120 BULLETIN OF THE LIVERPOOL MUSEUMS. 
schrai (lege schraip) ; there are also a few “ pen-trials” on the lower margin 
of the same page. 
The verses in the Mayer Fragment, which I shall designate M, belong to 
the fifteenth and sixteenth book of the Parcival.* Compared with Lach- 
mann’s critical edition of the poem, our folio I. answers to his § 770 1. 3 to 
§ 774 1. 8; our folio II. to his § 783 1. 19—§ 7881. 3. Between folios I. and 
II. there is a gap of 270 verses, that is to say, the approximate number of 
lines which a double leaf of our so badly used MS. of the Parcival would 
have contained. It seems, therefore, very probable to my mind that the 
Mayer Fragment once formed the immediately preceding double-leaf of the 
same quire. 
Lachmann, in his edition of the Purcival, arranges all the MSS. of the 
poem in two classes, under the designations, D and G. Of class G, many 
examples (both complete MSS. and fragments) are extant ; of class D, upon 
which he has based his edition, the number is few—the principal being a fine 
Codex in the library at St. Gall (D). It is the more gratifying, therefore, to 
find that M (the Mayer Fragment) undoubtedly belongs to D. 
This point can be proved, first, by the presence of the verses in M folio L.’, 
col. 1, ll. 3-28 (= Lachmann § 770, Il. 5-30), which are altogether wanting 
in the G class. Secondly, by the fact that wherever important differences 
exist in the readings, between the two chief classes, M follows D.t It should, 
however, be pointed out that M is by no means a mere copy of the St. Gall 
MS. ; on the contrary, it shares some characteristic readings with Lachmann’s 
d, (Heidelberg MS. No. 339 ; an early printed copy of the year 1477; and other 
fragments), which, from the early date of our Fragment, should not be with- 
out weight in criticising the text. I have noted the following passages :— 
§770, 8, 19; 771, 30; 772, 26, 28; 773, 27, 28; 783, 28; 784, 2; 786, 7, 24; 
15), 19: 
With the printed copy of the year 1477—and with this only—M has in 
common the reading of verses § 771, 10, 11—our folio 1.", col. 2, lines 3-4 :— 
“ich vurte harte creftic her 
von minen landen ufez mer” 
§ 785, 5, 14—-our folio IT.”, col. 2, 1. 22 :— 
“neve artus ich will biten dich.” 
§ 785, 5,—our folio II.", col. 2, 1. 13 :— 
“*helfet mir ir vnd min neve Gawan.” 
§ 785, 17,—our folio II.", col. 2, 1. 25 :— 
“ond wis des lasters vur mich pfant.” 
§ 786, 9—our folio II.’, col. 1, 1. 13 :— 
“daz kein strit in mohte erwerben.” 
Lastly, in a few passages M agrees with G also.{ The same is the case 
with the “ Képke’s Fragments” (Lachmann, Preface, p. xix.), which other- 
wise belong also to D. 
The scribe of the Mayer Fragment has not steered entirely free from 
mistakes, for as such must be regarded ereves, in folio I.’, col. 2, line 8, for 
ercules ; and in line 13, wit for wis; hant, in folio II.’, col. 1, line 28, for lant. 

* To any reader, unacquainted with the language of the original, I may heartily 
recommend the spirited translation of Wolfram’s poem into English verse by Miss J. 
Weston, 2 vols., 1894. London: D. Nutt. The Mayer Fragment will be found in 
vol. 2, p. 153, from line 584 to line 656 on p. 156, and from line 807 on p. 160 to line 17 
on p. 165. 
+ The following characteristic passages in Lachmann’s edition should be compared 
here :—§ 771, 3; 773, 26; 784, 10; 785, 4, 7, 15, 18, 26; 786, 7, 22, 30; 787, 2, 30. 
+ Of. 783, 20, 24; 784, 20, 23; 786, 10. 

