We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 December 2020
The chief prose works of the fifteenth century in France, by common consent, are the long pseudo-chivalric romance entitled Le Petit Jehan de Saintré, the satire on women called Les Quinze Joyes de Mariage and the collection of tales known as Les Cent Nouvelles Nouvelles. The author of the first work alone names himself: it is Antoine de la Sale, a native of Provence, known also as the author of several didactic works, La Salade, La Salle, Le Réconfort, etc. The author of the Quinze Joyes has hidden his identity in a riddle which has not yet been satisfactorily deciphered. Not even a hint as to the author or editor of the Cent Nouvelles is contained in the manuscript. Led astray by an erroneous interpretation of the riddle, Pottier in 1830 ascribed the Quinze Joyes to La Sale. Le Roux de Lincy did the same for the Cent Nouvelles, in 1841. The first scientific attempt to prove these ascriptions was made by L. Stern in 1870. Stern sought to establish La Sale's authorship of the Cent Nouvelles by a comparison of certain details of style and by the fact, noticed more in detail later, that a “conte” addressed to La Sale appears as one of the hundred tales. This was followed immediately by the paper of E. Gossart, which gave special attention to the Quinze Joyes. Gossart showed that La Sale, in La Salle and in Saintré, had made use of St. Jerome's paraphrase of Theophrastus, also cited in the prologue of the Quinze Joyes. However, as M. Raynaud has pointed out, this epistle of Jerome, with that of Valerius, also cited in the Quinze Joyes, was the chief source of most of the diatribes against marriage in the Middle Ages.
page 435 note 1 Versuch über Antoine de la Sale, in Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen, xlvi, 113–218.
page 435 note 1 Antoine de la Scale, sa Vie el ses Oeuvres inédites, Bibliophile beige, 6e année (1871), pp. 1–17, 45–56, 77–88; reprinted and enlarged as a separate pamphlet, Bruxelles, 1902.
page 435 note 2 Pp. 83 ff.
page 435 note 3 Romania, xxxiii, 107.
page 435 note 4 La Poésie du moyen age, 2e série, p. 254; Primer of Mediæval French Literature, 138.
page 435 note 5 Histoire de la littérature française, 1895, pp. 166–167.
page 435 note 6 Geschichte der französischen Litteratur, pp. 252–53.
page 435 note 7 Histoire de la langue et de la littérature françaises, II, pp. 394–97.
page 435 note 8 Grundriss, ii, 1, 1152–54.
page 435 note 9 Antoine de la Salle, sa vie et ses ouvrages, Paris et Bruxelles, 1902.
page 435 note 10 Litteraturblatt für german. und roman. Philologie, 1903, col. 402 ff.
page 435 note 11 Loc. cit., pp. 107 ff.
page 435 note 1 Loc. cit., pp. 149 ff.
page 435 note 2 Paris, 1903. Cf. the reviews by Foerster, loc. cit., col. 406, and by J. Bédier, Romania, xxxiii, pp. 438 ff.
page 435 note 3 See especially Foerster's long article, already cited.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Antoine de la Sale el la légende du Tannhäuser, Mémoires de la Société néo-philologique à Helsingfors, xi, 101 ff.
page 435 note 5 See list of works consulted.
page 435 note 1 Cf. the remarks of M. Raynaud, Romania, xxxi, 532, n., 544.
page 435 note 2 ms. I (Raynaud), B. N. Fr. 1506, dated 1459.
page 435 note 3 Raynaud, loc. cit., 544 ff.
page 435 note 4 Loc. cit., 538 ff.
page 435 note 5 Rouen, Chantilly, and St. Petersburg.
page 435 note 6 Loc. cit., col. 408.
