1.Venetian.—Between “Venetian” and “Venetic” several distinctions must be drawn (Arch.i. 391 sqq.). At the present day the population of the Venetian cities is “Venetian” in language, but the country districts are in various ways Venetic.6The ancient language of Venice itself and of its estuary was not a little different from that of the present time; and the Ladin vein was particularlyevident (see A. 2). A more purely Italian vein—the historical explanation of which presents an attractive problem—has ultimately gained the mastery and determined the “Venetian” type which has since diffused itself so vigorously.—In the Venetian, then, we do not find the most distinctive characteristics of the dialects of Upper Italy comprised under the denomination Gallo-Italic (see B. 1),—neither theünor theö, nor the velar7and faucal nasals, nor the Gallic resolution of thect, nor the frequent elision of unaccented vowels, nor the great redundancy of pronouns. On the contrary, the pure Italian diphthong ofṍ(e.g.cuór) is heard, and the diphthong ofếis in full currency (diéśe, dieci, &c.). Nevertheless the Venetian approaches the type of Northern Italy, or diverges notably from that of Central Italy, by the following phonetic phenomena: the ready elision of primary or secondaryd(crúo, crudo;séa, seta, &c.); the regular reduction of the surd into the sonant guttural (e.g.cuogo, Ital. cuoco, coquus); the purećin the resolution ofcl(e.g.ćave, clave;oréća, auricula); theśforģ(śóvene, Ital. giovane);çforšandć(péçe, Ital. pesce;çiél, Ital. cielo).Ljpreceded by any vowel, primary or secondary, excepti, givesģ:faméga, familia. No Italian dialect is more averse than the Venetian to the doubling of consonants.—In the morphology the use of the 3rd singular for the 3rd plural also, the analogical participle inesto(taśesto, Ital. taciuto, &c.; seeArch.iv. 393, sqq.) andśe, Lat.est, are particularly noteworthy. A curious double relic of Ladin influence is the interrogative type represented by the examplecrédis-tu, credis tu,—where apart from the interrogationti crediwould be used. For other ancient sources relating to Venice, the estuary of Venice, Verona and Padua, seeArch.i. 448, 465, 421-422; iii. 245-247. [Closely akin to Venetian, though differing from it in about the same degree that the various Gallo-Italian dialects differ among one another, is the indigenous dialect ofIstria, now almost entirely ousted by Venetian, and found in a few localities only (Rovigno, Dignano). The most salient characteristics of Istrian can be recognized in the treatment of the accented vowels, and are of a character which recalls, to a certain extent at least, the Vegliote dialect. Thus we have in Istrianiforệ(bivi, Ital. bevi, Lat.bĭbis;tila, Ital. tḛla;viro, Ital. vero and vetro, Lat.vēru,vĭtru;nito, Ital. netto, Lat.nĭtĭdu, &c.) and analogouslyuforǫ(fiur, Ital. fiore, Lat.flōre;bus, Ital. voce, Lat.vōce, &c.);eiandoufrom the Lat.īandūrespectively (ameigo, Lat.amicu,feil, Lat.fīlu, &c.;mour, Lat.mūru;noudu, Lat.nūdu;frouto, Ital. frutto, Lat.frūctu, &c.);ieanduofromĕandŏrespectively in position (piel, Lat.pĕlle,mierlo, Ital. merlo, Lat.mĕrula;kuorno, Lat.cŏrnu;puorta, Lat.pŏrta), a phenomenon in which Istrian resembles not only Vegliote but also Friulian. The resemblance with Verona, in the reduction of final unaccented -etooshould also be noted (nuoto, Ital. notte, &c.,bivo, Ital.beve;malamȩntro, Ital. malamente, &c.), and that with Belluno and Treviso in the treatment of -óni, -áni(barbói, -oin, Ital. barboni), though it is peculiar to Istrian that -ainshould give -ȩṅ(kaṅ,kȩṅ, Ital. cane -i). With regard to consonants, we should point out thenforgn(líno, Ital. legno); and as to morphology, we should note certain survivals of the inflexional type,amita, -ánis(sing.sía, Ital. zia, pl.siaṅne).] The most ancient Venetian documents take us back to the first half of the 13th century (v.E. Bertanza and V. Lazzarini,Il Dialetto veneziano fino alla morte di Dante Alighieri, Venice, 1891), and to the second half of the same century seems to belong the Saibante MS. For Verona we have also documents of the 13th century (v.Cipolla, inArchivio storico italiano, 1881 and 1882); and to the end of the same century perhaps belongs the MS. which has preserved for us the writings of Giacomino da Verona. See alsoArchivio glottologico, i. 448, 465, 421-422, iii. 245-247.2.Corsican8—If the “Venetian,” in spite of its peculiar “Italianity,” has naturally special points of contact with the other dialects of Upper Italy (B. 1), the Corsican in like manner, particularly in its southern varieties, has special points of contact with Sardinian proper (B. 2). In general, it is in the southern section of the island, which, geographically even, is farthest removed from Tuscany, that the most characteristic forms of speech are found. The unaccented vowels are undisturbed; butufor the Tuscanois common to almost all the island,—an insular phenomenonpar excellencewhich connects Corsica with Sardinia and with Sicily, and indeed with Liguria also. So also -ifor the Tuscan -e(latti, latte;li cateni, le catene), which prevails chiefly in the southern section, is also found in Northern and Southern Sardinian, and is common to Sicily. It is needless to add that this tendency touandimanifests itself, more or less decidedly, also within the words. Corsican, too, avoids the diphthongs ofếandṍ(pe,eri;cori,fora): but, unlike Sardinian, it treatsḯandṹin the Italian fashion:beju, bibo;péveru, piper;pesci;noci, nuces.9—It is one of its characteristics to reduce a to e in the formulaar+ a consonant (chérne,bérba, &c.), which should be compared particularly with the Piedmontese examples of the same phenomenon (Arch.ii. 133, 144-150). But the gerund in-enduof the first conjugation (turnendu,lagrimendu, &c.) must on the contrary be considered as a phenomenon of analogy, as it is especially recognized in the Sardinian dialects, to all of which it is common (seeArch.ii. 133). And the same is most probably the case with forms of the present participle likemerchente, mercante, in spite ofenziandinnenzi(anzi, innanzi), in which latter forms there may probably be traced the effect of the Neo-Latiniwhich availed to reduce thetof the Latinante; alongside of them we find alsoanziandnantu. But cf. also,grȩndi, Ital. grande. In Southern Corsicandrforllis conspicuous—a phenomenon which also connects Corsica with Sardinia, Sicily and a good part of Southern Italy (see C. 2; andArch.ii. 135, &c.), also with the northern coast of Tuscany, since examples such asbeḍḍubelong also to Carrara and Montignoso. In the Ultramontane variety occur besides, the phenomena ofrnchanged tor(=rr) and ofndbecomingnn(furu, Ital. forno;koru, Ital. corno;kuannu, Ital. quando;vidennu, Ital. vedendo). The former of these would connect Corsican with Sardinian (corru, cornu;carre, carne, &c.); the latter more especially with Sicily, &c. A particular connexion with the central dialects is given by the change ofldintoll(kallu, Ital. caldo).—As to phonetic phenomena connected with syntax, already noticed in B. 2, space admits the following examples only: Cors,na vella, una bella,e bella(ebbélla, et bella);lu jallu, lo gallo,gran ghiallu; cf.Arch.ii. 136 (135, 150), xiv. 185. As Tommaseo has already noted,-oneis for the Corsicans not less than for the Sicilians, Calabrians and the French a termination of diminution:e.g.fratedronu, fratellino.—In the first person of the conditional thebis maintained (e.g.farebe, farei), as even at Rome and elsewhere. Lastly, the series of Corsican verbs of the derivative order which run alongside of the Italian series of the original order, and may be represented by the exampledissipeghja, dissipa (Falcucci), is to be compared with the Sicilian series represented bycuadiari, riscaldare,curpiári, colpire (Arch.ii. 151).3.Dialects of Sicily and of the Neapolitan Provinces.—Here the territories on both sides of the Strait of Messina will first be treated together, chiefly with the view of noting their common linguistic peculiarities.