Besprechungen - Comptes rendus 330 Trotz der genannten Defizite hinsichtlich der Textdatierungen und der Glossare erfüllt Tony Hunts Writing the Future den im Vorwort genannten Anspruch «to illustrate as fully as possible the medieval preoccupation with prediction» (7) und leistet somit einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Erfassung der Variationsbreite der altfranzösischen Literatur. Nicht zuletzt dank der ausführlichen Bibliographie, die einen guten, ersten Überblick über die fachspezifische Sekundärliteratur bietet, und des Indexes unedierter mittelalterlicher Texte, die sich thematisch den vorgestellten anschließen, bildet das Werk eine ideale Basis für die noch ausstehende, intensivere Beschäftigung mit altfranzösischen Texten prognostischen Charakters. Laura Mettenberger H Céline Guillot/ Bernard Combettes/ Alexei Lavrentiev/ Evelyne Oppermann-Marsaux/ Sophie Prévost (ed.), Le changement en français. Études de linguistique diachronique, Bern/ Berlin, etc. (Peter Lang) 2012, viii + 409 p. (Sciences pour la communication 101) This volume represents the collection of papers given at the 5 th DIACHRO conference held in October 2010 in Lyons. Focused on the history of the French language, the volume presents twenty-two papers on a variety of topics ranging from broad questions of methodology in the field to more focused studies of specific linguistic changes in the history of French. Given the limitations of their format, the papers often leave the reader wishing for more extensive studies, though this fault does not lie with the authors themselves. Though not presented in a thematic order, they might be best arranged by theme or goal in furthering the study of the French language history. Several papers contribute or argue for new means of research for the field. C. Marchello- Nizia provides the groundwork for analyzing what in written direct speech might make a meaningful unit of analysis. She suggests that, once extracted, one might, through means of comparison of direct speech units and units of narration, draw some conclusions on emerging change in the spoken language to be reflected only later in wirting. Though the paper does not offer a complete study making use of this methodology, given the restrictions of conference papers, it should be taken into consideration and put to use so its usefulness might be evaluated. Two other studies fill out new directions for research in the field. A. Carlier provides what she herself terms a «Défense et illustration» of studying what she terms «le très ancien français», or rather texts before 1150. She introduces the Corptef (Corpus représentatif des premiers textes français) as the means by which such studies can be undertaken. Within this framework, she undertakes a study of the use of inflected and uninflected forms of afr. mult with respect to four hypotheses. Not only might this paper prove to live up to its claim as a «défense et illustration» it might also serve as a readily accessible pedagogical resource for students due to its clear presentation of the goals of research and how it is undertaken in historical, evolutionary, and comparative contexts as well as with more general linguistic theory. At the end of the book, A.Wirth-Jaillard introduces accounting books as sources of linguistic data, hitherto untapped for their rich linguistic data. She provides an excellent overview of the sort of information they contain, why they may at times be superior to literary texts, and the need for these works to be made available to researchers on the history of the language. Such considerations, it would be appear, should be taken by anyone interested in deepening the scope of sources of linguistic data in the history of French. Similarly, C. Buridant outlines the preliminaries of developing a history of medieval prose in a broader Romance context, approaching from a more broadly philological standpoint that recalls Auerbach. Besprechungen - Comptes rendus 331 Two papers touch directly on sound change in French: M. Russo discusses the history of muta cum liquida from Latin to French, drawing clear analyses of their behavior in different varieties of Latin, literary and spoken, focusing mostly on the status of their syllabation and its consequences for vowel quality and accent in Old French reflexes. The work is notable for its handling of diaphasic variation in tandem with diachronic data. A paper by O. Floquet discusses metathesis and e epenthesis in French as having common roots in the phonetic nature of / r/ and its inherent instability, convincingly drawing two seemingly disparate seeming phenomena together. Elsewhere, the grammaticalization and emergence of certain constructions is another favored theme. These papers, on the whole, represent, given their brevity, very satisfying accounts of histories (or segments of the histories) of various constructions. J. Bres and E. Lebreau discuss the re-emergence of va+infinitif as a textual marker of progression from one act to another in contemporary French after the loss of a similar construction used in past-tense narratives in the 17 th century. An interesting read in accompaniment to this work is that of J. Lindschouw, who discusses the emergence and evolving usages of synthetic future. C. Schnedecker and D. Capin discuss the emergence of tout le monde’s human referential value in pre-classic French. Y. Cazal discusses why son cors failed to grammaticalize, integrating both language internal and external factors. Oppermann-Marsaux discusses di and its emergence and path of development as a discursive marker. Perhaps best understood under the category of grammaticalization are the discussions included of French’s compound past tenses. J. Havu discusses the uses of the passé surcomposé in Classical French, delineating various uses readily or not so readily explained. Especially interesting is Lene Schøsler’s discussion of the compound and simple past, which refutes earlier analyses of their usage as