tristram and Mark. Arthur can neither prevent Tristram from leaving nor protect him from Mark. As Arthur tells Launcelot, he can do no more; he is powerless to interfere.

Arthur also cannot defuse the growing hatred between Lamerake and Arthur's nephews, the four sons of his sister Morgause: Gawayne, Aggravayne, Mordred, and Gaheris. Their quarrel—a quarrel into which Arthur will inevitably be drawn—has already claimed Morgause's husband, King Lotte of Orkenay, and Lamerake's father, King Pellynor. Early in the Tristram book, it claims Morgause as well, when her youngest, Gaheris, finds her in bed with Lamerake and murders her (377.41-3). As the conflict worsens, the king finds it increasingly difficult to control the errant Gawayne, Gaheris's oldest brother. Even before Morgause's murder, Gawayne plots to slay Lamerake:

‘because we [Gawayne and his brothers] slew his fadir, kynge Pellynor, for we demed that he slew oure fadir, kynge Lotte of Orkenay; and for the deth of kynge Pellynor sir Lameroke ded us a shame to oure modir. Therefore I woll be revenged.’

(375.6-9)

Once Gaheris beheads his mother and swears revenge on Lamerake, Arthur does act by forcing Gaheris to leave his court; yet even this act is futile, the product of momentary “wrothe” (378.26-7), as Gaheris soon reappears among Arthur's knights (405). Gawayne reacts with anger as well: at his uncle, King Arthur, for banishing Gaheris, and at Gaheris for not killing Lamerake when he had the chance (378.28-9). When Launcelot predicts that Arthur's nephews will murder Lamerake, Arthur resists further bloodshed:

‘Sir,’ seyde sir Launcelot, ‘I am sure ye shall lose sir Lamerok, for sir Gawayne and his bretherne woll sle hym by one meane other by another.’

‘That shall I lette [resist],’ seyde kynge Arthur.

(378.39-42)

Yet even this stance, though perhaps noble, will have little effect. Lamerake will leave the court because of Gawayne, and Arthur will be drawn into the quarrel despite his best efforts to remain neutral.

The hatred between Morgause's sons and Lamerake must eventually surface. At the jousting tournament of Surluse Arthur arrives just in time to find Gaheris and his brothers threatened by Palomydes; yet it is Lamerake, disguised, who comes to their aid. The ensuing exchange between Arthur and Lamerake, like Launcelot's earlier blaming of Arthur for Tristram's departure, is original to Malory; according to Vinaver's Le Roman de Tristan, it does not appear anywhere in the surviving Tristan manuscripts (156, 193-4). Arthur realizes Lamerake's identity and attempts to use this situation to make peace between Lamerake and Arthur's nephews, but Lamerake is skeptical of Gawayne and his brothers:

‘Syr,’ seyde sir Lamerok, ‘wyte you well I owghe you my servyse, but as at this tyme I woll nat abyde here, for I se off myne enemyes many aboute you.’

‘Alas!’ seyde kynge Arthure, ‘nowe wote I well hit is sir Lamerok de Galys. A, sir Lamerok, abyde wyth me! And be my crowne, I shall never fayle the: and nat so hardy in sir Gawaynes hede, nothir none of his bretherne, to do the wronge.

‘Sir, grete wronge have they done me and you bothe.’

(406.13-20)

Arthur agrees that Gawayne and his brothers are dangerous (406.21), but repeats his request to “‘make you at acorde.’” Lamerake will not, however, be swayed and returns to the jousts, refusing to “abyde with” King Arthur (406.27-30). The tournament ends two days later, and Lamerake has not changed his mind. In a final conversation with Launcelot, he goes to the heart of Arthur's fading power:

‘Sir, I shall undirtake,’ seyde sir Launcelot, ‘that, and ye woll go wyth us, kynge Arthure shall charge sir Gawayne and his bretherne never to do you hurte.’