page 435 note 7 I have unfortunately not been able to obtain the recent dissertations of Soelter (Greifswald, 1902) and Dressier (Greifswald, 1903) on the St. Petersburg and Chantilly mss. respectively. I have, however, partly compared the text of the Jannet edition with that of the editio princeps, lately reprinted by Heuckenkamp (Halle, 1901). The latter text is much shortened and somewhat rejuvenated (que que becomes quoi que, preposition o omitted, more frequent use of the subject-pronoun, etc.), but otherwise the syntactical peculiarities established for the Jannet text hold good for it also.
page 435 note 1 I am of the opinion that henceforth all syntactical studies should adopt the divisions of Meyer-Lübke in volume iii of the Romanische Grammatik. If, in this paper, I have followed the older grouping by parts of speech, it has been solely for convenience of reference to the preceding study by Schmidt.
page 435 note 2 Cf. M-L., §§ 142–190; Gellrich, pp. 53–61.
page 435 note 3 In cases of enumeration, the reader should bear in mind the length of the three works, which are of the same format. P contains 430 pages, Q 146, C 549.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, page 1.
page 435 note 5 A construction common in O. F.; cf. Tobler, VB., II, 96 ff.
page 435 note 6 For examples, see Schmidt, 4.
page 435 note 1 See Schmidt, 1.
page 435 note 3 Cf. M.-L., § 161.
page 435 note 2 For C, see Schmidt, 2.
page 435 note 1 Cf. M.-L., § 151.
page 435 note 2 Page 3.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Eder, 15 ff.
page 435 note 4 Cf. M.-L., § 149.
page 435 note 5 Cf. Diez, 792.
page 435 note 1 Cf. M.-L., § 170.
page 435 note 2 Cf. M.-L., §§ 191–200, Schayer, Zur Lehre vom Gebrauch des unbestimmten Artikels und des Teilungsartikels im Altfranzösischen, Berlin, 1896.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 6.
page 435 note 4 Worthy of note is the fact that aussi is not found in P.
page 435 note 5 Page 6.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 7.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 7.
page 435 note 2 Haase, § 57.
page 435 note 3 Cf. M.-L., § 199.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 7.
page 435 note 5 Cf. Diez, 794; M.-L., § 366; for Commines’ usage, which nearly agrees with that of Q, see Stimming, 198.
page 435 note 6 For C, see Schmidt, 8, 9.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 9.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 10.
page 435 note 3 Page 10.
page 435 note 1 Cf. Villon's “ballade en viel langage françois,” G. T., 385–412.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 11.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., § 162.
page 435 note 4 Haase, § 29.
page 435 note 1 Page 13.
page 435 note 2 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 171.
page 435 note 3 Haase, p, 61.
page 435 note 4 A usage still common in Rabelais; cf. Huguet, 392.
page 435 note 1 Tobler, VB., i, 166.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 130; Tobler, VB., i, 75 ff.
page 435 note 3 Tobler, loc. cit., has no examples of this locution from O. F. texts; “doch kann dies zufällig sein.”
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 41.
page 435 note 5 Cf. Darmesteter, § 182.
page 435 note 6 Diez, 809–810, Darmesteter-Sudre, § 398.
page 435 note 1 Cf. Haase, V. and J., 11.
page 435 note 2 Page 16.
page 435 note 3 Deschamps’ usage agrees with that of P: Voll, 12, 13.
page 435 note 4 Stimming, 491.
page 435 note 5 Op. cit., p. 57.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 16.
page 435 note 7 The sentence, 335, ce n'est mye mon cueur, ne moy, is not conclusive.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 16.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 378; Voll, 20, 21.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., § 722; Tobler, VB., ii, 82–91.
page 435 note 4 Zeitschrift für roman. Phil., v, 326. Deschamps (Voll, 13 ff.) keeps to the old usage.
page 435 note 5 Eder, 62–3.
page 435 note 6 Stimming, 492.
page 435 note 7 For C, see Schmidt, 17–19.
page 435 note 8 Probably not La Sale's, cf. Raynaud, Romania, xxxi, 531–32.
page 435 note 1 Deschamps has no example of plural soi: Voll, 17.
