Share for friends:

Read Le Morte D'Arthur: King Arthur And The Legends Of The Round Table (2001)

Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table (2001)

Online Book

Author
Genre
Rating
3.91 of 5 Votes: 1
Your rating
ISBN
0451528166 (ISBN13: 9780451528162)
Language
English
Publisher
signet classics

Le Morte D'Arthur: King Arthur And The Legends Of The Round Table (2001) - Plot & Excerpts

Alas! who can trust this world? - Sir Launcelot du LakeMalory recounts epic episodes of tournaments, aimless adventures, noble quests, conquests and civil war. Magical prophets and incestuous adulteries plague the royal court but let the world remember Arthur as the once and future king! Despite the sometimes ridiculous episodes of knight-errantry, I did learn to respect the chivalry and the knight's code which governs the events and exposes admirable characteristics among soldiers and economic nobility. Though I can't imagine myself gallivanting off with a pot-bellied Spanish servant seeking adventures in chivalry, I surely hope I can embody the integrity and courage of many of these knights.I learned in this edition's introduction that Malory employed himself as a knight, of sorts, in England during the War of the Roses - a time when men belittled codes of honor and glorified force and ambition above all else. Malory initially fought for the house of York, who later imprisoned him for shifting his allegiance to Lancaster and the lineage of Henrys. I often wondered if Malory had modeled his King Arthur after Henry VI, a pious man who allowed his counselors to guide his decisions in matters of law and state even when they countered his naturally loving heart. Of course, this real king may have served as a model but Arthur stands alone as a beacon of just and compassionate civilizations everywhere.Malory seems to stylistically mimic the Bible's Old Testament and his plots mirror those of The Thousand and One Nights. The book begins with Merlin and the birth of Arthur. Other than to insinuate that the Devil begot Merlin, Malory tells us little of his personal character. Instead, he uses Merlin as a prophet, a seer, who often appears disguised as a vagabond and conscientiously shapes Arthur's destiny. Honestly, Malory disappointed me with Merlin's sparse appearances and less than epically magical deeds. Then I thought of Merlin as a representation the world in which Arthur would build his idealistic civilization. After all, if Merlin can disguise himself as anyone, he can be anyone in the world. And as a symbol of the world, he must embody all the mysteries of time and science which Malory might represent as magic. And though Merlin serves as a seer, Malory does not imply that Merlin guides Arthur with any moral or immoral intentions. Of course, men consider morals while the world simply cycles over, even depends on what men might call "bad" in order for new life to spring up. Merlin only intends for Arthur to become King, neither for good reasons or bad reasons. Like the earth, Merlin simply lives and moves.However, as the narrative plunges along, we witness the rise of the greatest and fairest civilization ever known and then its demise from deceit and ambition. Merlin might console Arthur by saying that all things must live and die and that one can only truly trust in this cycle. Even Rome fell (and by the hand of Arthur to hear Malory tell it). Yet from these characters' choices during this cycle we see some truths of our condition, our desires and our values.Arthur builds the envy of Christendom - a kingdom of fairness and prosperity. Law governs the land and even the king must abide by them along with the same code of chivalry in which his knights believe so faithfully. By raising these virtues above himself, by attributing the true power of the land to these virtues rather than to his own person, he creates a world which ultimately must take care of itself. He need not intercede on the behalf of those in his realm since his knights and all civilians can depend on justice and fairness ruling over them. They enjoy a time of peace when they can afford to go questing, fight amongst themselves and batter each other in tournaments. But when the peace wains, and civil war breaks out over the love between Launcelot and Gwynevere, Arthur himself does very little. Of course, he and Sir Gawain lead their armies against Launcelot, but only because of Sir Gawain's insistence and counseling since Launcelot mistakenly kills his two brothers. The code of revenge, something engrained deeply in the fabric of Arthur's ideal civilization, trumps Arthur's natural inclination to forgive and reconcile with those he loves most in the world, despite their trespasses. The code of the realm he built forces him to listen to Gawain and he can only weep for Launcelot and Gwynevere. Civil war rages. Since Arthur has become legend, even myth, I will entertain some ideas forthwith which may seem far-fetched. But, if this story does not say anything about the world in a manner of absolute certainty, it undoubtedly says something about our condition within the world and how we cope with and wrestle with our place within it. Arthur weeps and follows the advise of Sir Gawain, his nephew, in pursuing Launcelot. I asked myself, Why won't Arthur just call this off? Why won't he exercise his power, snap his fingers and tell everyone to sit down, shut up, and listen to how things will go? Why won't he intercede? I noticed how closely these questions resemble expressions of people who wonder why God won't intercede against all the evil on earth. With Malory's heavy interweaving of Christianity into the legend, I began thinking of the story's climax and conclusion in terms of the mythical archetype and how Arthur might represent God, only in so far as God ruling a realm. He loves Launcelot and Gwynevere, but must allow the rules of his creation to run their course, even if those rules break his heart. If Arthur can represent the mythical archetype of Father God, perhaps Gwynevere could represent Mother Earth and Launcelot, mankind - a people who fall in love with Earth which brings about the rift between themselves and Father God. In any case, Malory drafts Launcelot as Arthur's pride and the pinnacle of knighthood, then as the source of Arthur's, and arguably Camelot's, downfall. Of course, Launcelot does not bear an ounce of malice in his heart and loves Arthur with his entire being, but introducing deception into a mix of honor and chivalry sets in motion events which result in the utter collapse of a world. While Arthur devotes himself to raising the perfect civilization, Launcelot remains devoted to perfecting himself according to the faith he has in Arthur and his ideals. Their individual devotions to their boons match only their devotion to each other which makes the resulting catastrophe nearly unbearable to witness. But the world takes over and it seems Arthur would cease playing Creator and Launcelot, Protector, to become pawns in the world's cyclical nature.Whether this legend bears historical influences from Malory's experiences or the timeless voices of universal mythical archetypes, the reader still finds the joys and suffering of humanity within this fantasy and dares to hope for a day when a mystical vagabond enters a white house, palace or court to begin anew.