—Characteristic then of these parts, as compared with Upper Italy and even with Sardinia, is, generally speaking, the tenacity of the explosive elements of the Latin bases (cf.Arch.ii. 154, &c.). Not that these consonants are constantly preserved uninjured; their degradations, and especially the Neapolitan degradation of the surd into the sonant, are even more frequent than is shown by the dialect as written, but their disappearance is comparatively rather rare; and even the degradations, whether regard be had to the conjunctures in which they occur or to their specific quality, are very different from those of the dialects of Upper Italy. Thus, the t between vowels ordinarily remains intact in Sicilian and Neapolitan (e.g.Sicil.sita, Neap.seta, seta, where in the dialects of Upper Italy we should haveseda,sea); and in the Neapolitan dialects it is reduced todwhen it is preceded bynorr(e.g.viendę, vento), which is precisely a collocation in which thetwould be maintained intact in Upper Italy. Thed, on the other hand, is not resolved by elision, but by its reduction tor(e.g.Sicil.víriri, Neap. dialectsveré, vedere), a phenomenon which has been frequently compared, perhaps with too little caution, with thedpassing intors(ḍ) in the Umbrian inscriptions. The Neapolitan reduction ofntintondhas its analogies in the reduction ofnc(nk) intong, and ofmpintomb, which is also a feature of the Neapolitan dialects, and in that ofnsintonź; and here and there we even find a reduction ofnfintomb(nf,nv,nb,mb), both in Sicilian and Neapolitan (e.g.at Casteltermini in Sicily’mbiernu, inferno, and in the Abruzzicumbonn’,’mbonn’, confondere, infondere). Here we find ourselves in a series of phenomena to which it may seem that some special contributions were furnished by Oscan and Umbrian (nt,mp,ncintond, &c.), but for which more secure and general, and so to say “isothermal,” analogies are found in modern Greek and Albanian. The Sicilian does not appear to fit in here as far as the formulaentandmpare concerned; and it may even be said to go counter to this tendency by reducingnģandnźtonć,nz(e.g.púnćiri, pungere;menzu, Ital. meźźo;sponza, Ital. spugna, Ven.sponźa).10Nay, even in the passing of the sonant into the surd, the Neapolitan dialects would yield special and important contributions (nor is even the Sicilian limited to the case just specified), among which we will only mention the change ofdbetween vowels intotin the last syllable of proparoxytones (e.g.úmmeto, Sicil.úmitu, umido), and in the formuladr(Sicil. and Neap.quatro, Ital. quadro, &c.). From these series of sonants changing into surds comes a peculiar feature of the southern dialects.—A pretty common characteristic is the regular progressive assimilation by whichndis reduced tonn,ṅgtoṅṅ,mbtomm, and evennvalso tomm(nv,nb,mb,mm),e.g.Sicil.šínniri, Neap.šénnere, scendere; Sicil.chiummu, Neap.chiummę, piombo; Sicil. and Neap.’mmidia, invidia; Sicil.sáṅṅu, sangue. As belonging to this class of phenomena the Palaeo-Italic analogy (ndintonn,n), of which the Umbrian furnishes special evidence, readily suggests itself. Another important common characteristic is the reduction of secondarypjfjintokj(chianu-ę, Sicil., Neap., &c., Ital. piano),š(Sicil.šúmi, Neap.šúmmę, fiume), of secondarybjtoj(which may be strengthened toghj) if initial (Sicil.jancu, Neap.janchę, bianco; Sicil.agghianchiari, imbiancare), tolif between vowels (Neap.neglia, nebbia, Sicil.nigliu, nibbio); of primarypjandbjintoć(Sicil.síćća, Neap.séćća, seppia) orģrespectively (Sicil.raģģa, Neap.arraģģa, rabbia), for which phenomena see also Genoese (B. 1). Further is to be noted the tendency to the sibilation ofcj, for which Sicil.jazzu, ghiaccio, may serve as an example (Arch.ii. 149),—a tendency more particularly betrayed in Upper Italy, but Abruzzan departs from it (cf. Abr.jacce, ghiaccio,vracce, braccio, &c.). There is a common inclination also to elide the initial unaccented palatal vowel, and to prefixa, especially beforer(this second tendency is found likewise in Southern Sardinian, &c.; seeArch.ii. 138);e.g.Sicil.’nténniri, Neap.’ndénnere, intendere; Sicil.arriccamári, Neap.arragamare, ricamare (seeArch.ii. 150). Throughout the whole district, and the adjacent territories in Central Italy, a tendency also prevails towards resolving certain combinations of consonants by the insertion of a vowel; thus combinations in which occurrorl,worj(Sicil.kiruci, Ital. croce,filágutu, Ital. flauto,salivari, salvare,váriva, Ital. barba; Abr.cálechene, Ital. ganghero,Salevèštre, Silvestro,fęulęmenándę, fulminante,jèreve, Ital. erba, &c.; Avellinesegaramegna, gramigna; Neap.ávotro= *áwtro, Ital. áltro,cèvoza= *céwza, Ital. gelso,ajetáside by side withajtá, Ital. età,ódejo=ódjo, Ital. odio, &c.; Abr.’nnívęję, indiva,nệbbęję, nebbia, &c.);cattájeve=cattájve, cattivo,goúele= *gowle, gola, &c. &c., are examples from Molfetta, where is also normal the resolution ofškbyšek(méšekere, maschera,šekátele, scatola, &c.); cf.seddegno, sdegno, in some dialects of the province of Avellino. In complete contrast to the tendency to get rid of double consonants which has been particularly noted in Venetian (C. 1), we here come to the great division of Italy where the tendency grows strong to gemination (or the doubling of consonants), especially in proparoxytones; and the Neapolitan in this respect goes farther than the Sicilian (e.g.Sicil.sóggiru, suocero,cínniri, cenere,doppu, dopo;’nsemmula, insieme, in-simul; Neap.dellecato, dilicato;úmmeto, umido;débbole).—As to the phonetic phenomena connected with the syntax (see B. 2), it is sufficient to cite such Sicilian examples asnišuna ronna, nesuna donna, alongside ofc’ é donni, c’ è donne;ćincu jorna, cinque giorni, alongside ofchiú ghiorna, più giorni; and the Neapolitanla vocca, la bocca, alongside ofa bocca, ad buccam, &c.We now proceed to the special consideration, first, of the Sicilian and, secondly, of the dialects of the mainland.(a)Sicilian.—The Sicilian vocalism is conspicuously etymological. Though differing in colour from the Tuscan, it is not less noble, and between the two there are remarkable points of contact. The dominant variety, represented in the literary dialect, ignores the diphthongs ofḗand ofŏ, as it has been seen that they are ignored in Sardinia (B. 2), and here also theĭand theŭappear intact; but theḗand theṓare fittingly represented byiandu; and with equal symmetry unaccentedeandoare reproduced byiandu. Examples:téni, tiene;nóvu, nuovo;pilu, pelo;miṅnitta, Ital. vendḛtta;jugu, giogo;agustu, Ital. agǫsto;crídiri, credere;vínniri, Ital. vēndere;sira, sera;vina, vena;suli, Ital. sole;ura, ora;furma, Ital. fǫrma. In the evolution of the consonants it is enough to add here the change ofljintoghj(e.g.fígghiu, Ital. figlio) and ofllintoḍḍ(e.g.gaḍḍu, Ital. gallo). As to morphology, we will confine ourselves to pointing out the masculine plurals of neuter form (li pastura,li marinara). For the Sicilian dialect we have a few fragments going back to the 13th century, but the documents are scanty until we come to the 14th century.(b)Dialects of the Neapolitan Mainland.—The Calabrian (by which is to be understood more particularly the vernacular group of the two Further Calabrias) may be fairly considered as a continuation of the Sicilian type, as is seen from the following examples:—cori, cuore;petra;fímmina, femina;vuce, voce;unure, onore;figghiu, figlio;spadde, spalle;trizza, treccia. Both Sicilian and Calabrian is the reducing ofrltorr(Sicil.parrari, Cal.parrare, parlare, &c.). The final vowel -eis reduced to -i, but is preserved in the more southern part, as is seen from the above examples. Even theḣforš=fj, as inḣuri(Sicil.