page 435 note 2 Haase, 31–32, cf. Voll, 18.
page 435 note 3 Gessner, Zur Lehre vom französischen Pronomen (Berlin, 1873), i, 10.
page 435 note 4 Page 20.
page 435 note 1 For C, see Schmidt, 21.
page 435 note 2 Darmesteter, § 184, 185; Huguet, 344 ff.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., § 379; Haase, 5–6; Ebeling, note to Auberée, 1. 655.
page 435 note 1 For C, see Schmidt, 21.
page 435 note 2 Cf. Ebeling, loc. cit., Mätzner, Syntax, ii, 34.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 105.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 22.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 22.
page 435 note 1 Cf. Darmesteter-Sudre, § 391. Voll, 23, shows that it is unknown to Deschamps.
page 435 note 2 Haase, V. and J., 22; Voll, 27, 29.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 22.
page 435 note 4 Haase, 23; Voll, 34.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 23.
page 435 note 6 Cf. Haase, 26–27.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 24.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 749.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 24–25.
page 435 note 4 Darmesteter, § 190; Huguet, 66 ff.
page 435 note 5 For Chartier, cf. Eder, 66; for Commines, Toennies, 58.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 25.
page 435 note 7 Schmidt, 24–25.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 25.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 26.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Stimming, 493; Voll, 20.
page 435 note 1 For all the following cases in O. F., cf. Tobler, VB., ii, 78 ff.
page 435 note 2 Possibly de, in these last sentences, is not really possessive. It may be used as in the O. F. construction oyez de alcun; cf. Tobler, VB., i, 17 ff.
page 435 note 3 Haase, V. and J., 31 ff.
page 435 note 4 Huguet, 83 ff:; Haase, 46 ff.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 27.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt's “demonstrativum” acquest (C, I, 176) is not a pronoun, but the substantive acquêt, as the context clearly shows.
page 435 note 2 Bode, 34.
page 435 note 3 Haase, V. and J., 31.
page 435 note 4 Schumacher, Zur Syntax Rustebuefs (Kiel, 1881), p. 18.
page 435 note 5 Eder, 72.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 28.
page 435 note 7 Bode, 36.
page 435 note 8 Huguet, 94 ff.
page 435 note 9 Cf. Huguet, 104.
page 435 note 10 Toennies, 60.
page 435 note 1 Cf. Darmesteter-Sudre, § 406, iii; Haase, § 26.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 28.
page 435 note 3 Tobler, VB., i, 111; Haase, 52; Stimming, 494; Huguet, 375.
page 435 note 1 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 409.
page 435 note 2 Haase, 44.
page 435 note 3 Darmesteter-Sudre, §§ 405–408.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 29.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 629; Haase, 66 ff.
page 435 note 1 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 410.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 30.
page 435 note 3 Huguet, 117.
page 435 note 4 M.-L., § 614; Voll, 37.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 619; Haase, Gamier, 21.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 31.
page 435 note 1 M.-L., § 614; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 411; Voll, 47.
page 435 note 2 Sentence omitted in the editio princeps.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 32.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 160 ff.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 621; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 412.
page 435 note 6 M.-L., § 628; Tobler, VB., i, 123; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 415.
page 435 note 7 Schmidt, 33.
page 435 note 1 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 160, iii, 38 ff. The usage is likewise very frequent in Deschamps, cf. Voll, 45.
page 435 note 2 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 414; Haase, 81.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 34; cf. also Voll, 48.
page 435 note 1 M.-L., § 515, Darmesteter, § 167.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 35.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., §517; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 418.
page 435 note 4 Haase, V. und J., 54.
page 435 note 5 In nouvelles xi-l; Schmidt, 36.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 36.
page 435 note 1 In the editio princeps, these phrases are either omitted or changed to quoi que.
page 435 note 2 Cf. Johannssen, Der Ausdruck des Concessivverhältnisses im Altfranzösischen (Kiel, 1884), 18 ff; also Tobler, VB., iii, 3–4.