*March 6, 2012I read through T.H. White's version of Arthur and then came back to this one by Malory. I think Malory's is dramatically better. The complex nature of Guinevere, Lancelot, and Arthur I found to feel more inspiring here as Lancelot eventually does swear off Guinevere (as shown when he refuses to kiss her at her request, towards the end of the book), whereas in White's version Lancelot never manages to swear her off on his own.*July 27, 2011Note: When I wrote the commentary below, I really did not understand Malory's depiction of the love affair between Lancelot and Guinevere. After giving it time and study, I find it to be a shallow, thoughtless, and self-gratifying study. It's almost as if he tossed the whole 'cheating on their best friend/husband' thing aside so that he could turn Lancelot into the hero Malory wanted Lancelot to be. The story still has great merit, but that particular aspect of the story was not truthful.Still, I did enjoy the mythopoeic nature of the story exceedingly.*Began reading abridged version, second time, January 15, 2011Finished March 31, 2011Notes:O.k. I really do not understand Guinever and Lancelot's relationship. The medieval idea of a a "saintly" courtly lover having four qualities: humility, courtesy, involvement in an adulterous relationship, and practicing the religion of love is, according to my beliefs, downright crazy. Anyone out there understand this theme in the story better than I do?*First review - August 7, 2010:Malory's rendition of the tale of King Arthur and the round table was thoroughly enjoyable. It was beautifully crafted, delicate in its transitions from fairy tale to verisimilar fiction, and masterful in its storytelling. The scenes surrounding the attainment of the holy grail were particularly memorable. The image of Percival's lifeless sister floating in an unguided boat towards the castle of the holy grail, with the dishonorable and prideful Lancelot therein by God's command was deserving of a Peter Jackson film all in itself. The scenes surrounding the penultimate climax of Sir Galahad, Sir Percival, and Sir Bor's attainment of the grail were so short, perhaps only 80 pages (out of a thousand), and somehow their succinct nature enhanced the visuals four times over. It was beautiful. I'll quickly run out of superlatives talking about the book, but there were many parts that also troubled me. I had a strong preconception about Lancelot from having recently read T.H. White's rendition of the tale. His version of Lancelot was less satisfying to me, and it wasn't until the end of reading Malory's rendition that I really understood more of Lancelot and Guinevere's characters. I understood more thoroughly Guinevere's mindset: she was truly the most beautiful and intelligent woman in all of England, and because she never lacked or had any weaknesses other than spiritual ones, it took her longer to recognize her own religion and dependence on her creator. When she finally lost her true, covenanted husband, then she finally realized what a fool she was, and that it was foolish to cling to Lancelot like a fancy trophy. When she realized this, then Lancelot did too.I could definitely read this book again. I would like to understand more of the story, especially the character portraits. It's a great read. I listened to it on audio, read by Frederick Davidson. He doesn't do the story justice, but its an adequate reading (I imagine that they had a small budget when created the recording as they didn't expect many people to buy an unabridged version of the story).