šuri, fiore), which is characteristic in Calabrian, has its forerunners in the island (seeArch.ii. 456). And, in the same way, though the dominant varieties of Calabria seem to cling to themb(it sometimes happens thatmmtakes the form ofmb:imbiscare= Sicil. ’mmiscari’immischiare’, &c.) andnd, as opposed to themm,nn, of the whole of Southern Italy and Sicily, we must remember, firstly, that certain other varieties have,e.g.granne, Ital. grande, andchiummu, Ital. piombo; and secondly, that even in Sicily (at Milazzo, Barcelona, and as far as Messina) districts are to be found in whichndis used. Along the coast of the extreme south of Italy, when once we have passed the interruptions caused by the Basilisco type (so called from the Basilicata), the Sicilian vocalism again presents itself in the Otrantine, especially in the seaboard of Capo di Leuca. In the Lecce variety of the Otrantine the vocalism which has just been described as Sicilian also keeps its ground in the main (cf. Morosi,Arch.iv.):sira, sera;leítu, oliveto;pilu;ura, ora;dulure. Nay more, the Sicilian phenomenon ofljintoghj(figghiu, figlio, &c.) is well marked in Terra d’ Otranto and also in Terra di Bari, and even extends through the Capitanata and the Basilicata (cf. D’ Ovidio,Arch.iv. 159-160). As strongly marked in the Terra d’Otranto is the insular phenomenon ofllintoḍḍ(ḍr), which is also very widely distributed through the Neapolitan territories on the eastern side of the Apennines, sending outshoots even to the Abruzzo. But in Terra d’Otranto we are already in the midst of the diphthongs ofếand ofṍ, both non-positional and positional, the development or permanence of which is determined by the quality of the unaccented final vowel,—as generally happens in the dialects of the south. The diphthongs ofếandṍ, determined by final -iand -u, are also characteristic of central and northern Calabria (viecchiu-i, vecchio -a,vecchia-e, vecchia -e;buonu-i,bona-e, &c. &c.). Thus there comes to be a treatment of the vowels, peculiar to the two peninsulas of Calabria and Salent. The diphthongal product of theois hereue. The following are examples from the Lecce variety of the dialect:core, pl.cueri;metu,mieti,mete, mieto, mieti, miete (Lat. mĕtere);sentu,sienti,sente;olu,uéli,ola, volo, voli, vola;mordu,muerdi,morde. Theuerecalls the fundamental reduction which belongs to the Gallic (not to speak of the Spanish) regions, and stretches through the north of the Terra di Bari, where there are other diphthongs curiously suggestive of the Gallic:e.g.at Bitonto alongside ofluechę, luogo,suęnnę, sonno, we have theoiand theaifromioręof the previous phase (vęćoinę, vicino), and theaufromoof the previous phase (anaurę, onore), besides a diphthongal disturbance of theá. Here also occurs the change ofáinto anemore or less pure (thus, at Cisternino,scunsulête, sconsolata; at Canosa di Puglia,arruête, arrivata;n-ghèpe, “in capa,” that is, in capo); to which may be added the continual weakening or elision of the unaccented vowels not only at the end but in the body of the word (thus, at Bitonto,vęndett,spranz). A similar type meets us as we cross into Capitanata (Cerignola:graitęandgrēi-, creta (but alsopęitę, piede, &c.),coutę, coda (but alsofourę, fuorí, &c.);vǫinę, vino, and similarlypǫilę, pelo (Neap.pilo), &c.;fuękę, fuoco;carętätę, carità,parlä, parlare, &c.); such forms being apparently the outposts of the Abruzzan, which, however, is only reached through the Molise—a district not very populous even now, and still more thinly peopled in bygone days—whose prevailing forms of speech in some measure interrupt the historical continuity of the dialects of the Adriatic versant, presenting, as it were, an irruption from the other side of the Apennines. In the head valley of the Molise, at Agnone, the legitimate precursors of the Abruzzan vernaculars reappear (feáfa, fava,stufeáteand -uote, stufo, annojato,feá, fare;chiezza, piazza,chiegne, piangere,cuene, cane;puole, palo,pruote, prato,cuone, cane;veireandvaire, vero,moile, melo, and similarly voive and veive, vivo;deune, dono,deuva, doga;minaure, minore;cuerpe, corpo, butcuolle). The following are pure Abruzzan examples. (1) From Bucchianico (Abruzzo Citeriore):veivę, vivo;rraję, re;allaure, allora;craune, corona;circhê, cercare;mêlę, male;grênnę, grande;quênnę; but’nsultate, insultata;strade, strada (where again it is seen that the reduction of theádepends on the quality of the final unaccented vowel, and that it is not produced exclusively byi, which would give rise to a further reduction:scillarite, scellerati;ampire, impári). (2) From Pratola Peligna (Abruzzo Ulteriore II.);maję, mia;’naure, onore;’njuriéte, inguriata;desperéte, disperata ( alongside ofvennecá, vendicare). It almost appears that a continuity with Emilian11ought to be established across the Marches (where another irruption of greater“Italianity” has taken place; a third of more dubious origin has been indicated for Venice, C. 1); seeArch.ii., 445. A negative characteristic for Abruzzan is the absence of the change in the third syllable of the combinationspl,bl,fl(intokj,j-,š) and the reason seems evident. Here thepj,bjandfjthemselves appear to be modern or of recent reduction—the ancient formulae sometimes occurring intact (as in the Bergamasc for Upper Italy),e.g.plánjeandpránjealongside ofpiánje, piagnere,branghealongside ofbianghe, bianco (Fr.blanc),flumeandfrumealongsidefiume, fiume. To the south of the Abruzzi begins and in the Abruzzi grows prominent that contrast in regard to the formulaealtald(resolved in the Neapolitan and Sicilian intoaut, &c., just as in the Piedmontese, &c.), by which the typesaldare, altare, andcallę, caldo, are reached.12For the rest, when the condition and connexions of the vowel system still retained by so large a proportion of the dialects of the eastern versant of the Neapolitan Apennines, and the difference which exists in regard to the preservation of the unaccented vowels between the Ligurian and the Gallo-Italic forms of speech on the other versant of the northern Apennines, are considered, one cannot fail to see how much justice there is in the longitudinal or Apenninian partition of the Italian dialects indicated by Dante.—But, to continue, in the Basilicata, which drains into the Gulf of Taranto, and may be said to lie within the Apennines, not only is the elision of final unaccented vowels a prevailing characteristic; there are also frequent elisions of the unaccented vowels within the word. Thus at Matera:sintenn la femn chessa côs, sentendo la femina questa cosa;disprât, disperata; at Saponara di Grumento:uomnn’ scilrati, uomini scellerati;mnetta, vendetta.—But even if we return to the Mediterranean versant and, leaving the Sicilian type of the Calabrias, retrace our steps till we pass into the Neapolitan pure and simple, we find that even in Naples the unaccented final vowels behave badly, the labial turning toę(biellę, bello) and even thea(bellă) being greatly weakened. And here occurs a Palaeo-Italic instance which is worth mention: while Latin was accustomed to drop the u of its nominative only in presence ofr(generfrom *gener-u-s,virfrom *vir-u-s; cf. the Tuscan or Italian apocopated formsvéner= vénere,venner= vennero, &c.), Oscan and Umbrian go much farther: Oscan, hurz = *hort-u-s, Lat. hortus; Umbr.pihaz, piatus;emps, emptus, &c. In Umbrian inscriptions we findualternating with theaof the nom. sing. fem. and plur. neut. In complete contrast with the Sicilian vocalism is the Neapolitanefor unaccented and particularly finaliof the Latin and Neo-Latin or Italian phases (e.g.viene, vieni; cf.infra), to say nothing further of the regular diphthongization, within certain limits, of accentedeoroin position (apiertę, aperto, fem.aperta;muortę, morto, fem.morta, &c.).—In the quasi-morphological domain it is to be noted how the Siculo-Calabrianufor the ancientṓandŭ, and the Siculo-Calabrianifor the ancientḗ,ḯ, are also still found in the Neapolitan, and, in particular, that they alternate withoandein a manner that is determined by the difference of termination. Thuscosetore, cucitore, pl.coseture(i.e.coseturi, the-ipassing intoein keeping with the Neapolitan characteristic already mentioned);russę, Ital. rosso,-i;rossa-ę, Ital. rossa -e;noće,noce, pl.nuce;credę, io credo;cride(*cridi), tu credi;crede, egli crede;nigrę, butnegra.Passing now to a cursory mention of purely morphological phenomena, we begin with that form which is referred to the Latin pluperfect (see A. 1, B. 2), but which here too performs the functions of the conditional. Examples from the living dialects of (1) Calabria Citeriore arefaceru, farei (Castrovillari);tu te la collerre, tu te l’acolleresti (Cosenza);l’aććettéra, l’accetterebbe (Grimaldi); and from those of (2) the Abruzzi,vulér’, vorrei (Castelli);dére, darei (Atessa);candére, canterei. For the dialects of the Abruzzi, we can check our observations by examples from the oldest chronicle of Aquila, asnon habéra lassato, non avrebbe lasciato (str. 180) (cf.negara, Ital. negherei, in old MS. of the Marches). There are some interesting remains (more or less corrupted both in form and usage) of ancient consonantal terminations which have not yet been sufficiently studied:s’ incaricaviti, s’ incaricava, -abat (Basilicata, Senise); ebbiti, ebbe (ib.);avíadi, aveva (Calabria, Grimaldi);arrivaudi, arrivò (ib.). The last example also gives the-auof the 3rd pers. sing. perf. of the first conjugation, which still occurs in Sicily and between the horns of the Neapolitan mainland. In the Abruzzi (and in the Ascolan district) the 3rd person of the plural is in process of disappearing (the-nohaving fallen away and the preceding vowel being obscured), and its function is assumed by the 3rd person singular; cf. C. 1.13The explanation of the Neapolitan formssonghḛ, io sono, essi sono,donghḛ, io do, stonghḛ, io sto, as also of the enclitic of the 2nd person plural which exists,e.g.in the Sicil.avíssivu, Neap.avístevę, aveste, has been correctly given more than once. It may be remarked in conclusion that this Neo-Latin region keeps company with the Rumanian in maintaining in large use the -ora derived from the ancient neuter plurals of the typetempora; Sicil.jócura, giuochi; Calabr.nídura, Abruzz.nídḛre, nidi, Neap.