9 MSS: A (33M) Marcabruns, C (176v–177r) Marchabm (C Reg. marc e bru), I (120v) Marcabrus, K (106r-v) Marchabrus, N(266v-267’) no heading, R (5r) marc e bru, T (205v-206v) marca bras, a1 (310-311) Marchabrus, d (307v-308r) Marcabruns

Analysis of the manuscripts

All MSS transmit the same number of stanzas in the same order (though T has an extra tornado). The dialogue form and logic of the exchange no doubt guaranteed stability in transmission, but the poem’s fame and wide dissemination may also have contributed to this. If T, which needs separate consideration, is set aside, CR oppose AlKNa1 throughout: see lines 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and so on. Facilior (or simply wrong) passages in CR (for example see the notes to lines 36–38, 44–465 51–52, 72–73 and 79–84) suseesc CR’s version is the later of the two main redactions. Only in line 2, where AlKNa1 are apparently united in error, do CR seem superior (see the note to line 2). Ts text is strewn with errors (see lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and so on) and individual readings (see lines 10, 26 and so on): it seems to be a reworking of the AlKNa1 text that has been collated with — or ‘contaminated’ orally by — a CR-like version in some sections (see lines 2, 9, 14, 17, 63, 73, 75, 76, 79, 84 for evidence of its filiation with CR, though elsewhere it seems to agree with AlKNa1 against CR; see also Roncaglia, ‘Critique textuelle’, p. 210). Occasionally T can be used to corroborate a reading (for example lines 8 and 69), but on the whole it is too corrupt to be useful. The poem seems then to have been subject to only one major revision, that of CR’s source, whose aim seems to have been to produce syntactic and lexical limpidity and not to rewrite in any thorough-going manner: previous editions rely heavily on the CR version, which Roncaglia considers a Vulgate’ (‘Critique textuelle’, p. 212).