MLR, I02.2, 2007 505 sub AND trippe'. But these quibbles notwithstanding, the point ismade that this is a lexically interesting text.Among the additions ofwords, senses, and forms for incorporation into theAND are the following: areole 2305, 2313, 2324; aromatiz adj. I836, I846, I874, 2432; avoler (=envoler) 2473 cf.AND2 avoler, envoler; bersol 'berceau' I225; botre (botre de Cipre; Lat.: botrus Cipri) 7I4; cedar 482, 484; celle '(wine-)cellar' (Lat.: incellam vinariam) 889, 924; certifs adj. pl. 67; cinnamomum (Latinism?) I840; collegiun 2055; commu nite II6; declinance 2222; deflorir 733, 74I; defrire 1208 and passim cf.glossary; despessure, depessure I562, 1565, I58I; destingte (=destincter) 2368; dignaciun 254; eclips 496; entrepretement (=[interpretement]) 3I9, 503; epitalamye I7I; eschekguet I338; escumege I285 (denasalization: not commented on in introduc tion); esgraventer (=agravanter) 2735; estenseler (fig.) I682, I782; excepe (=excepte) 559; fecundite 743, I8o8, 2528; fesselet 689; fistula (Latinism?) I840; freyllete 625 (etc.); Gerarchie (interesting graphy forhierarchie) I023; ipocresie 4; lymuse adj. f. 237;malus (Latinism?) 'apple-tree' 848, 863;mendrage 2597, cf. AND mandrake, mandeglore; meriene s.f. 'meridian' (Lat.: inmeridie) 536, 549;moniles s.pl. (Lat.: monilia) 634; mureles s.f. pl. 635, 646; nanal (=nenil) II3; narde s.f. (Lat.: nar dus) 66i; nuternaus, nutrenaus adj. pl. (Lat.: nocturnos) 132I, I344; opinium 2338; pigmentaire I267, 23I4; pigmentur 2315, 2325; reclinatorie I350, 1375; runtele 2769; speculacium 2549; tastis s. 'sense of taste' I036; tevement (fig.)579; threisun (=traisun) 28I; transitorie 983; trehur (=[traiour]) 'drawer (of bow)' 945; wage 'wave' 478. The glossary, perhaps inevitably selective, caters for many but not all of these. It is preceded by extensive notes (pp. I39-I62), whose particular and invaluable forte isthe provision of textual parallels with sources (notablyWilliam ofNewburgh's strongly Marian Explanatio, the principal direct model for theAnglo-Norman text, p. 12). The text itselfhas been conservatively and well edited. Overall, then, a valuable addi tion to the ANTS series, of a hitherto unpublished, culturally as well as linguistically interesting text.Pourvu que _adoure, asNapoleon's mother might have said. UNIVERSITY OFWALES ABERYSTWYTH D. A. TROTTER Antoine de La Sale: la fabrique de l'ceuvre et de l'Vcrivain (suivi de l'edition critique du 'Traite des anciens et des nouveaux tournois'). By SYLVIE LEFEVRE. (Publi cations Romanes et FranSaises, 238) Geneva: Droz. 2oo6. 456 pp. SwF 120. ISBN 978-2-600-OIOO8-5. In this thoroughly researched book, Sylvie Lefevre recontextualizes and reconsiders both Antoine de La Sale's talent and his corpus. The book's overarching aim is to contest earlier assertions that there have been twoAntoines: the author of theJehan de Saintre and the author of all other works attributed to him. Countering the likes of Werner Soderhjelm, Gaston Paris, and JuliaKristeva, Lefevre posits thatAntoine de La Sale was amultifaceted and talentedwriter, and the sum of his works point to a skill previously overlooked. To prove thisassertion, Lefevre divides her book into twoparts. The firstaddresses in detail several ofAntoine's works, including theChantilly 924 manuscript of the Paradis de la reine Sibylle, the BnF, n.a. fr. I0057 (F) containing yean de Saintre, Florian etElvide, and Adicion extraicte des Croniques de Flandres, and the Brussels BR I82 I0 -I5ofLa Salade. Through a careful examination of these and othermanu scripts, Lefevre pieces together inscriptions, dedications, signatures, colophons, and short textual excerpts in order to create a complicated puzzle that ultimately re presents Antoine's life and works. In her reading of the Chantilly manuscript, for 506 Reviews instance, Lefevre scrutinizes the dedicatory page, fromwhich she decodes a series of signs that indicate both Antoine's lineage and his future: she examines a coat of arms of thede La Sale family,she compares the signature on thepage with other signatures known to be byAntoine, and she evaluates Antoine's personal devise: 'il convient'. Lefevre also writes in detail about Antoine's La Salade, arguing that this text is richer than other critics have allowed. In fact, shemaintains that it is the very eccen tricitiesand anomalies of the work that make itunique andworth examining. She notes that theconceit ofLa Salade-a text thatcomprises various styles-demonstrates An toine's ability tomove across genres. La Salade also exemplifies Antoine's authorial dexterity-at times he...
Read full abstract