órtola(= -ra), orti, Capitanataácurḛ, aghi, Apulianacéddere(Tarantineacéddiri), uccelli, &c. It is in this region, and more particularly in Capua, that we can trace the first appearance of what can definitely be called Italian, as shown in a Latin legal document of the year 960 (sao co kelle terre per kelle fini qui ki contene trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti, Ital. “so che quelle terre per quei confini che qui contiene trent ’anni le possedette la parte di S. Benedetto”), and belongs more precisely to Capua. The so-calledCarta Rossanese(Calabria), written in a mixture of Latin and vulgar tongue, belongs to the first decades of the 12th century; while a document of Fondi (Campania) in the vulgar tongue goes back to the last decades of the same century. Neapolitan documents do not become abundant till the 14th century. The same is true of the Abruzzi and of Apulia; in the case of the latter the date should perhaps be put even later.4.Dialects of Umbria, the Marches and the Province of Rome.—The phenomena characteristic of the Gallo-Italian dialects can be traced in the northern Marches in the dialects not only of the provinces of Pesaro and Urbino (Arch. glott.ii. 444), where we note also the constant dropping of the final vowels, strong elisions of accented and unaccented vowels, the suffix -ariubecoming -ér, &c., but also as far as Ancona and beyond. As in Ancona, the double consonants are reduced to single ones; there are strong elisions (breta, Ital. berretta;blin, Ital. bellino;figurte, Ital. “figúrati”;vermne, Ital. verme, “vermine,” &c.); the -k- becomesg; thes,š. At Jesi -t- and -k- becomedandg, and thegis also found at Fabriano, though here it is modified in the Southern fashion (spia=spiga, Ital. spica). Examples are also found of the dropping of -d- primary between vowels: Pesaranráica, Ital. radica; Fabr.peo; Ital. piede, which are noteworthy in that they indicate an isolated Gallo-Italian phenomenon, which is further traceable in Umbria (peacchia= ped-, Ital. orma;ráicaandraíce, Ital. radice;trúbio, Ital. torbido;frácio, Ital. fracido; at Rieti also the dropping of the -d- is normal:veo, Ital. vedo;fiátu, Ital. fidato, &c.; and here too is found the dropping of initialdfor syntactical reasons:ènte, Ital. dente, fromlu[d]ènte). According to some scholars of the Marches, theéforaalso extends as far as Ancona; and it is certainly continued from the north, though it is precisely in the territory of the Marches that Gallo-Italian and Abruzzan come into contact. The southern part of the Marches (the basin of the Tronto), after all, is Abruzzan in character. But the Abruzzan or Southern phenomena in general are widely diffused throughout the whole of the region comprising the Marches, Umbria, Latium and Aquila (for the territory of Aquila, belonging as it does both geographically and politically to the Abruzzi, is also attached linguistically to this group), which with regard to certain phenomena includes also that part of Tuscany lying to the south of the southern Ombrone. Further, the Tuscan dialect strictly so called sends into the Marches a few of its characteristics, and thus at Arcevia we have the pronunciation of -ć- between vowels asš(fórmesce, Ital. forbici),14and Ancona has no changes of tonic vowels determined by the final vowel. Again, Umbria and the Sabine territory, and some parts of the Roman territory, are connected with Tuscany by the phenomenon of -ajofor -ariu(molinajo, Ital. mugnaio, &c.). But, to come to the Abruzzan Southern phenomena, we should note that the Abruzzanllforldextends into the central region (Norcia:callu, caldo; Rome:ariscalla, riscalda; the phenomenon, however, occurs also in Corsica); and the assimilation ofndintonn, and ofmbintommstretches through Umbria, the Marches and Rome, and even crosses from the Roman province into southern Tuscany (Rieti:quanno, quando; Spoleto:comannava, comandava; Assisi:piagnenno, piangendo; Sanseverino Marches:piagnenne, ’mmece, invece (imbece); Fabriano:vennecasse, vendicarsi; Osimo:monno, mondo; Rome:fronna, fronda;piommo, piombo; Pitigliano (Tuscany):quanno,piagnenno). It is curious to note, side by side with this phenomenon, in the same districts, that ofndfornn, which we still find and which was more common in the past (affando, affanno, &c., seeZeitschrift für roman. Philol.xxii. 510). Even the diphthongs of theeand theoin position are largely represented. Examples are—at Norcia,tiempi,uocchi,stuortu; Assisi and Fabriano:tiempo; Orvieto:tiempo,tierra,le tuorte, li torti, and evenduonna. The change of preconsonantallintor, so frequent throughout this region, and particularly characteristic of Rome, is a phenomenon common to the Aquilan dialect. Similar facts might be adduced in abundance. And it is to be noted that the features common to Umbro-Roman and the Neapolitan dialects must have been more numerous in the past, as this was the region where the Tuscan current met the southern, and by reason of its superior culture gradually gained theascendancy.15Typical for the whole district (except the Marches) is the reduction tot(and later toj) oflland oflinitial, when followed byioru(Velletri,tuna,tuce; Sora,juna, Ital. luna,jima, Ital. lima; melica. Ital. mollica,bétḛ, Ital. belli, bello, in vulgar Latinbellu; butbella, bella, &c.). The phonological connexions between the Northern Umbrian, the Aretine, and the Gallo-Italic type have already been indicated (B. 2). In what relates to morphology, the -ornoof the 3rd pers. plur. of the perfect of the first conjugation has been pointed out as an essential peculiarity of the Umbro-Roman territory; but even this it shares with the Aquila vernaculars, which, moreover, extend it to the other conjugations (amórno,timórono, &c.), exactly like the -óof the 3rd person singular. Further, this termination is found also in the Tuscan dialects.Throughout almost the whole district should be noted the distinction between the masculine and neuter substantive, expressed by means of the article, the distinction being that the neuter substantive has an abstract and indeterminate signification;e.g.at S. Ginesio, in the Marches,lu pesce, butlo pesce, of fish in general, as food, &c.; at Sorate wétre, the sheet of glass, butlḛ wétrḛ, glass, the material, original substance.16As to the inflection of verbs, there is in the ancient texts of the region a notable prevalence of perfect form in the formation of the imperfect conjunctive;tolzesse, Ital. togliesse;sostenesse, Ital. sostenesse;conubbessero, Ital. conoscessero, &c. In the northern Marches, we should note the preposition sa, Ital. con (sa lia, Ital. con lei), going back to a type similar to that of the Ital. “con-esso.”In a large part of Umbria anmortis prefixed to the sign of the dative:t-a lu, a lui;m-al re, al re;17which must be the remains of the auxiliary prepositionsint(us),a(m)pud, cf. Prov.amb,am(cf.Arch.ii. 444-446). By means of the series of Perugine texts this group of dialects may be traced back with confidence to the 13th century; and to this region should also belong a “Confession,” half Latin half vernacular, dating from about the 11th century, edited and annotated by Flechia (Arch.vii. 121 sqq.). The “chronicle” of Monaldeschi has been already mentioned. The MSS. of the Marches go back to the beginning of the 13th century and perhaps still further back. For Roman (see Monaci,Rendic. dell’ Accad. dei Lincei, xvi. 103 sqq.) there is a short inscription of the 11th century. To the 13th century belongs theLiber historiarum Romanorum(Monaci,Archivio della Società rom. di storia patria, xii.; and also,Rendic. dei Lincei, i. 94 sqq.), and to the first half of the same century theFormole volgariof Raineri da Perugia (Monaci,ib., xiv. 268 sqq.). There are more abundant texts for all parts of this district in the 14th century, to which also belongs theCronica Aquilanaof Buccio di Ranallo, republished by De Bartholomaeis (Rome, 1907).