‘As for that,’ sayde sir Lamerok, ‘I woll nat truste to sir Gawayne, nother none of his bretherne. And wyte you well, sir Launcelot, and hit were nat for my lorde kynge Arthurs sake, I shuld macche sir Gawayne and his bretherne well inowghe. But for to sey that I shall truste them, that shall I never.’

(410.33-40)

The lines which follow this speech—describing the weeping of both Lamerake and Launcelot at their parting (411.1-2)—do not appear in the French source, as Vinaver points out in his 1967 Works (3.1507-08). Even more poignantly than his earlier additions concerning Arthur's dealings with Tristram and Lamerake, the added finality Malory lends this parting foreshadows Lamerake's demise. Even though Arthur has guaranteed his safety, Lamerake refuses to return to the court because he does not believe that Arthur can control his nephews, nor can the king prevent the accelerating violence that seems sure to occur. Arthur's guarantee indeed proves worthless; Lamerake leaves the tournament, only to be ambushed and killed by the Orkney clan (427.38-428.11; 435.42-436.8).

Besides robbing the Round Table of one of its best knights, Lamerake's murder also fosters doubt among other knights, both of Arthur's power and of his justice. When Dynadan, Tristram, Palomydes, and Gareth ride together to Lonezep, memories of past jousts lead them to discuss the recent murder of Lamerake. While all, particularly Gareth, deplore the “treson” (428.12-15) of the act, Tristram voices a deeper concern: “‘And for suche thynges,’ seyde sir Trystrams, ‘I feare to drawe unto the courte of kynge Arthure’” (427.31-2).

But distrust of Arthur's safe-conduct is not the most damaging doubt the murder has produced:

‘Alas,’ seyde sir Dynadan and sir Trystram, ‘that full wo is us for his deth! And yf they were nat the cousyns of my lorde kynge Arthure that slew hym, they sholde dye for hit, all that were concentynge to his dethe.’

(427.27-30)

Malory's implication here is unmistakable: while the guilt of Gawain, Mordred, Aggravayne, and Gaheris in Lamerake's murder is common knowledge, Arthur chooses not to punish their treason, their kinship to him the only logical explanation.⁹ Yet this same Arthur, in both “The Poisoned Apple” episode and the infidelity charge of Mellyagaunt, is quick to show his lack of family bias in offering to burn his queen.

Arthur cannot stop Tristram or Lamerake from leaving the Round Table, and he cannot prevent, nor does he punish, the revenge of Gawayne and his brothers on Lamerake, even though these tensions are among those which will eventually pull the Round Table apart. But Arthur's choice to ignore the mounting evidence of Gwenyver's infidelity, his persistent blindness to his betrayal by his best friend, proves his most damaging weakness.¹⁰ The truth about Launcelot and Gwenyver first confronts Arthur in the shield carried by the disguised Tristram on behalf of Morgan le Fay at the tournament of Roche Duere (342.20). The gold shield bears “a kynge and a quene therein paynted, and a knyght stondynge aboven them with hys one foote standynge uppon the kynges hede and the othir uppon the quenys hede” (340.21-3).

When Tristram asks, Morgan readily tells him that the king is Arthur and the queen Gwenyver, but she refuses to disclose the name of the knight (340.24-31). The shield becomes the focus of the tournament to which Tristram carries it; in particular, Arthur can never take his eyes from the shield (342-3). This encounter with the shield is a process of discovery for Arthur. At first he does not understand its symbolism—though Gwenyver does—but a young woman appears from Morgan le Fay to clarify its meaning: “‘Sir kynge, wyte you well thys shylde was ordayned for you, to warn you of youre shame and dishonoure that longith to you and youre quene’” (342.33-35). Inevitably, Arthur confronts Tristram and immediately asks the meaning of the shield. Yet when Tristram refuses to tell him more than to whom the shield belongs, Arthur ceases his questions (343). Perhaps he distrusts Morgan le Fay's trickery, but his constant attention to the shield throughout the day—attention which Gwenyver notes with fear (342.40-4; 343.8-9)—suggests another reason. He suspects at least a part of the truth but refuses to accept it; even though Morgan's messenger names the queen, Arthur does not confront Gwenyver.

