Roman van Ferguut manuscript/source tradition

Epistemic status

Inferred L3 evidence-packet article.

This article describes an entity that is not directly attested. It is an inference from the evidence listed below.

Summary

Codex source-reading decision from the pre-1550 source-control title-prior lane.

What is being inferred

What the responsa evidence supports inferring is a distinction between the one surviving Middle Dutch Ferguut manuscript and an earlier source tradition (likely connected to the Old French Fergus) that the manuscript itself depends on: the claim is that this source-dependence relationship exists and is only partly recoverable, not that the specific lost source text can be reconstructed in detail.

What is attested

• Evidence 821 records: The source controls the preserved witness while implying the need to distinguish extant manuscript from source tradition.
• Evidence 822 records: Besamusca supports a source-dependence problem beyond the preserved Middle Dutch manuscript.
• Evidence 824 records: The book record is bibliographic control, not proof of the missing source relation.

Why infer this entity

DBNL's manuscript description (Evidence 821) directly controls the one preserved witness, and it is precisely this direct control that makes the underlying source tradition inferential rather than attested: a translated or adapted text implies an antecedent, but the antecedent itself is not the object in hand. Besamusca's study of Medieval Dutch Arthurian material (Evidence 822) independently supports treating this as a source-dependence problem reaching beyond the single preserved manuscript, situating Ferguut within the broader translation and adaptation practices of Dutch Arthurian romance. The counterevidence item is what keeps this claim appropriately modest: DBNL's own afterword (Evidence 823) cautions that the inferred source state is not tightly recoverable from the known fragments and comparanda, which is why this article treats the source relationship as a bounded inference (a source tradition existed and shaped the surviving text) rather than a reconstruction of what that source actually said. The Google Books facsimile record (Evidence 824) is used only as bibliographic control, confirming the physical existence of a scholarly facsimile rather than supplying independent evidence for the source relationship.

Evidence ledger

• Evidence 821: DBNL, Ferguut: Het handschrift, Het handschrift. The source controls the preserved witness while implying the need to distinguish extant manuscript from source tradition. Role: Primary trace.
• Evidence 822: Besamusca, The Medieval Dutch Arthurian Material, Ferguut discussion. Besamusca supports a source-dependence problem beyond the preserved Middle Dutch manuscript. Role: Supporting evidence.
• Evidence 823: DBNL, Ferguut: Nawoord, Nawoord. The afterword cautions that the inferred source state is not tightly recoverable from known fragments. Role: Counterevidence.
• Evidence 824: Google Books, Ferguut facsimile record, book record. The book record is bibliographic control, not proof of the missing source relation. Role: Bibliographic control.

Counterarguments

• Evidence 823 weakens or qualifies the inference: The afterword cautions that the inferred source state is not tightly recoverable from known fragments.

Confidence scores

• Direct attestation: 35
• Existence warrant: 72
• Specificity confidence: 58
• Reconstruction dependence: 78
• Counterevidence pressure: 40

What would change the score

• A direct attestation would move this out of the inferred catalogue.
• Stronger independent evidence would raise the warrant or specificity.
• Better counterevidence would lower the warrant or force retirement.