1.Venetian.—Between “Venetian” and “Venetic” several distinctions must be drawn (Arch.i. 391 sqq.). At the present day the population of the Venetian cities is “Venetian” in language, but the country districts are in various ways Venetic.6The ancient language of Venice itself and of its estuary was not a little different from that of the present time; and the Ladin vein was particularlyevident (see A. 2). A more purely Italian vein—the historical explanation of which presents an attractive problem—has ultimately gained the mastery and determined the “Venetian” type which has since diffused itself so vigorously.—In the Venetian, then, we do not find the most distinctive characteristics of the dialects of Upper Italy comprised under the denomination Gallo-Italic (see B. 1),—neither theünor theö, nor the velar7and faucal nasals, nor the Gallic resolution of thect, nor the frequent elision of unaccented vowels, nor the great redundancy of pronouns. On the contrary, the pure Italian diphthong ofṍ(e.g.cuór) is heard, and the diphthong ofếis in full currency (diéśe, dieci, &c.). Nevertheless the Venetian approaches the type of Northern Italy, or diverges notably from that of Central Italy, by the following phonetic phenomena: the ready elision of primary or secondaryd(crúo, crudo;séa, seta, &c.); the regular reduction of the surd into the sonant guttural (e.g.cuogo, Ital. cuoco, coquus); the purećin the resolution ofcl(e.g.ćave, clave;oréća, auricula); theśforģ(śóvene, Ital. giovane);çforšandć(péçe, Ital. pesce;çiél, Ital. cielo).Ljpreceded by any vowel, primary or secondary, excepti, givesģ:faméga, familia. No Italian dialect is more averse than the Venetian to the doubling of consonants.—In the morphology the use of the 3rd singular for the 3rd plural also, the analogical participle inesto(taśesto, Ital. taciuto, &c.; seeArch.iv. 393, sqq.) andśe, Lat.est, are particularly noteworthy. A curious double relic of Ladin influence is the interrogative type represented by the examplecrédis-tu, credis tu,—where apart from the interrogationti crediwould be used. For other ancient sources relating to Venice, the estuary of Venice, Verona and Padua, seeArch.i. 448, 465, 421-422; iii. 245-247. [Closely akin to Venetian, though differing from it in about the same degree that the various Gallo-Italian dialects differ among one another, is the indigenous dialect ofIstria, now almost entirely ousted by Venetian, and found in a few localities only (Rovigno, Dignano). The most salient characteristics of Istrian can be recognized in the treatment of the accented vowels, and are of a character which recalls, to a certain extent at least, the Vegliote dialect. Thus we have in Istrianiforệ(bivi, Ital. bevi, Lat.bĭbis;tila, Ital. tḛla;viro, Ital. vero and vetro, Lat.vēru,vĭtru;nito, Ital. netto, Lat.nĭtĭdu, &c.) and analogouslyuforǫ(fiur, Ital. fiore, Lat.flōre;bus, Ital. voce, Lat.vōce, &c.);eiandoufrom the Lat.īandūrespectively (ameigo, Lat.amicu,feil, Lat.fīlu, &c.;mour, Lat.mūru;noudu, Lat.nūdu;frouto, Ital. frutto, Lat.frūctu, &c.);ieanduofromĕandŏrespectively in position (piel, Lat.pĕlle,mierlo, Ital. merlo, Lat.mĕrula;kuorno, Lat.cŏrnu;puorta, Lat.pŏrta), a phenomenon in which Istrian resembles not only Vegliote but also Friulian. The resemblance with Verona, in the reduction of final unaccented -etooshould also be noted (nuoto, Ital. notte, &c.,bivo, Ital.beve;malamȩntro, Ital. malamente, &c.), and that with Belluno and Treviso in the treatment of -óni, -áni(barbói, -oin, Ital. barboni), though it is peculiar to Istrian that -ainshould give -ȩṅ(kaṅ,kȩṅ, Ital. cane -i). With regard to consonants, we should point out thenforgn(líno, Ital. legno); and as to morphology, we should note certain survivals of the inflexional type,amita, -ánis(sing.sía, Ital. zia, pl.siaṅne).] The most ancient Venetian documents take us back to the first half of the 13th century (v.E. Bertanza and V. Lazzarini,Il Dialetto veneziano fino alla morte di Dante Alighieri, Venice, 1891), and to the second half of the same century seems to belong the Saibante MS. For Verona we have also documents of the 13th century (v.Cipolla, inArchivio storico italiano, 1881 and 1882); and to the end of the same century perhaps belongs the MS. which has preserved for us the writings of Giacomino da Verona. See alsoArchivio glottologico, i. 448, 465, 421-422, iii. 245-247.
2.Corsican8—If the “Venetian,” in spite of its peculiar “Italianity,” has naturally special points of contact with the other dialects of Upper Italy (B. 1), the Corsican in like manner, particularly in its southern varieties, has special points of contact with Sardinian proper (B. 2). In general, it is in the southern section of the island, which, geographically even, is farthest removed from Tuscany, that the most characteristic forms of speech are found. The unaccented vowels are undisturbed; butufor the Tuscanois common to almost all the island,—an insular phenomenonpar excellencewhich connects Corsica with Sardinia and with Sicily, and indeed with Liguria also. So also -ifor the Tuscan -e(latti, latte;li cateni, le catene), which prevails chiefly in the southern section, is also found in Northern and Southern Sardinian, and is common to Sicily. It is needless to add that this tendency touandimanifests itself, more or less decidedly, also within the words. Corsican, too, avoids the diphthongs ofếandṍ(pe,eri;cori,fora): but, unlike Sardinian, it treatsḯandṹin the Italian fashion:beju, bibo;péveru, piper;pesci;noci, nuces.9—It is one of its characteristics to reduce a to e in the formulaar+ a consonant (chérne,bérba, &c.), which should be compared particularly with the Piedmontese examples of the same phenomenon (Arch.ii. 133, 144-150). But the gerund in-enduof the first conjugation (turnendu,lagrimendu, &c.) must on the contrary be considered as a phenomenon of analogy, as it is especially recognized in the Sardinian dialects, to all of which it is common (seeArch.ii. 133). And the same is most probably the case with forms of the present participle likemerchente, mercante, in spite ofenziandinnenzi(anzi, innanzi), in which latter forms there may probably be traced the effect of the Neo-Latiniwhich availed to reduce thetof the Latinante; alongside of them we find alsoanziandnantu. But cf. also,grȩndi, Ital. grande. In Southern Corsicandrforllis conspicuous—a phenomenon which also connects Corsica with Sardinia, Sicily and a good part of Southern Italy (see C. 2; andArch.ii. 135, &c.), also with the northern coast of Tuscany, since examples such asbeḍḍubelong also to Carrara and Montignoso. In the Ultramontane variety occur besides, the phenomena ofrnchanged tor(=rr) and ofndbecomingnn(furu, Ital. forno;koru, Ital. corno;kuannu, Ital. quando;vidennu, Ital. vedendo). The former of these would connect Corsican with Sardinian (corru, cornu;carre, carne, &c.); the latter more especially with Sicily, &c. A particular connexion with the central dialects is given by the change ofldintoll(kallu, Ital. caldo).—As to phonetic phenomena connected with syntax, already noticed in B. 2, space admits the following examples only: Cors,na vella, una bella,e bella(ebbélla, et bella);lu jallu, lo gallo,gran ghiallu; cf.Arch.ii. 136 (135, 150), xiv. 185. As Tommaseo has already noted,-oneis for the Corsicans not less than for the Sicilians, Calabrians and the French a termination of diminution:e.g.fratedronu, fratellino.—In the first person of the conditional thebis maintained (e.g.farebe, farei), as even at Rome and elsewhere. Lastly, the series of Corsican verbs of the derivative order which run alongside of the Italian series of the original order, and may be represented by the exampledissipeghja, dissipa (Falcucci), is to be compared with the Sicilian series represented bycuadiari, riscaldare,curpiári, colpire (Arch.ii. 151).