Arthur's refusal to face facts becomes more apparent in the seventh section of the Tristram book, “King Mark.” After Launcelot and Arthur send letters to King Mark threatening him with dire consequences if anything should happen to Tristram, Mark writes three letters of his own—to Launcelot, Gwenyver, and Arthur—each detailing in some way the queen's infidelity (381). Although Mark's falseness is unquestionable, he ironically tells Arthur the truth about Launcelot and Gwenyver, hoping in some way to hurt the king. Arthur at first believes Mark's words:

Whan kynge Arthure undirstode the lettir, he mused of many thynges, and thought of his systyrs wordys, quene Morgan le Fay, that she had seyde betwyxte quene Gwenyver and sir Launcelot, and in this thought he studyed a grete whyle.

(381.18-21)

His moment of honesty with himself, however, is fleeting: “Than he bethought hym agayne how his owne sistir was his enemy, and that she hated the quene and sir Launcelot to the deth, and so he put that all oute of his thought” (381.21-3).

In both instances—the shield and Mark's letter—Arthur apparently chooses to ignore the evidence because of its source. Yet, in reality, his choice is to avoid emotional pain by “put[ting] that all oute of his thought” (381.23), hoping that by ignoring the problem, it will disappear. Though Arthur's reaction is wholly human, it is also the height of self-deceit; the weakness which allows him this emotional indulgence will eventually contribute to his—and to the Round Table's—doom.

What are we to make of this Arthur, this hero of Malory's story, who appears at certain points in the Tristram book vacillating, powerless, and self-deceiving? In allowing humanity to his hero, Malory must concede as well Arthur's personal weakness. Arthur's wavering knightly principles in the Tristram book foreshadow the coming ethical demise of the Round Table, a demise which results from the adultery of Lancelot and Gwenyver. If Arthur, the Round Table's ethical center, cannot hold, then things must inevitably fly apart. The king's inability to control his court is a prelude as well to a Round Table which will divide against itself and its king, causing its own destruction. Yet, in the end, Arthur's betrayal by Lancelot and Gwenyver most clearly causes the doom of Arthur and his Round Table. Arthur is not destroyed because he fails to see the evil in his enemies; he fails because he will not see the evil in his kinsmen and his friends. The signs of this failure in the Morte Darthur first appear in The Book of Sir Tristram de Lyones.

Notes

1. Like McCarthy, most critics contend that Malory creates in Arthur a strong king destroyed through no fault of his own. As early as 1925, Elise Ven-Ten Bensel argued in The Character of King Arthur in English Literature that Arthur makes “a gradual change for the better” and experiences “an increase of his virtues in later life” (142). Most critics in the ensuing years seem to assume the strength of Arthur's character; thus, most do not discuss the possibility of his disintegration. This assumption pervades the landmark Malory's Originality (1964); even in Wilfred L. Guerin's concluding essay, “‘The Tale of the Death of Arthur’: Catastrophe and Resolution,” his conclusion seems to be that Arthur makes the best possible decisions given the circumstances, and his strength in the face of a bad situation even raises him to the level of tragic hero (264). John Pierce Watkins agrees in his 1964 dissertation, “The Hero in Sir Thomas Malory,” arguing that in Arthur we see “all the best qualities of man and king” (1637). The strong Arthur has remained the standard interpretation throughout the 1970's and 1980's, as several studies attest. Among these are Robert Leroy Kelly's “The Pattern of Triumph: Parallels Between Arthur and Galahad in Malory's ‘Morte Darthur’” (1970); Quentin Lee Gehle's “A Study of Character Motivation in Chretien's ‘Cliges,’ Chaucer's ‘Troilus and Criseyde,’ and Malory's ‘Morte Darthur’” (1973); Mark Lambert's Malory: Style and Vision in Le Morte Darthur (1975); Larry Benson's Malory's Morte Darthur (1976); John Michael Walsh's “Malory's Arthur and the Plot of Aggravain” (1981); A. C. Partridge's A Companion to Old and Middle English Studies (1982); Rosemary Morris's The Character of King Arthur in Medieval Literature (1982); Beverly Kennedy's Knighthood in the Morte Darthur (1985); Terence McCarthy's “Private Worlds in Le Morte Darthur” (1986); even The Arthurian Encyclopedia (“King Arthur”), published in 1986, maintains this view. Most critics agree with Larry Benson (Malory's Morte Darthur 1976) that the Tristram book represents “the bright afternoon of Arthurian chivalry” (115); both Thomas C. Rumble (“The Tale of Sir Tristram’: Development by Analogy,” 1964) and Maureen Fries (“Malory's Tristram as Counter-Hero to the Morte Darthur,” 1975), however, place the beginnings of the Round Table's disintegration in the Tristram book, each attributing that disintegration to a force other than Arthur: Rumble to the Lotte-Orkenay feud (169-76) and Fries (“Malory's Tristram”) to the appearance of Tristram as a member of the Table (612).

