from his botanical research? Some of the book’s claims could be challenged by textual evidence. In Chapter 2, Lled oGuillem’s remark that ‘Charles of Salerno was captured because he and the other langue d’oïl speakers failed to comprehend the warning’ (30) is only partly sustainable. Desclot clearly refers only to the French knights ‘ab lo princep’ (‘with the Prince’) not understanding Catalan; the captured Prince in fact exchanges words in Catalan with the King of Aragon’s Admiral. There is also a curious translation of a line describing the Occitan-speaking knights in the French army ready to invade Catalonia: ‘all of those who belong to the so-called language that use hoc’ (32) is the rendering of ‘totes les altres gents qui s on de la llengua que dien “hoc”’ which simply means ‘all of those who belong to the language in which they say “hoc”’. Intentional or not, this ‘so-called’ is hard to ignore in a book that is unconcerned with establishing Occitan as a continuous Romance language that survived the Early Modern period. The use of Charles Ferguson’s model of functional diglossia in Chapter 4 also seems unnecessary. Not only does Joshua Fishman’s subsequent development of the model give scope for two languages occupying ‘High’ and ‘Low’ poles, but the medieval context suggests a flexible multilingualism where joglars may have used explanatory razos in Catalan before singing in Occitan. The idea that after Muret (1213) Occitan-speaking lands were overwhelmingly absorbed by the French Crown is also misleading; the language was still important in Aragon (Montpellier) until 1349 and Plantagenet lands well into the fifteenth century. When llemos ı was under discussion in Valencia c. 1560–1650, Gascony and Provence enjoyed flourishing Baroque literary revivals in Occitan that sometimes referred back to Dante and the troubadours. Jaume Orts’s apitxat sonnet was also undoubtedly a product of play and deliberate artifice; while undoubtedly political, its form reminds us that literature is more often a creative response to the possibilities of language(s) than a preconceived metanarrative ‘on language’. Despite these reservations, this is a volume that should be read attentively by scholars and students of medieval Catalan, Occitan, and Spanish literary culture.

中文翻译：

---

十六世纪卡斯蒂利亚骑士浪漫史的改写、续集和循环。'Aquel inacable aventura'

从他的植物研究？该书的某些主张可能会受到文本证据的质疑。在第 2 章中，Lled oGuillem 的评论“萨勒诺的查理斯被抓获是因为他和其他讲法语的人未能理解警告”（30）只是部分可持续的。Desclot 明确仅指不了解加泰罗尼亚语的法国骑士“ab lo Princep”（“与王子”）；被俘的王子实际上与阿拉贡国王的海军上将用加泰罗尼亚语交流。还有一句描述法国军队中说奥克西语的骑士准备入侵加泰罗尼亚的台词的奇怪翻译：“所有属于使用 hoc 的所谓语言的人”（32）是“totes les”的翻译altres gents qui s on de la llengua que dien “hoc”'，意思是“所有属于他们所说的“hoc”的语言的人。无论有意与否，在一本不关心将奥克西坦语确立为一种在早期现代时期幸存下来的连续罗曼语语言的书中，这个“所谓”很难被忽视。在第 4 章中使用 Charles Ferguson 的功能性双语模型似乎也没有必要。不仅 Joshua Fishman 随后对该模型的发展为占据“高”和“低”两极的两种语言提供了空间，而且中世纪的背景表明了一种灵活的多语制，在这种情况下，joglars 在用 Occitan 唱歌之前可能已经在加泰罗尼亚语中使用了解释性的 razos。在 Muret (1213) 之后，说奥克西语的土地被法国王室压倒性地吸收的想法也具有误导性。直到 1349 年，这种语言在阿拉贡（蒙彼利埃）仍然很重要，而金雀花进入 15 世纪。当 llemos 我在瓦伦西亚讨论时 c。1560 年至 1650 年，加斯科尼和普罗旺斯在奥克西坦享受着蓬勃发展的巴洛克文学复兴，这些复兴有时会追溯到但丁和行吟诗人。Jaume Orts 的 apitxat 十四行诗无疑也是玩乐和刻意技巧的产物。虽然无疑是政治性的，但它的形式提醒我们，文学更多地是对语言可能性的创造性回应，而不是先入为主的“语言”元叙事。尽管有这些保留，这本书仍值得中世纪加泰罗尼亚语、奥克西坦语和西班牙文学文化的学者和学生认真阅读。它的形式提醒我们，文学更多地是对语言可能性的创造性回应，而不是先入为主的“语言”元叙事。尽管有这些保留，这本书仍值得中世纪加泰罗尼亚语、奥克西坦语和西班牙文学文化的学者和学生认真阅读。它的形式提醒我们，文学更多地是对语言可能性的创造性回应，而不是先入为主的“语言”元叙事。尽管有这些保留，这本书仍值得中世纪加泰罗尼亚语、奥克西坦语和西班牙文学文化的学者和学生认真阅读。