3.Dialects of Sicily and of the Neapolitan Provinces.—Here the territories on both sides of the Strait of Messina will first be treated together, chiefly with the view of noting their common linguistic peculiarities.—Characteristic then of these parts, as compared with Upper Italy and even with Sardinia, is, generally speaking, the tenacity of the explosive elements of the Latin bases (cf.Arch.ii. 154, &c.). Not that these consonants are constantly preserved uninjured; their degradations, and especially the Neapolitan degradation of the surd into the sonant, are even more frequent than is shown by the dialect as written, but their disappearance is comparatively rather rare; and even the degradations, whether regard be had to the conjunctures in which they occur or to their specific quality, are very different from those of the dialects of Upper Italy. Thus, the t between vowels ordinarily remains intact in Sicilian and Neapolitan (e.g.Sicil.sita, Neap.seta, seta, where in the dialects of Upper Italy we should haveseda,sea); and in the Neapolitan dialects it is reduced todwhen it is preceded bynorr(e.g.viendę, vento), which is precisely a collocation in which thetwould be maintained intact in Upper Italy. Thed, on the other hand, is not resolved by elision, but by its reduction tor(e.g.Sicil.víriri, Neap. dialectsveré, vedere), a phenomenon which has been frequently compared, perhaps with too little caution, with thedpassing intors(ḍ) in the Umbrian inscriptions. The Neapolitan reduction ofntintondhas its analogies in the reduction ofnc(nk) intong, and ofmpintomb, which is also a feature of the Neapolitan dialects, and in that ofnsintonź; and here and there we even find a reduction ofnfintomb(nf,nv,nb,mb), both in Sicilian and Neapolitan (e.g.at Casteltermini in Sicily’mbiernu, inferno, and in the Abruzzicumbonn’,’mbonn’, confondere, infondere). Here we find ourselves in a series of phenomena to which it may seem that some special contributions were furnished by Oscan and Umbrian (nt,mp,ncintond, &c.), but for which more secure and general, and so to say “isothermal,” analogies are found in modern Greek and Albanian. The Sicilian does not appear to fit in here as far as the formulaentandmpare concerned; and it may even be said to go counter to this tendency by reducingnģandnźtonć,nz(e.g.púnćiri, pungere;menzu, Ital. meźźo;sponza, Ital. spugna, Ven.sponźa).10Nay, even in the passing of the sonant into the surd, the Neapolitan dialects would yield special and important contributions (nor is even the Sicilian limited to the case just specified), among which we will only mention the change ofdbetween vowels intotin the last syllable of proparoxytones (e.g.úmmeto, Sicil.úmitu, umido), and in the formuladr(Sicil. and Neap.quatro, Ital. quadro, &c.). From these series of sonants changing into surds comes a peculiar feature of the southern dialects.—A pretty common characteristic is the regular progressive assimilation by whichndis reduced tonn,ṅgtoṅṅ,mbtomm, and evennvalso tomm(nv,nb,mb,mm),e.g.Sicil.šínniri, Neap.šénnere, scendere; Sicil.chiummu, Neap.chiummę, piombo; Sicil. and Neap.’mmidia, invidia; Sicil.sáṅṅu, sangue. As belonging to this class of phenomena the Palaeo-Italic analogy (ndintonn,n), of which the Umbrian furnishes special evidence, readily suggests itself. Another important common characteristic is the reduction of secondarypjfjintokj(chianu-ę, Sicil., Neap., &c., Ital. piano),š(Sicil.šúmi, Neap.šúmmę, fiume), of secondarybjtoj(which may be strengthened toghj) if initial (Sicil.jancu, Neap.janchę, bianco; Sicil.agghianchiari, imbiancare), tolif between vowels (Neap.neglia, nebbia, Sicil.nigliu, nibbio); of primarypjandbjintoć(Sicil.síćća, Neap.séćća, seppia) orģrespectively (Sicil.raģģa, Neap.arraģģa, rabbia), for which phenomena see also Genoese (B. 1). Further is to be noted the tendency to the sibilation ofcj, for which Sicil.jazzu, ghiaccio, may serve as an example (Arch.ii. 149),—a tendency more particularly betrayed in Upper Italy, but Abruzzan departs from it (cf. Abr.jacce, ghiaccio,vracce, braccio, &c.). There is a common inclination also to elide the initial unaccented palatal vowel, and to prefixa, especially beforer(this second tendency is found likewise in Southern Sardinian, &c.; seeArch.ii. 138);e.g.Sicil.’nténniri, Neap.’ndénnere, intendere; Sicil.arriccamári, Neap.arragamare, ricamare (seeArch.ii. 150). Throughout the whole district, and the adjacent territories in Central Italy, a tendency also prevails towards resolving certain combinations of consonants by the insertion of a vowel; thus combinations in which occurrorl,worj(Sicil.kiruci, Ital. croce,filágutu, Ital. flauto,salivari, salvare,váriva, Ital. barba; Abr.cálechene, Ital. ganghero,Salevèštre, Silvestro,fęulęmenándę, fulminante,jèreve, Ital. erba, &c.; Avellinesegaramegna, gramigna; Neap.ávotro= *áwtro, Ital. áltro,cèvoza= *céwza, Ital. gelso,ajetáside by side withajtá, Ital. età,ódejo=ódjo, Ital. odio, &c.; Abr.’nnívęję, indiva,nệbbęję, nebbia, &c.);cattájeve=cattájve, cattivo,goúele= *gowle, gola, &c. &c., are examples from Molfetta, where is also normal the resolution ofškbyšek(méšekere, maschera,šekátele, scatola, &c.); cf.seddegno, sdegno, in some dialects of the province of Avellino. In complete contrast to the tendency to get rid of double consonants which has been particularly noted in Venetian (C. 1), we here come to the great division of Italy where the tendency grows strong to gemination (or the doubling of consonants), especially in proparoxytones; and the Neapolitan in this respect goes farther than the Sicilian (e.g.Sicil.sóggiru, suocero,cínniri, cenere,doppu, dopo;’nsemmula, insieme, in-simul; Neap.dellecato, dilicato;úmmeto, umido;débbole).—As to the phonetic phenomena connected with the syntax (see B. 2), it is sufficient to cite such Sicilian examples asnišuna ronna, nesuna donna, alongside ofc’ é donni, c’ è donne;ćincu jorna, cinque giorni, alongside ofchiú ghiorna, più giorni; and the Neapolitanla vocca, la bocca, alongside ofa bocca, ad buccam, &c.
We now proceed to the special consideration, first, of the Sicilian and, secondly, of the dialects of the mainland.