   Some dissenting voices appear, though none suggest Arthur's disintegration begins until after the Grail Quest. Among these is N. S. Aurner's 1933 suggestion (“Sir Thomas Malory—Historian?”) that Arthur's passivity in the later books contributes to the downfall of the Round Table (367). Robert H. Wilson, in his Characterization in Malory: A Comparison With His Sources (1934), agrees with this assessment of passivity, absolving Arthur of almost all personal responsibility and listing as his only culpable acts his incest with Morgause and his fondness for Gawayne (65). T. Grove's 1978 essay, “Sexual Intemperance and the Fall of the Round Table,” also points to Arthur's incest as the cause of Camelot's disintegration, placing the blame on Arthur's sexual weakness. D. S. Brewer adds to Arthur's sins his failure “to cherish his wife as an individual” which causes him to choose public over private concerns (28). The strongest of these dissenting voices appears in an unpublished dissertation (“Authority and Character in Middle English Literature,” 1981) in which Timothy O'Brien argues that following the second tale we see “self-destructive tendencies within Arthur's character.” These tendencies lead, in the last book particularly, to Arthur's loss of “his ability to control himself and others; he loses his authority” (3993A).

2. This interpretation of the Tristram section as a contrast between Arthur and Mark is also not new. Edward Kennedy's “King Arthur and King Mark: Aspects of Kingship in Malory's Morte Darthur” (1967) characterizes Mark as a tyrant and Arthur as the epitome of the just king (3146A). Suzanne Yaws's “The Medieval Theory of Kingship in Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur” (1980) takes a similar approach, as do most critics.

3. The question of Arthur's choice between public and private concerns has sparked a wealth of critical interest. While Elise Ven-Ten Bensel (The Character of King Arthur in English Literature, 1925) attributes to Arthur an almost child-like innocence of the adultery (147) which precludes any foreknowledge of the affair and thus any conflict within Arthur, she is apparently alone in this assessment. Scholars have accepted without question—though some, Edward Kennedy in particular (“The Arthur-Guenevere Relationship in Malory's Morte Darthur,” 1971), have grumbled about Arthur's lack of concern for his queen—that Arthur chose preservation of the Round Table over any personal concerns; moreover, these same critics invariably cite this choice as a sign of his strength and wise kingship. The sources listed in note 1 above will bear this out.

4. Maureen Fries has persuasively argued in her “Indiscreet Objects of Desire” (1985) that this ethical weakening begins with Tristram and eventually infects Launcelot as well, resulting in unknightly acts by both. Fries does not, however, extend this air of deceit and unknightly dealing to include Arthur.

5. Sir Thomas Malory, The Works of Sir Thomas Malory, ed. Eugène Vinaver, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford UP, 1971), 329.10. I list all subsequent references parenthetically within the text by page number; line numbers appear where needed.