page 435 note 3 Eder, 85–86.
page 435 note 4 Also common in Chartier: Eder, 19; Schmidt, 37.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 37.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 37.
page 435 note 1 A construction common in the sixteenth century: Darmesteter, § 173.
page 435 note 2 II, p. 102.
page 435 note 3 Still found in Rabelais: Huguet, 160.
page 435 note 4 Huguet, 147–48.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 39.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 39.
page 435 note 2 Stimming, 496; Huguet, 155.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Haase, V. und J., 37.
page 435 note 4 This locution occurs in sixteenth century writers: Darmesteter, § 172.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 40.
page 435 note 6 Diez, 828.
page 435 note 7 Schmidt, 40.
page 435 note 8 Diez, 828.
page 435 note 9 Schmidt, 41.
page 435 note 10 Cf. Gessner, op. cit., ii, 28.
page 435 note 1 In the editio princeps it often replaces maint or moult of the mss.
page 435 note 2 For similar constructions in O. F., cf. Johannssen, op. cit., 28 ff, who cites no examples later than the fourteenth century.
page 435 note 3 Huguet, 155.
page 435 note 4 The figures indicate the number of examples in each work; those in parentheses, the page. For the examples in C, cf. Schmidt, 43–45. Cf. similar lists given by Bode, 46 ff.; Eder, 107 ff.; Huguet, 164 ff.
page 435 note 1 With force of s'entretenir de qc.
page 435 note 2 I. e., craindre.
page 435 note 3 I. e., s'éloigner de qc.
page 435 note 4 Also found with the form ensieuvir.
page 435 note 5 Has also obeïr à, 119.
page 435 note 1 M.-L., § 381; Haase, § 61. For examples in Deschamps, see Voll, 26.
page 435 note 2 Commines agrees with Q; the trait is very rare: cf. Stimming, 493.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., §382.
page 435 note 1 Haase, § 58.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., §312–317.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 66.
page 435 note 4 Diez, 1068, 1084.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 296; Tobler, VB., ii, 37.
page 435 note 6 Cf. also Q, 115: en la nasse où ils estoient cuidé entrer.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 67.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 343–44; Tobler, VB., i, 230 ff.; Mätzner, 380.
page 435 note 3 Page 47.
page 435 note 4 Mätzner, 380.
page 435 note 5 Haase, V. and J., 79.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 47. In Commines, however, the singular is frequent. Cf. Stimming, 195.
page 435 note 2 Diez, 981; Haase, V. und J., 79.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 45.
page 435 note 4 M.-L., § 347; Haase, 159.
page 435 note 1 Eder, 119. For Commines’ usage, cf. Stimming, 194. Tobler, VB., i, 231, cites similar cases of agreement with l'un vers l'autre from O. F. I have been unable to discover any later examples.
page 435 note 2 As in O. F. Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 239.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 46.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Haase, Zur Syntax Robert Garniers, 39.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 46.
page 435 note 6 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 460.
page 435 note 7 This construction is the rule in Froissart. Cf. Riese, Recherches sur l'usage syntaxique de Froissart, Halle, 1880, p. 17.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 48.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 117. For C, cf. Schmidt, 49–50.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., p. 584; see Schmidt, 50, for examples in C.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Johannssen, op. cit., p. 49.
page 435 note 5 Haase, § 45, G.
page 435 note 1 Cf. M.-L., § 666.
page 435 note 2 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 445, 1.
page 435 note 3 The forms dictes, faictes, which are found in object-clauses after prier, adjurer (P, 320; Q, 48, 75), are probably subjunctives. Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 29.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 51.
page 435 note 1 M. -L., 638; cf. also Strohmeyer, Über verschiedene Functional des altfranzösischen Relativsatzes, Berlin, 1892, pp. 21 ff.