(a)Sicilian.—The Sicilian vocalism is conspicuously etymological. Though differing in colour from the Tuscan, it is not less noble, and between the two there are remarkable points of contact. The dominant variety, represented in the literary dialect, ignores the diphthongs ofḗand ofŏ, as it has been seen that they are ignored in Sardinia (B. 2), and here also theĭand theŭappear intact; but theḗand theṓare fittingly represented byiandu; and with equal symmetry unaccentedeandoare reproduced byiandu. Examples:téni, tiene;nóvu, nuovo;pilu, pelo;miṅnitta, Ital. vendḛtta;jugu, giogo;agustu, Ital. agǫsto;crídiri, credere;vínniri, Ital. vēndere;sira, sera;vina, vena;suli, Ital. sole;ura, ora;furma, Ital. fǫrma. In the evolution of the consonants it is enough to add here the change ofljintoghj(e.g.fígghiu, Ital. figlio) and ofllintoḍḍ(e.g.gaḍḍu, Ital. gallo). As to morphology, we will confine ourselves to pointing out the masculine plurals of neuter form (li pastura,li marinara). For the Sicilian dialect we have a few fragments going back to the 13th century, but the documents are scanty until we come to the 14th century.
(b)Dialects of the Neapolitan Mainland.—The Calabrian (by which is to be understood more particularly the vernacular group of the two Further Calabrias) may be fairly considered as a continuation of the Sicilian type, as is seen from the following examples:—cori, cuore;petra;fímmina, femina;vuce, voce;unure, onore;figghiu, figlio;spadde, spalle;trizza, treccia. Both Sicilian and Calabrian is the reducing ofrltorr(Sicil.parrari, Cal.parrare, parlare, &c.). The final vowel -eis reduced to -i, but is preserved in the more southern part, as is seen from the above examples. Even theḣforš=fj, as inḣuri(Sicil.šuri, fiore), which is characteristic in Calabrian, has its forerunners in the island (seeArch.ii. 456). And, in the same way, though the dominant varieties of Calabria seem to cling to themb(it sometimes happens thatmmtakes the form ofmb:imbiscare= Sicil. ’mmiscari’immischiare’, &c.) andnd, as opposed to themm,nn, of the whole of Southern Italy and Sicily, we must remember, firstly, that certain other varieties have,e.g.granne, Ital. grande, andchiummu, Ital. piombo; and secondly, that even in Sicily (at Milazzo, Barcelona, and as far as Messina) districts are to be found in whichndis used. Along the coast of the extreme south of Italy, when once we have passed the interruptions caused by the Basilisco type (so called from the Basilicata), the Sicilian vocalism again presents itself in the Otrantine, especially in the seaboard of Capo di Leuca. In the Lecce variety of the Otrantine the vocalism which has just been described as Sicilian also keeps its ground in the main (cf. Morosi,Arch.iv.):sira, sera;leítu, oliveto;pilu;ura, ora;dulure. Nay more, the Sicilian phenomenon ofljintoghj(figghiu, figlio, &c.) is well marked in Terra d’ Otranto and also in Terra di Bari, and even extends through the Capitanata and the Basilicata (cf. D’ Ovidio,Arch.iv. 159-160). As strongly marked in the Terra d’Otranto is the insular phenomenon ofllintoḍḍ(ḍr), which is also very widely distributed through the Neapolitan territories on the eastern side of the Apennines, sending outshoots even to the Abruzzo. But in Terra d’Otranto we are already in the midst of the diphthongs ofếand ofṍ, both non-positional and positional, the development or permanence of which is determined by the quality of the unaccented final vowel,—as generally happens in the dialects of the south. The diphthongs ofếandṍ, determined by final -iand -u, are also characteristic of central and northern Calabria (viecchiu-i, vecchio -a,vecchia-e, vecchia -e;buonu-i,bona-e, &c. &c.). Thus there comes to be a treatment of the vowels, peculiar to the two peninsulas of Calabria and Salent. The diphthongal product of theois hereue. The following are examples from the Lecce variety of the dialect:core, pl.cueri;metu,mieti,mete, mieto, mieti, miete (Lat. mĕtere);sentu,sienti,sente;olu,uéli,ola, volo, voli, vola;mordu,muerdi,morde. Theuerecalls the fundamental reduction which belongs to the Gallic (not to speak of the Spanish) regions, and stretches through the north of the Terra di Bari, where there are other diphthongs curiously suggestive of the Gallic:e.g.at Bitonto alongside ofluechę, luogo,suęnnę, sonno, we have theoiand theaifromioręof the previous phase (vęćoinę, vicino), and theaufromoof the previous phase (anaurę, onore), besides a diphthongal disturbance of theá. Here also occurs the change ofáinto anemore or less pure (thus, at Cisternino,scunsulête, sconsolata; at Canosa di Puglia,arruête, arrivata;n-ghèpe, “in capa,” that is, in capo); to which may be added the continual weakening or elision of the unaccented vowels not only at the end but in the body of the word (thus, at Bitonto,vęndett,spranz). A similar type meets us as we cross into Capitanata (Cerignola:graitęandgrēi-, creta (but alsopęitę, piede, &c.),coutę, coda (but alsofourę, fuorí, &c.);vǫinę, vino, and similarlypǫilę, pelo (Neap.pilo), &c.;fuękę, fuoco;carętätę, carità,parlä, parlare, &c.); such forms being apparently the outposts of the Abruzzan, which, however, is only reached through the Molise—a district not very populous even now, and still more thinly peopled in bygone days—whose prevailing forms of speech in some measure interrupt the historical continuity of the dialects of the Adriatic versant, presenting, as it were, an irruption from the other side of the Apennines. In the head valley of the Molise, at Agnone, the legitimate precursors of the Abruzzan vernaculars reappear (feáfa, fava,stufeáteand -uote, stufo, annojato,feá, fare;chiezza, piazza,chiegne, piangere,cuene, cane;puole, palo,pruote, prato,cuone, cane;veireandvaire, vero,moile, melo, and similarly voive and veive, vivo;deune, dono,deuva, doga;minaure, minore;cuerpe, corpo, butcuolle). The following are pure Abruzzan examples. (1) From Bucchianico (Abruzzo Citeriore):veivę, vivo;rraję, re;allaure, allora;craune, corona;circhê, cercare;mêlę, male;grênnę, grande;quênnę; but’nsultate, insultata;strade, strada (where again it is seen that the reduction of theádepends on the quality of the final unaccented vowel, and that it is not produced exclusively byi, which would give rise to a further reduction:scillarite, scellerati;ampire, impári). (2) From Pratola Peligna (Abruzzo Ulteriore II.);maję, mia;’naure, onore;’njuriéte, inguriata;desperéte, disperata ( alongside ofvennecá, vendicare). It almost appears that a continuity with Emilian11ought to be established across the Marches (where another irruption of greater“Italianity” has taken place; a third of more dubious origin has been indicated for Venice, C. 1); seeArch.ii., 445. A negative characteristic for Abruzzan is the absence of the change in the third syllable of the combinationspl,bl,fl(intokj,j-,š) and the reason seems evident. Here thepj,bjandfjthemselves appear to be modern or of recent reduction—the ancient formulae sometimes occurring intact (as in the Bergamasc for Upper Italy),e.g.plánjeandpránjealongside ofpiánje, piagnere,branghealongside ofbianghe, bianco (Fr.blanc),flumeandfrumealongsidefiume, fiume. To the south of the Abruzzi begins and in the Abruzzi grows prominent that contrast in regard to the formulaealtald(resolved in the Neapolitan and Sicilian intoaut, &c., just as in the Piedmontese, &c.), by which the typesaldare, altare, andcallę, caldo, are reached.12For the rest, when the condition and connexions of the vowel system still retained by so large a proportion of the dialects of the eastern versant of the Neapolitan Apennines, and the difference which exists in regard to the preservation of the unaccented vowels between the Ligurian and the Gallo-Italic forms of speech on the other versant of the northern Apennines, are considered, one cannot fail to see how much justice there is in the longitudinal or Apenninian partition of the Italian dialects indicated by Dante.—But, to continue, in the Basilicata, which drains into the Gulf of Taranto, and may be said to lie within the Apennines, not only is the elision of final unaccented vowels a prevailing characteristic; there are also frequent elisions of the unaccented vowels within the word. Thus at Matera:sintenn la femn chessa côs, sentendo la femina questa cosa;disprât, disperata; at Saponara di Grumento:uomnn’ scilrati, uomini scellerati;mnetta, vendetta.—But even if we return to the Mediterranean versant and, leaving the Sicilian type of the Calabrias, retrace our steps till we pass into the Neapolitan pure and simple, we find that even in Naples the unaccented final vowels behave badly, the labial turning toę(biellę, bello) and even thea(bellă) being greatly weakened. And here occurs a Palaeo-Italic instance which is worth mention: while Latin was accustomed to drop the u of its nominative only in presence ofr(generfrom *gener-u-s,virfrom *vir-u-s; cf. the Tuscan or Italian apocopated formsvéner= vénere,venner= vennero, &c.), Oscan and Umbrian go much farther: Oscan, hurz = *hort-u-s, Lat. hortus; Umbr.pihaz, piatus;emps, emptus, &c. In Umbrian inscriptions we findualternating with theaof the nom. sing. fem. and plur. neut. In complete contrast with the Sicilian vocalism is the Neapolitanefor unaccented and particularly finaliof the Latin and Neo-Latin or Italian phases (e.g.viene, vieni; cf.infra), to say nothing further of the regular diphthongization, within certain limits, of accentedeoroin position (apiertę, aperto, fem.aperta;muortę, morto, fem.morta, &c.).—In the quasi-morphological domain it is to be noted how the Siculo-Calabrianufor the ancientṓandŭ, and the Siculo-Calabrianifor the ancientḗ,ḯ, are also still found in the Neapolitan, and, in particular, that they alternate withoandein a manner that is determined by the difference of termination. Thuscosetore, cucitore, pl.coseture(i.e.coseturi, the-ipassing intoein keeping with the Neapolitan characteristic already mentioned);russę, Ital. rosso,-i;rossa-ę, Ital. rossa -e;noće,noce, pl.nuce;credę, io credo;cride(*cridi), tu credi;crede, egli crede;nigrę, butnegra.