6. These unknightly acts are particularly interesting when viewed in the light of Jill Mann's ideas about knightly combat (“Knightly Combat in Le Morte Darthur,” 1982). Mann suggests that “it is the discovery of self, not the creation of self, that is the function of knightly ‘aventure’” (334). Given the evidence, Arthur's knightly conduct in these passages does indeed reveal his weakening character.

7. Some debate exists as to the nature of Arthur's kingship. Most critics—particularly Edward Kennedy (“King Arthur and King Mark,” 3146A) and Beverly Kennedy (Knighthood in the Morte Darthur, 20-28, 53)—suggest that Arthur's power is both secure and personal, that he is, in fact, more a fifteenth-century divine-right monarch than a feudal lord partially controlled by his barons. Arthur's role seems to me clearly one of power in the early tales; his knights and barons obey him, whether out of respect for his virtue or fear of his power. One need only remember the killing of the children in an attempt to eliminate Mordred to measure Arthur's control (37.10-25). Stephen Knight, in his Arthurian Literature and Society (1983), disagrees, arguing that the Round Table's demise shows that the “apparent weakness of Arthur is no more than a realisation of the position of the fifteenth-century king” (143).

8. Donald G. Schueler, in his “The Tristram Section of Malory's Morte Darthur” (1968), points out that Tristram is originally reluctant to join the Round Table and “does so only because he feels compelled to obey Arthur” (61).

9. Vinaver discusses this passage at length both in his “Notes” to the Works (1967) and in Le Roman de Tristan (1925). In both he notes that Malory expands the description of Lamerake's murder related by Palomydes and transforms the entire scene into dialogue. While Vinaver finds parallels in the Tristan manuscripts for Palomydes' description of Lamerake's murder, he assumes—in keeping with his contention that the Morte Darthur is “translated” from sources rather than original—that a missing source exists for the remaining dialogue, including Tristram's remark about fearing to return to Arthur's court and Dynadan's speculations as to why the murder remained unpunished (“Notes” 1967, 3.1513; Roman 45-8). In the absence of a source for this material it seems equally plausible—as Moorman suggests (57)—to assume that the lines of Tristram and Dynadan are original to Malory. Moorman also notes Lamerake's scepticism of Arthur's ability to control his nephews. Pointing to the conversation between Tristram, Dynadan, Gareth, and Palomydes, Moorman suggests that Arthur's failure to punish his murderous nephews acts as prelude to the division of the court in the post-Quest tales between the Launcelot-Pellinor faction and those knights who side with Lotte's sons (57-8).

10. Scholars have long discussed what Arthur knows and when he knows it. Most agree, based on the “demynge” passage which begins the final Tale (674.39), that he at least suspected the adultery by the end of the Tristram section and that he clearly knows by the beginning of the last Tale. The exception to this view is R. M. Lumiansky, who contends in “‘The Tale of Launcelot and Guenevere’: Suspense” (1968) that the Tristram book's references to the adultery between Launcelot and Gwenyvere serve “to show the commencement of the adultery and its development to a degree that awareness of it has spread widely; but there is no indication as yet that Arthur is suspicious” (208). Thus it is only after Launcelot tells of his Grail failure that Arthur learns of the affair and forgives the two, trusting that the tryst has ended (210-11). This view seems unsupportable to me, since Lumiansky bases his argument on Lancelot's confessing his and Gwenyvere's adultery publicly before the entire court. The idea is inconceivable.

Works Cited

The Arthurian Encyclopedia. Ed. Norris J. Lacy. New York: Garland, 1986.

Aurner, N. S. “Sir Thomas Malory—Historian?” PMLA 48 (1933): 362-91.

Benson, Larry D. Malory's Morte Darthur. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP, 1976.

Brewer, D. S. “Introduction to The Morte Darthur.” London: Arnold, 1968.

Fries, Maureen. “Indiscreet Objects of Desire: Malory's ‘Tristram’ and the Necessity of Deceit.” Studies in Malory. Ed. James W. Spisak. Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute, 1985. 87-108.

