In the series Arthurian Archives the second volume of the Middle Dutch Arthurian romances has been published. It is the Middle Dutch translation/adaptation of the Old French Fergus, a story about ^îa homo silvaticus who goes on to become one of King Arthur's best knights^ï (p. 5), which has itself been modeled on the Perceval of Chretien de Troyes. The Middle Dutch Romance Ferguut, with a little over 5600 lines about half as long as the Roman van Walewein, was probably written by two anonymous authors. The first author faithfully translated the text as transmitted in his model, the Old French Fergus of Guillaume le Clerc. But the second author (from line 2590 or 2592 onwards) diverged considerably from the original and scholars have suggested that he worked from memory not having a written text in front of him. The date of the Middle Dutch text cannot be established easily, not only because of the dual authorship (in itself suggesting that the composition of the text is stretched out over a longer period), but also because of the absence of references to patron, authors and period of composition. The text survives in one manuscript only, which is dated ca. 1325-1350, but archaic linguistic features point to a composition date of ca. 1225-1250, thus possibly making it the oldest extant Middle Dutch Arthurian romance. This early date is corroborated by the fact that the text apparently has not been influenced by other medieval Dutch texts. Many place-names and personal names seem to derive directly from other French texts, such as the Lancelot en prose, Meraugis de Portlesguez, the Suite Vulgate du Merlin. The form of the names points to direct French influence without Middle Dutch intermediaries. For example contrary to almost every other Middle Dutch Arthurian romance, we find Gawein, instead of the usual 'Walewein'. In this respect it is strange that until the present day hardly anyone has studied the influence of the Ferguut on later Dutch literature. The merits of this tale have so far been compared to the French original, whose author is considered to be an epigone of Chretien. Another interesting aspect of the Middle Dutch adaptation is that while the French Fergus shows detailed and accurate references to the landscape, this is blurred in the Ferguut. Moreover the narrative is simplified. The Dutch adaptation moves faster, also because of the authors' preferred use of direct speech and dialogue, whereas Guillaume uses indirect speech more often. In conclusion it can be observed that especially the second half of the Ferguut can be appreciated as a Dutch literary creation, as it renders more freely the original.
The Introduction of this Ferguut edition seems to be aimed at people who are already familiar with the Old French text, since it starts with a discussion of authorship and differences between the translators. This is a strange decision, as the romance is very interesting also for those who do not (yet) know the Fergus. And, in my opinion, it stresses too much the often-seen dependency of Middle Dutch Arthurian literature on the Old French tradition, whereas a Middle Dutch text can have, and in this instance certainly does have, its own merits as an independent tale as well. In the introduction, the proper place of this Arthurian romance within the Dutch tradition is not touched upon, which has as its consequence that the non-specialist cannot place this romance in the Dutch genre. The introduction is therefore a bit too limited and one still has to consult such recent surveys as W.H. Jackson and S.A. Ranawake, The Arthur of the Germans; the Arthurian Legend in Medieval German and Dutch Literature, (Cardiff, 2000) and Geert H.M. Claassens and David F. Johnson, King Arthur in the Medieval Low Countries (Leuven, 2000).
The volume in question is a new edition, accompanied by the first English translation of this text. The Notes, an index of names, and an extensive bibliography follow the edition of the text. The edited text is based on the only surviving complete manuscript. Sometimes the editors have emended manuscript readings, for example evident scribal mistakes, or preferred variants transmitted through the only extant fragment of the romance. The translation is again, just like in the edition of the Roman van Walewein, a verse by verse translation, which is a very good decision as readers not very familiar with the (Middle) Dutch language are thus able to get used to the original wording. Fortunately, some reading mistakes made by the editors in Rombauts, et al. (E. Rombauts, N. De Paepe, M.J.M. de Haan (eds), Ferguut, [Culemborg, 1976, reprinted Hilversum, 1994]) have been corrected, for example line 780 'southeit' is here correctly read as 'stoutheit', and 903 'tinen' as 'sinen' (all explained in the Notes in this volume). But these mistakes were already corrected in the diplomatic edition of Willem Kuiper (Die Riddere Metten Witten Scilde: Oorsprong, overlevering en auteurschap van de Middelnederlandse Ferguut, gevolgd door een diplomatische editie en een diplomatisch glossarium. [Amsterdam, 1989]). As it stands, the diplomatic edition has greater use, as its editor not only shows which words were abbreviated in the manuscript, but also identifies the corrections in the text made by a reader (the Corrector), who probably worked sometime in the fourteenth century, giving the text 'a face-lift in order to lend it a more contemporary aspect' (p.11) and adding a colophon. As far as I have seen, Kuiper's edition of the text does not have readings differing from the edition by Johnson and Claassens, apart from the emendations the latter have made. But these emendations nearly all derive from the edition Rombauts, et al. Only in a few instances they have rejected an emendation proposed by Rombauts et al. (e.g. 557/558, where Johnson and Claassens follow the Corrector) or proposed another one (e.g. line 2532 'moesti' in 'moestic'). Emendations are discussed in detail in the Notes.
Thus the sole merit of this edition in Arthurian Archives seems to be the English translation, but that is, in my view, enough. In recent decades, the Ferguut has in fact been the object of scholarly attention of two scholars from Amsterdam, Willem Kuiper and Roel Zemel, who are preparing a critical edition of the text (See Kuiper 1989, and R.M.T. Zemel, Op zoek naar Galiene: over de Oudfranse Fergus and de Middelnederlandse Ferguut [Amsterdam, 1991]). In view of the number of texts still waiting to be edited and translated, it is especially unfortunate that there has been no cooperation between these two editing projects. Would it not have been much more efficient to use the new critical edition of the two Ferguut experts as a basis for the English translation? Of course, this would have meant a delay of the Ferguut-translation, but then there are many more Middle Dutch Arthurian romances which deserve to be better known among an international audience. Regardless, it is wonderful to see more and more Dutch medieval works get translated, the obvious advantage being that a wider public gets the opportunity to enjoy these works. Perhaps with the publication of more Dutch romances with English translation, non-Dutch scholars will also enter the debate, which will only enliven it.