page 435 note 2 For similar cases in O. F., cf. Mätschke, Die Nebensätze der Zeit im Altfranzösischen, Kiel, 1887, p. 46.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 51.
page 435 note 4 M.-L., § 673; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 447, vi.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 50.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 50.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 51.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Tobler, VB., ii, 20 ff.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Johannssen, op. cit., 31.
page 435 note 5 In the editio princeps replaced by combien que + the subjunctive.
page 435 note 6 Cf. M.-L., §§681–690; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 447, v.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 53.
page 435 note 2 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 454.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 54.
page 435 note 4 M. -L., § 685; cf. Bischoff, Der Conjunctiv bei Chrestien, Halle, s. d., pp. 11, 12.
page 435 note 1 This construction is especially common in the O. F. epics; cf. Qniehl, Der Gebrauch des Konjunctivs in den ältesten franz. Sprachdenkmälem, Kiel, 1888, p. 40.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 16; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 448.
page 435 note 3 Eder, 93.
page 435 note 4 Stimming, 491.
page 435 note 5 See Schmidt, 55–56.
page 435 note 1 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 90.
page 435 note 2 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 24.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 55.
page 435 note 4 Darmesteter, § 204; cf. also Tobler, VB., i, 88 ff.
page 435 note 5 Translation from Seneca.
page 435 note 6 Schmidt, 57.
page 435 note 7 Darmesteter-Sudre, §449, i; M.-L., §§339–40.
page 435 note 8 Schmidt, 58.
page 435 note 1 Tobler, VB., i, 214.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 59.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 60.
page 435 note 4 For examples in C, cf. Schmidt, 59–62.
page 435 note 1 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 450.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 60.
page 435 note 1 M.-L., § 529; cf. also Marcou, Der historische Infinitiv im Französischen, Berlin, 1888, pp. 13–14.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 61.
page 435 note 3 Diez, 937.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 62.
page 435 note 5 Schmidt, 63.
page 435 note 6 Haase, 207.
page 435 note 7 Diez, 940; a common Romance construction.
page 435 note 1 M. -L., § 500; Haase, § 91; cf. also Klemenz, Der syntactische Gebrauch des Participium Praescntis und des Gerundiums im Altfranzösichen, Breslau, 1884, pp. 26 ff.; Vogels, Roman. Studien, v, 534–556.
page 435 note 2 I believe that the prevalence of the modern rule in C is due mostly to the fact that it is more popular in style and has fewer literary pretensions than P or Q. The use of the inflected gerund, in Old and Middle French, was more or less a Latinism; cf. Vogels, loc. cit., p. 535.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 65.
page 435 note 2 Tobler, VB., i, 36 ff.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., §498; Tobler, VB., i, 51–52.
page 435 note 4 And also to Chartier and Commines.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 499; Huguet, 219.
page 435 note 6 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 457, i.
page 435 note 1 Bode, 75.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., §416.
page 435 note 3 Schmidt, 67.
page 435 note 4 Bode, 77.
page 435 note 5 Eder, 142.
page 435 note 1 Schmidt, 67.
page 435 note 2 Schmidt, 66.
page 435 note 3 The sentence: 112, l'amour de ses enfans est oublié, is doubtful, owing to the change of gender of amour.
page 435 note 4 Schmidt, 68.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., §§ 295, 416; Tobler, VB., ii, 51 ff.
page 435 note 6 Tobler, VB., i, 113 ff.
page 435 note 7 Schmidt, 68. Schmidt ends his study of C's syntax at this point.
page 435 note 1 Darmesteter-Sudre, §484; M.-L., § 193.
page 435 note 2 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 480; Huguet, 259 ff.; Bode, 85; Eder, 149.
page 435 note 1 Commines uses non with the verb faire and with the infinitive; Stimming, 502.
page 435 note 2 These sentences are not in reality negative: cf. Schultze. Der altfranzösische Fragesatz, pp. 27 ff. Such phrases are not infrequent in Commines: Toemries, 73; Stimming, 501.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., §§ TOG, 709.
