Volume 133, Issue 2

In German, unlike in English or Swedish, there are two different perfect auxiliaries: the more frequently used haben and the auxiliary sein . The latter only occurs with a restricted group of verbs. Against the traditional view, it has recently been argued that both periphrases do not form a homogenous category, i. e. there was no grammaticalisation of sein + second participle at all. According to this view the periphrases do not only differ formally but also functionally. In contrast, this article claims that the periphrasis consisting of sein + second participle has been grammaticalised in German. Although the construction had a resultative function in the Old High German period, it nowadays also refers to past situations which can be relevant to the point of speech. Therefore, its function is equivalent to the haben perfect. The reanalysis of sein + second participle is reflected by the distribution of the auxiliaries which is not strictly conditioned by aktionsart anymore. Though a corpus-based investigation of verbs of movement shows there are still restrictions for the periphrasis with sein : It is not permitted in prototypically transitive sentences. Whereas agentivity of the subject doesn't influence the auxiliary choice, sentences with prototypical objects prohibit the perfect with sein . Those objects are usually individuated or referential. Hence, they can underlie a change of state or position. Obviously, sein perfect has broken the actional restrictions, but there are still limitations concerning the argument structure. This shows that the sein periphrasis is only weakly grammaticalized.

By undertaking an acoustic ›reading‹ of Gottfried's text this essay shows that the power of minne bears strong similiarities to the way in which musica was understood to be a formidable aesthetic force in the early 13 th century. Less concerned with musical performances in the work than with the theoretical – even inaudible – expression of sound, the argument is structured around two significant scenes that turn on metaphors of consonance: the drinking of the love potion brings Tristan and Isolde into harmony with one another, while the ringing of Petitcrîu's bell represents a painful ›dissonance‹ that causes the lovers to drift apart.

The paper argues that Averroes' paraphrase of Aristotle's ›Poetics‹ is a consistent theory of poetry, though not having much in common with Aristotle's original conception. Based on the translation of ›tragedy‹ and ›comedy‹ as ›praise‹ and ›blame‹, Averroes develops a concept of poetry as a moral-philosophical argument to praise virtue and to blame vice. The focus lies on the interpretation of Aristotelian mimesis as similitudo , that is ›parabolic quality‹. Being a parabolic argument poetry is distinguishable only gradually from other argumentative techniques such as demonstrative logic or rhetoric.

The article provides an edition with the relevant background and commentary of three Early Modern texts: Innocent Gentillet's ›Epistre‹ of his central work, the widely read anti-Machiavellian treatise ›Contre-Machiavel‹ of 1576; Georg Nigrinus' ›Vorrede‹ to ›Regentenkunst oder Fürstenspiegel‹, his 1580 German translation of the ›Contre-Machiavel‹; as well as Johann Fischart's ›Vorrede‹ included in Nigrinus' book. The texts are edited together due to their high relevance in research concerned with Machiavelli's contemporary reception, especially in German-speaking Europe.