...the Darmstadt fragment (E) [Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Darmstadt, Hs 3321] is also reprinted here; moreover, Dr. Degering, the discoverer of “the Dyck manuscript (F) [Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Münster, Cod 59] himself, was so kind as to publish it here, revised anew. The Comburg manuscript and the Darmstadt fragment have been carefully compared and printed. Only obvious slips of the pen or mistakes in A [Württembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod.poet. et phil.fol.22] have been corrected, so as not to tire the reader; otherwise, the ms-text remained unchanged, even though we could not explain or indicate how the possible error could be corrected. Nor have the rhyme, meter or grammatical forms been changed. ... Regarding details of the Darmstadt fragment I refer to the first edition by Martin, in Quellen und Forschungen LXV (1889). Where it was a Middle Dutch text, Dr. Degering has, for the sake of uniformity throughout the edition, approved that his Preface and notes, written in German, be reworked into Dutch and printed in simplified spelling. ... The inquisitive reader, who wants to see what of our Reynaert I, and how it has been preserved, will now find all the texts together here. In this print of the Dyck Manuscript (F) I have been even more conservative, in accordance with the plan of this edition, as in the first edition, Munster 1910; only the text has been changed where it seemed to me to be a clear scribal error; other inaccuracies, which are partly also due to the “rhapsody” of the work, or deliberate changes, or orthographical peculiarities ... I have left unchanged: in the notes they have at most been pointed out if from their peculiarity something could be deduced for the supposed text of Willem’s original. The appearance also corresponds with the way in which the co-publisher edited ms. A and E. ... I believe I may state with some satisfaction that my view of the relationship between the poets Aernout and Willem, vis-à-vis Muller and Franck, is beginning to gain acceptance. However, whoever shares this opinion must, if he wishes to remain consistent, assume that the reconstruction of the R. as Willem made it—if one considers such a task possible without leaving unsolvable questions—must be based on the Dyck manuscript and not on the Comburg one. - [Editors]

Language: Dutch