The Legends of KING ARTHUR and his KNIGHTS
PREFACE TO THE EIGHTH EDITION
The Publishers have asked me to authorise a new edition, in my own name, of this little book–now long out of print–which was written by me thirty-five years ago under the initials J.T.K.
In acceding to their request I wish to say that the book as now published is merely a word-for-word reprint of my early effort to help to popularise the Arthur legends.
It is little else than an abridgment of Sir Thomas Malory’s version of them as printed by Caxton–with a few additions from Geoffrey of Monmouth and other sources–and an endeavour to arrange the many tales into a more or less consecutive story.
The chief pleasure which came to me from it was, and is, that it began for me a long and intimate acquaintance with Lord Tennyson, to whom, by his permission, I Dedicated it before I was personally known to him.
JAMES KNOWLES.
Rating: 
(out of 5 reviews)
List Price: $ 1.59
Price:
No related posts.
Review by Thornwell Simons for The Legends of KING ARTHUR and his KNIGHTS
Rating:
It’s curious to me that this is the best-selling version of the King Arthur story in the kindle store, because it’s a singularly flawed collection, well-eclipsed by other variants that are also available for free online; I suspect its popularity is an artifact of the search engine, not the book’s own merits.
The author, Sir James Knowles, was an architect and friend of Tennyson, best known for founding the Metaphysical Society; this is, therefore, a very Victorian Arthur. In this case, “victorian” means “bowdlerized to the point of inanity.” The story of Merlin’s enchantment of Uther and Igraine to arrange Arthur’s conception is almost completely elided (“When Uther, therefore, was at length happily wedded” — yep, that’s the whole story); Sir Tristram is apparently completely chaste with Iseult (King Mark just doesn’t like him for some indiscernible reason) and even when Lancelot and Guinevere are caught together and the entire course of the story turns on adultery, such that bowdlerization was completely impossible, Gawain suggests that “it may well be that Lancelot was in her chamber for no evil.” The story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is simply not included at all.
I suppose that kind of bowdlerization might be acceptable in a children’s version of the Arthur stories, but this edition isn’t good for that either, for two reasons: 1) like many free kindle ebooks, all illustrations have been removed, and 2) it’s a kindle edition, and who gives a $250 ebook reader to a child too young to read a story with adultery in it?
There are other problems also. The King of Gaul (Sir Bors) is an ally for the first third and last third of the book, but in the middle, Gaul has a different king, Flollo, and Arthur conquers Gaul six ways from Sunday (mostly as a stopover in his conquest of Rome); timelines don’t add up; so on, so forth. I didn’t feel the author did a good job of telling the Arthur legends, in any particular. In short, this is a bad version of the King Arthur story and the general reader would be better off not wasting time on it.
I’m sure people are going to say “hey, it’s an early victorian version, don’t hold it to such high standards,” but there’s no reason for a modern reader to read these, any more than there’s reason to read Sir Thomas Bowdler’s “Family Shakespeare”. For more “historical” versions of the Arthur legend, either of this versions’ main source materials — Geoffrey of Monmouth’s _History of the Kings of Britain_ or Sir Thomas Malory’s _Morte D’Arthur_ — are superior reads (though I’ll admit you’d want to skim Monmouth heavily). My own personal favorite, Howard Pyle’s three-book version of the Arthur story (“The Story of King Arthur and His Knights,” “The Story of the Champions of the Round Table,” and “The Story of the Grail and the Passing of Arthur”) is similarly available for free online in the public domain, can be found with excellent illustrations by Pyle himself, is written in a fashion suitable for children and adults, and does a far better job of capturing the romance of the Arthur legends.
But whatever version you pick, this one is a poor place to start. It does have some strengths — chiefly an encylopedic compilation of at least some version of almost every PG Arthur-related tale — but the author’s victorian mores seem to have twisted far too many of the stories into unrecognizability. Not recommended.
Review by mrs. higgensworth for The Legends of KING ARTHUR and his KNIGHTS
Rating:
I enjoyed this book, or what part of it I read, anyway. It is the rather un-nuanced account of the adventures had by a group of knights (of the Round Table, of course). There is no character development and very little overarching plot to tie the stories together, but there is something oddly compelling about it. There is a great deal of smiting, and rending helms asunder, and rescuing fair maidens in distress (can you imagine???? The evil giant makes ladies actually do manual labor, though they be of high birth!).
You get the general idea pretty quickly, I’ve read half and feel like I’ve gotten all I will get out of this book. It’s free though, so I am glad I checked it out.
Review by Mithril for The Legends of KING ARTHUR and his KNIGHTS
Rating:
Classic King Arthur stories, with all the smiteth-ing and destresseth damsels one might wish.
A bit of a slow read due to the older writing style and inclusion of every name of every night present at every battle, but the book contained everything from Merlin’s predictions to the Quest for the Holy Grail to Arthur being bore off to Avalon.
Review by Ender Wiggins for The Legends of KING ARTHUR and his KNIGHTS
Rating:
I have given up on the free Amazon classics. I have decided that paying a couple dollars is well worth the money for Kindle books. Not that the content is any different but the formatting is unbearable in the free books.
So far this book is quite enjoyable. I will update my review when I have finished reading it.
Review by Jessss for The Legends of KING ARTHUR and his KNIGHTS
Rating:
This wasn’t my favorite. I’m not quite sure if it was the language or just that I thought the stories were toned down from the original. Also, I was amazed at how often everyone “smote” each other. I like the King Arthur stories, but it can become a bit repetitive after a little while. A lot of damsels in distress who are wandering through the forest and then of course the smiting of each other. Even with all the smiting, the fighting wasn’t very descriptive which is why I think it feels toned down. However, the story is a classic and one that I think every avid reader should read. There’s plenty of chivalry, maidens in distress, magic, and wizards.