For a variety of reasons considerable controversy has arisen during the last quarter-century regarding textual editing, selection and interpretation of manuscripts, and the significance of variant manuscripts vis-à-vis the ‘best’ manuscript or that deemed closest to what the author wrote. Debate turns on the traditional conflict between Lachmanian and Bédiériste editing, or consultation of all manuscripts in order to recover as nearly as possible the original author's version over against reliance on a single manuscript (with perhaps variants from a few other ‘good’ manuscripts). The differences between a standard edition, critical or not, and manuscript layout and illustrations have received attention (see also Ld and X). Moreover, the reason or reasons for which a specific manuscript was copied is important in evaluating reception.

The Manuscript Tradition

4 Rahilly, Leonard J., ‘La tradition manuscrite […]’. (XXVII.255)

5 Holland, Wilhelm Ludwig, ‘Über eine Handschrift: Crestiens Gedichte Li Contes del Graal,’ Germania, 2 (1857), 426–27.

Mons ms. 4568.

See Pb95 Heller.

6 Ketrick, Paul J., The Relation of Golagros and Gawane to the Old French Perceval (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1931).

See Chap. 4.

See Pb103 Rachbauer.

See Pe1 Fuehrer.

See Pb114 Frank.

7 François, Charles, ‘Perrot de Neele, Jehan Madot et le ms. BN fr. 375,’ RBPH, 41 (1963), 761–79.

8 Rahilly, Leonard J., ‘La tradition manuscrite du Chevalier au lion et le manuscrit Garrett 125,’ Rom, 99 (1978), 1–30. (XXXI.300)

9 Tekaat, Manfred, Konsonantengrapheme und ihre Phonie in der handschriftlichen Überlieferung des ‘Erec’ Chrétiens de Troyes, diss. Cologne (Aachen: Mainz, 1978). (XXXIII.73)