What do You think about Le Morte D'Arthur: King Arthur And The Legends Of The Round Table (2001)?

I read Morte D'Arthur, or most of it anyway, a very long time ago. I remember not being all that enthused and a bit bored at the endless jousting. Really, there are only so many ways to make getting poked by a stick and falling of a horse sound good, guys. However, reading it now for Medieval Lit, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed it very much. The jousting was still boring (sorry, Malory), but the characterization was fascinating. Arthur is so painfully young at the beginning and really has no idea what he's doing even as he's trying to be the hero. Merlin is really the one keeping the kingdom together as every Tom, Dick, and Harry think that they can wrest the throne away from the boy king. The Lancelot/Guinevere/Arthur thing didn't bother me as much this time around; Lancelot is so conflicted and grief-stricken over his actions, you can't help but feel sorry for him. This was not a light-hearted fling. This was 25 years of misery, knowing that he was betraying his best friend and lord, yet completely unable to tear himself away from Guinevere. Deeply unhappy people all around, as Arthur loves both of them but has to do his duty, and eventually the three tear the kingdom apart between them. And yet, I can see why Tennyson chose this subject to write an epic poem about. Malory's brief tangent about how love today is not as it was in the days of Arthur, when men and women knew what devotion was, is beautiful. The whole thing is deeply touching in points, and if you don't get shivers reading about the death of Arthur, check and make sure you're still breathing: "Here lies Arthur, the once and future King."
—Stephanie Ricker

I did so want to enjoy this book. And in the beginning I did enjoy it. About 10,000 uses of the word "smote" later, approximately 1/1000 of the way into the first chapter, I started to find the book tiresome. But what really ruined it for me was the inability of any of the knights to recognize each other. They are forever killing or horrifically maiming their best friends and/or relatives because of issues of mistaken identity. You'd think that after 10 or 15 episodes of this they'd learn to take a minute and do a background check before running some armor-clad fellow through with their spear. But, no. It was like watching a season of "Fraser". And I was utterly uncharmed by Lancelot who is fornicating with the Queen and lying through his face about it and is still put forth as being the most honorable guy England has to offer. There's even a whole scene where he's confronted by Arthur in which Lancelot has a whole finger-wagging, self righteous, Bill Clinton at the press conference moment but the whole time he is lying.Of course, there is a sort of justice but I don't feel that he ever really owns up the way he should. Same can be said for Lancelot.
—Zelda

I still have trouble believing I made it all the way through this. I really did have to struggle through it, and I feel bad saying that because this is a classic. It might not be the oldest written form of Arthurian Legend, but it what all others are based on. It's obviously a classic. However, it was written in the 1490s (yes, that's right, I said 1490s). A lot simply wasn't invented yet. For example, the quotation mark, or any punctuation except for a period. Also, there are a lot of archaic words, like "fain", that aren't really used in English anymore. If you're a King Arthur completist and have to read everything ever written concerning him, I'd check this out but you really do have to work at it. If you're looking to kick back and relax you'd be better off reading one of the more modern adaptations, not for the story, just for the language and punctuation which are both huge hurdles.
—Matt

Write Review

(Review will shown on site after approval)

Read books in category Romance