Ernst Brügger, writing in 1939, noted that Le Haut Livre du Graal, Perlesvaus had for long been the Aschenbrödel [Cinderella] among Grail texts, until William A. Nitze commenced his studies of the romance. The work did not become a princess overnight, but Nitze's studies and edition have provided a basis for more informed study. Since the edition's publication, there has been a steady stream of critical studies of the romance. Examination of the indices of the Bibliographical Bulletin of the International Arthurian Society since the Society's formation in 1948 shows that only a very few years have seen no entry under the title Perlesvaus. However, few of the works concerned have considered the dating or relative chronology of the work. Scholars have been largely content to rely upon the dates and relationships suggested by Nitze.

A number of scholars have commented on the need for a new edition of the Perlesvaus. For example, Busby, in his article concerning the new fragment of P, which he had discovered, notes, referring to Nitze's classification of the manuscripts: ‘How distinct the two redactions established by Nitze and Jenkins actually aremust await further investigation, but the superiority ofO(which the editors use as a base) is far from sure, and a new edition is certainly a desider atum.’ Earlier, T. E. Kelly had reported5 that in 1968, during a private conversation, Professor Frappier had criticized ‘the theory of a second redaction as an invention on the part of Nitze for the purpose of defending his choice of the Oxford manuscript as the basis for his edition’ (p. 32); and that ‘[Frappier] had long considered MS P (Bib. Nat., f. fr. 1428) the best of the Perlesvaus manuscripts’, and that ‘this manuscript should be used as the basis for a sorely needed new edition of the romance’. Finally, I understand from Professor Busby (letter, 7 August 1992) that, had ill-health not prevented it, Professor Kelly himself would have produced a new edition of P. Clearly, consideration of the dating and relative chronology of P would be essential for any new edition. It is in that light that the present study is written, for although this essay is essentially historical rather than literary, we have to answer the arguments of Nitze, the sole editor to date, on their own terms, at length and with due and detailed reference to primary sources.