———. “Malory's Tristram as Counter-Hero to the Morte Darthur.” Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 76 (1975): 605-13.

Gehle, Quentin Lee. “A Study of Character Motivation in Chretien's ‘Cliges,’ Chaucer's ‘Troilus and Criseyde,’ and Malory's ‘Morte Darthur.’” DAI 35 (1974): 1622A. U. of Kentucky.

Grove, T. “Sexual Intemperance and the Fall of the Round Table.” Exploration 5.1 (1978): 11-21.

Guerin, Wilfred L. “‘The Tale of the Death of Arthur’: Catastrophe and Resolution.” Malory's Originality. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins P, 1964.

Kelly, Robert Leroy. “The Pattern of Triumph: Parallels Between Arthur and Galahad in Malory's ‘Morte Darthur.’” DA 30 (1970): 4948A-49A. U of of Oregon.

Kennedy, Beverly. Knighthood in the Morte Darthur. Woodbridge, Suffolk: D. S. Brewer, 1985.

Kennedy, Edward D. “The Arthur-Guenevere Relationship in Malory's Morte Darthur.” Studies in the Literary Imagination 4 (1971): 29-40.

———. “King Arthur and King Mark: Aspects of Kingship in Malory's Morte Darthur.” DA 28 (1968): 3145A-46A. U of Illinois at Urbana-Champain.

Knight, Stephen. Arthurian Literature and Society. New York: St. Martin's, 1983.

Lambert, Mark. Malory: Style and Vision in Le Morte Darthur. New Haven: Yale UP, 1975.

Lumiansky, R. M. “‘The Tale of Launcelot and Guenevere’: Suspense.” Malory's Originality. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins P, 1964. 205-232.

Malory, Sir Thomas. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory. Ed. Eugène Vinaver. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford UP, 1971.

———. The Works of Sir Thomas Malory. Ed. Eugène Vinaver. 2nd edn. 3 vols. London: Oxford UP, 1947.

Mann, Jill. “Knightly Combat in Le Morte Darthur.” The New Pelican Guide to English Literature. Ed. Boris Ford. Vol. 1. Great Britain: Cox and Wyman, 1982. 331-9.

McCarthy, Terence. “Private Worlds in Le Morte Darthur.” Etudes Anglais 39.1 (1986): 3-14.

———. Reading the Morte Darthur. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1988.

Moorman, Charles. The Book of Kyng Arthur: The Unity of Malory's Morte Darthur. N.p.: U of Kentucky P, 1965.

Morris, Rosemary. The Character of King Arthur in Medieval Literature. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1982.

O'Brien, Timothy David. “Authority and Character in Middle English Literature.”DAI 42 (1981): 3993A. U of California at Santa Barbara.

Partridge, A. C. A Companion to Old and Middle English Studies. Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble, 1982.

Rumble, Thomas C. “‘The Tale of Tristram’: Development by Analogy.”Malory's Originality. Ed. R. M. Lumiansky. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins P, 1964. 118-83.

Schueler, Donald G. “The Tristram Section of Malory's Morte Darthur.”Studies in Philology 65 (1968): 51-66.

Ven-Ten Bensel, Elise F. W. M. The Character of King Arthur in English Literature. Amsterdam: H. J. Paris, 1925.

Vinaver, Eugène. Le Roman de Tristan et Iseut dans L'oeuvre de Thomas Malory. Paris: Champion, 1925.

Walsh, John Michael. “Malory's Arthur and the Plot of Aggravain.” Texas Studies in Language and Literature 23 (1981): 517-34.

Watkins, John Pierce. “The Hero in Sir Thomas Malory.” DA 26 (1965): 1637. U of Pittsburgh.

Wilson, Robert H. Characterization in Malory: A Comparison with His Sources. Chicago: U of Chicago Libraries, 1934.

Yaws, Suzanne. The Medieval Theory of Kingship in Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur. Master's Thesis. Baylor U., 1980.