518 Reviews the brochures that come with a new PC. This latest single-volume survey, a confident three-hander, swims bravely against the tide. It stands up for permanence, the craft of writing, and the pleasures of reading. Despite preliminary hesitations, the tradi? tional canon suffersonly minor adjustments and the implications of the remark that in the communication of personal experience the balance of power has now 'shifted decisively from literature to film' (p. 311) are left hanging tantalizingly. Anxieties about the usefulness of the division by centuries are also quickly resolved by the adoption of the tripartite structure which Caesar once applied to ancient Gaul. One concern?'the masculine bias of literaryculture' (p. 26)?is identified at an early stage and kept sternly at bay throughout, firstin the Middle Ages (to 1470), then during the early modern period (1470-1789), and finally the modern era (1789-2000). Each section is prefaced by a summary of the period's main features before the forward thrust, halted at intervals by sketches and vignettes of major topics and writers, is resumed. Of course, authors of histories of literature invariably sin by omission and commission, and have short sight and hidden agendas. Bricks are certainly dropped here?what is said on p. 214 about Restif and his 'zany charm' is not arguable, just wrong?but grounds for such quibbles are remarkably rare. It is, however, disconcerting to findsuch sparse coverage of critical theory,which was deliberately omitted. It is also a disappointment that the story after about 1970 falters and that, despite its newly proclaimed significance, just three brief paragraphs are given to the whole of cinema as against the three splendid pages on Valery. Denying any suggestion that French literature 'has been in retreat in the later years of the French Republic' (p. 312), this welcome volume sets its face against the values of popular culture and offersa sturdy defence and illustration of quality writing in all the traditional genres. Leeds David Coward //capolavoro del Boccaccio e due diverse redazioni. By Maurizio Vitale and Vittore Branca. (Memorie dell' Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Classe di scienze morali, lettere ed arti, ioo) Venice: Istituto Veneto. 2002. 2 vols: ix + 571 pp.; 220 pp. ?60 (the set). ISBN 88-88143-13-0. In two volumes, Maurizio Vitale and the late Vittore Branca each set out to analyse the relationship between two differentredactions of Boccaccio's Decameron; in the first volume, La riscrittura del 'Decameron': i mutamenti linguistici, Vitale examines the two texts from a historical-linguistic perspective, while in the shorter second volume, Variazionistilistichee narrative, Branca considers the narrative and stylisticvariations that characterize the two redactions. Both volumes, therefore, take as their starting point the proposal, firstmooted by Branca in the early 1980s, that a non-autograph manuscript known as P (Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, MS Ital. 482) is witness to a redaction ofthe Decameron dating fromc. 1349-5 2. This redaction was compiled some twenty years earlier than the redaction conserved in the autograph B (Berlin, StaatsbibliothekPreu6ischerKulturbesitz ,MS Hamilton 90), which is dated toc. 1370-72, and which Branca was also instrumental in authenticating. Since his hypothesis was first raised, Branca has published further evidence in support of his claim, which remains, as yet, unchallenged. These two volumes are the latest contributions to the ongoing process of reconstructing the textual tradition of the Decameron. In the firstvolume Vitale carries out a lengthy and extremely detailed analysis of the grammatical parts of the variants between P and B, using other vernacular works by Boccaccio in both prose and verse as points of comparison, as well as almost sixty thirteenth- and fourteenth-century vernacular texts by other authors, including Dante and Petrarch. Although the selection of texts is impressive and the 'Tavola MLR, 100.2, 2005 519 degli auctores citati' placed towards the beginning of the volume usefully includes references to electronic repositories of texts where appropriate, the number of au? tograph manuscripts is necessarily limited and Vitale does not indicate his selection criteria for non-Boccaccian texts. The results of this dense evaluation lead Vitale to anticipate his conclusion in the introduction ('I preliminari') that 'tale studio non solo ha confortato [.. .] dal punto...
Read full abstract