characterized as a question of narration. She supports her work on letters and writings of Calvin, demonstrating that her analysis is not mere variation according to text type but rather representative of the actual grammar of a speaker. Though not quite grammaticalizations, two papers are dedicated to elucidating the development of grammatical elements. A. Kuyumcuyan studies the emergence of lequel and its uses as marker of reprise, remarkable not simply for its discussion of lequel, but also for the issue that arises in her analysis in the relationship between a writer’s conception of how to properly structure the information in a text and the rise or fall in the usage lequel. T.Verjans the evolution of avant from its use as a particle in Old French. The final category of papers are those that tend towards synchronic analyses of Old French (often with the purpose of shedding light on later changes). Many of the discussions focus on aspects of Old French: B. Donaldson studies subordinate phrases on the left periphery in Old French and its syntactic consequences, and similarly, R. Ingham explores the syntax of adversatives in the 12 th century. M. Dufresne and F. Dupuis discuss inaccusativy and telicity in Old French brought out by contrastive uses of the habere and esse auxiliaries with aller found in Old French. A.Vanderheyden explores words that filled the function of modern quelqu’un in Old French (aucun, nul, un, etc.). M. Rouquier studies the use of the «preposition + ce que» construction. These papers tend towards more complete studies and are interest for those in Old French or those seeking to trace the history of phenomena. Not quite belonging to any of the above-named groups, but certainly worthwhile, is G. Stouffi’s study of what he calls «la démétaphorisation» of French in the 17 th . It’s notable for its discussion of cultural factors on the lexicon and how discussions surrounding French at the time its elaboration and codification bear out on the evolution of the lexicon and style. This paper should appeal not only to those working on the time period but also to those working in translation and lexicology. This book represents a commendable collection of papers, with great value as much for their content as for the new directions to which they point the field. It is perhaps this last Besprechungen - Comptes rendus 332 1 The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, translated with an introduction by Betty Radice, Harmondsworth 1974 2 The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, translated with an introduction and notes by Betty Radice, revised by M.T. Clanchy, London 2003. point that makes the work useful to a broad swathe of researchers in the history of French but as readily recommended for the studies that undertake more fine-grained levels of analysis. Michael Arrigo H David Luscombe (ed.), The Letter Collection of Peter Abelard and Heloise, Oxford (Clarendon Press) 2013, 654 p. L’affaire che coinvolse nove secoli or sono Abelardo ed Eloisa ci è noto soprattutto grazie alla descrizione che di quegli eventi ci hanno lasciato i due protagonisti attraverso alcune lettere che potrebbero essersi scambiati. I contenuti di quegli eventi, la monacazione di Eloisa ad Argenteuil, l’evirazione del filosofo parigino e la sua entrata in religione, sono stati ripetutamente analizzati e sottoposti a minuziosi esami da parte di filosofi, storici, letterati contemporanei, ma ancora continuano le discussioni circa la loro autenticità e l’eventuale falsificazione cui sarebbero state sottoposte le fonti che ci informano su quanto sarebbe avvenuto a Parigi. Tali fonti sono rappresentate, principalmente, dall’epistolario composto da otto lettere che sono state interpretate, di volta in volta, come un romanzo tragico, una edificante storia d’amore, un esempio di patriarchismo o (al contrario) di femminismo in nuce, una falsificazione. Proprio il dibattito sulla veridicità dei fatti ha attirato l’attenzione di numerosi studiosi. Il fatto però che Abelardo nella sua autobiografia, Historia calamitatum mearum, abbia raccontato la sua storia con Eloisa accomunandola alla condanna per eresia, al tentato omicidio di cui sarebbe stato vittima a Saint-Gildas, alla condanna del suo libro sulla Trinità destinato ad essere bruciato, e l’indubbia circostanza per cui un insieme di fonti conferma quanto da lui affermato, sembrano rendere incontestabile la veridicità degli eventi narrati. David Luscombe presenta ora la prima edizione critica completa della corrispondenza tra Abelardo e la sua giovane allieva, ricostruendola a partire dai dodici manoscritti che ce ne conservano il testo. Si tratta della prima edizione con traduzione inglese a fronte e per quanto non sia una traduzione integralmente nuova (essa si fonda infatti sulla versione dell’epistolario che fu fatta nel 1974 da Betty Radice 1 , e che fu poi rivista nel 2003 da Michael Clanchy 2 ) non di meno risulta aderente al testo e largamente soddisfacente. L’autore, d’altra parte, è uno tra i più noti conoscitori della materia, cui dedica la propria attenzione da quando, ed erano ancora gli anni Settanta, sostenne con John Benton una discussione sull’autenticità o meno del testo che ha dato ora alla stampa. Per comprendere l’importanza del volume che qui recensiamo basti considerare poi che esso è stato preceduto dal solo volume di Ileana Pagani, Abelardo ed Eloisa: Epistolario (Torino 1974, riedizione del 2008), che per quanto accompagnato da un saggio di Giovanni Orlandi dedicato all’esame della tradizione manoscritta delle epistole mancava di apparato critico, pur essendo ricco di quelle note e di quegli indici di cui invece è privo il volume dello studioso anglofono. In sostanza le due edizioni, quella della Pagani e di Luscombe si possono considerare complementari. La prima parte del lavoro di L. è dedicata ad una vasta e completa analisi del materiale testuale a noi giunto e relativo alla storia di Abelardo ed Eloisa (xvii-xxxvii), cui tien dietro