page 435 note 4 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 481, B. 2.
page 435 note 5 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 468.
page 435 note 1 Bode, 81.
page 435 note 2 Eder, 215.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Huguet, 231.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Tobler, VB., iii, 26 ff.
page 435 note 5 G. T., 215, 290, 720, etc.
page 435 note 6 Darmesteter, § 240.
page 435 note 7 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 105 ff.
page 435 note 1 Bode, 79.
page 435 note 2 Stimming, 502.
page 435 note 3 Eder, 49.
page 435 note 4 Huguet, 255.
page 435 note 6 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 462, v.
page 435 note 1 Stimming, 203.
page 435 note 2 Only one example: Stimming, 201.
page 435 note 3 M. -L., § 444.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Tobler, VB., i, 5 ff.
page 435 note 5 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 374.
page 435 note 6 Cf. Huguet, 294.
page 435 note 7 Diez, 1083, note; Tobler, VB., i, 273.
page 435 note 1 Mystère de la Passion, 14373.
page 435 note 2 Stimming, 205.
page 435 note 3 In the editio princeps replaced by auprès de.
page 435 note 4 Cf. Huguet, 276.
page 435 note 5 Still found in Deschamps: cf. Bode, 88.
page 435 note 6 Not used in the editio princeps.
page 435 note 7 Eder, 201.
page 435 note 8 G. T., 1499.
page 435 note 9 Passion, 10976.
page 435 note 10 M.-L., § 453; Stimming, 206; Huguet, 299.
page 435 note 1 Haase, p. 371. Not found in Commines.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 547: cf. Wehrmann, Roman. Studien, v, 399 ff.
page 435 note 3 Darmesteter, § 291.
page 435 note 4 Diez, 1082; Huguet, 318; Wehrmann, loc. cit., 414 ff.
page 435 note 1 Mätzner, 533; Tobler, VB., ii, 51 ff.
page 435 note 2 Stimming, 506.
page 435 note 3 M.-L., p. 639.
page 435 note 4 Common in Commines: Slimming, 506.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 599.
page 435 note 1 M.-L., § 587.
page 435 note 2 M.-L., § 601.
page 435 note 3 Cf. Estienne, Grammaire de la langue d'oïl, 343; Englaender, Der Imperativ im Altfranzösischen, Breslau, 1889, p. 48; Krüger, Ueber die Wortstellung in der franz. Prosalitteratur des dreizehnten Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1876, p. 26; Morf, Roman. Studien, iii, 230.
page 435 note 4 Deschamps’ usage agrees with that of P: Voll, 16.
page 435 note 5 M.-L., § 748; Darmesteter-Sudre, § 494, 2.
page 435 note 1 Also frequent in Commines: cf. Toennies, 20.
page 435 note 2 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 494, 3; M.-L., § 737.
page 435 note 3 Stimming, 220.
page 435 note 4 Darmesteter-Sudre, § 496.
page 435 note 5 Cf. Stimming, 192.
page 435 note 1 For similar cases in O. F. and a discussion of them, see Tobler, VB., i, 107 ff.
page 435 note 1 The most noteworthy differences in usage are those which affect the partitive article, the subject pronouns, the tonic object pronouns, the demonstrative pronouns, the reflexive verbs, the rules for agreement of verbs and perfect participles, the negative adverbs, and the word-order.
page 435 note 2 Cf. Raynaud, Romania, xxxi, 538 ff.
page 435 note 1 Namely, in the use of the indefinite article, the interrogative inversion of pronouns, the indicative in concessive clauses, the imperfect subjunctive in conditional sentences, and the employment of the forms que que, adverbial mais, trop, endroit, environ, o, puisque, and lack of beaucoup.
page 435 note 2 Namely, in the use of relatives, of neuter interrogatives, of the indefinites quant, tant, the word-order of object pronouns, and the forms nesun, rien, and meshuy.