Passing now to a cursory mention of purely morphological phenomena, we begin with that form which is referred to the Latin pluperfect (see A. 1, B. 2), but which here too performs the functions of the conditional. Examples from the living dialects of (1) Calabria Citeriore arefaceru, farei (Castrovillari);tu te la collerre, tu te l’acolleresti (Cosenza);l’aććettéra, l’accetterebbe (Grimaldi); and from those of (2) the Abruzzi,vulér’, vorrei (Castelli);dére, darei (Atessa);candére, canterei. For the dialects of the Abruzzi, we can check our observations by examples from the oldest chronicle of Aquila, asnon habéra lassato, non avrebbe lasciato (str. 180) (cf.negara, Ital. negherei, in old MS. of the Marches). There are some interesting remains (more or less corrupted both in form and usage) of ancient consonantal terminations which have not yet been sufficiently studied:s’ incaricaviti, s’ incaricava, -abat (Basilicata, Senise); ebbiti, ebbe (ib.);avíadi, aveva (Calabria, Grimaldi);arrivaudi, arrivò (ib.). The last example also gives the-auof the 3rd pers. sing. perf. of the first conjugation, which still occurs in Sicily and between the horns of the Neapolitan mainland. In the Abruzzi (and in the Ascolan district) the 3rd person of the plural is in process of disappearing (the-nohaving fallen away and the preceding vowel being obscured), and its function is assumed by the 3rd person singular; cf. C. 1.13The explanation of the Neapolitan formssonghḛ, io sono, essi sono,donghḛ, io do, stonghḛ, io sto, as also of the enclitic of the 2nd person plural which exists,e.g.in the Sicil.avíssivu, Neap.avístevę, aveste, has been correctly given more than once. It may be remarked in conclusion that this Neo-Latin region keeps company with the Rumanian in maintaining in large use the -ora derived from the ancient neuter plurals of the typetempora; Sicil.jócura, giuochi; Calabr.nídura, Abruzz.nídḛre, nidi, Neap.órtola(= -ra), orti, Capitanataácurḛ, aghi, Apulianacéddere(Tarantineacéddiri), uccelli, &c. It is in this region, and more particularly in Capua, that we can trace the first appearance of what can definitely be called Italian, as shown in a Latin legal document of the year 960 (sao co kelle terre per kelle fini qui ki contene trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti, Ital. “so che quelle terre per quei confini che qui contiene trent ’anni le possedette la parte di S. Benedetto”), and belongs more precisely to Capua. The so-calledCarta Rossanese(Calabria), written in a mixture of Latin and vulgar tongue, belongs to the first decades of the 12th century; while a document of Fondi (Campania) in the vulgar tongue goes back to the last decades of the same century. Neapolitan documents do not become abundant till the 14th century. The same is true of the Abruzzi and of Apulia; in the case of the latter the date should perhaps be put even later.
4.Dialects of Umbria, the Marches and the Province of Rome.—The phenomena characteristic of the Gallo-Italian dialects can be traced in the northern Marches in the dialects not only of the provinces of Pesaro and Urbino (Arch. glott.ii. 444), where we note also the constant dropping of the final vowels, strong elisions of accented and unaccented vowels, the suffix -ariubecoming -ér, &c., but also as far as Ancona and beyond. As in Ancona, the double consonants are reduced to single ones; there are strong elisions (breta, Ital. berretta;blin, Ital. bellino;figurte, Ital. “figúrati”;vermne, Ital. verme, “vermine,” &c.); the -k- becomesg; thes,š. At Jesi -t- and -k- becomedandg, and thegis also found at Fabriano, though here it is modified in the Southern fashion (spia=spiga, Ital. spica). Examples are also found of the dropping of -d- primary between vowels: Pesaranráica, Ital. radica; Fabr.peo; Ital. piede, which are noteworthy in that they indicate an isolated Gallo-Italian phenomenon, which is further traceable in Umbria (peacchia= ped-, Ital. orma;ráicaandraíce, Ital. radice;trúbio, Ital. torbido;frácio, Ital. fracido; at Rieti also the dropping of the -d- is normal:veo, Ital. vedo;fiátu, Ital. fidato, &c.; and here too is found the dropping of initialdfor syntactical reasons:ènte, Ital. dente, fromlu[d]ènte). According to some scholars of the Marches, theéforaalso extends as far as Ancona; and it is certainly continued from the north, though it is precisely in the territory of the Marches that Gallo-Italian and Abruzzan come into contact. The southern part of the Marches (the basin of the Tronto), after all, is Abruzzan in character. But the Abruzzan or Southern phenomena in general are widely diffused throughout the whole of the region comprising the Marches, Umbria, Latium and Aquila (for the territory of Aquila, belonging as it does both geographically and politically to the Abruzzi, is also attached linguistically to this group), which with regard to certain phenomena includes also that part of Tuscany lying to the south of the southern Ombrone. Further, the Tuscan dialect strictly so called sends into the Marches a few of its characteristics, and thus at Arcevia we have the pronunciation of -ć- between vowels asš(fórmesce, Ital. forbici),14and Ancona has no changes of tonic vowels determined by the final vowel. Again, Umbria and the Sabine territory, and some parts of the Roman territory, are connected with Tuscany by the phenomenon of -ajofor -ariu(molinajo, Ital. mugnaio, &c.). But, to come to the Abruzzan Southern phenomena, we should note that the Abruzzanllforldextends into the central region (Norcia:callu, caldo; Rome:ariscalla, riscalda; the phenomenon, however, occurs also in Corsica); and the assimilation ofndintonn, and ofmbintommstretches through Umbria, the Marches and Rome, and even crosses from the Roman province into southern Tuscany (Rieti:quanno, quando; Spoleto:comannava, comandava; Assisi:piagnenno, piangendo; Sanseverino Marches:piagnenne, ’mmece, invece (imbece); Fabriano:vennecasse, vendicarsi; Osimo:monno, mondo; Rome:fronna, fronda;piommo, piombo; Pitigliano (Tuscany):quanno,piagnenno). It is curious to note, side by side with this phenomenon, in the same districts, that ofndfornn, which we still find and which was more common in the past (affando, affanno, &c., seeZeitschrift für roman. Philol.xxii. 510). Even the diphthongs of theeand theoin position are largely represented. Examples are—at Norcia,tiempi,uocchi,stuortu; Assisi and Fabriano:tiempo; Orvieto:tiempo,tierra,le tuorte, li torti, and evenduonna. The change of preconsonantallintor, so frequent throughout this region, and particularly characteristic of Rome, is a phenomenon common to the Aquilan dialect. Similar facts might be adduced in abundance. And it is to be noted that the features common to Umbro-Roman and the Neapolitan dialects must have been more numerous in the past, as this was the region where the Tuscan current met the southern, and by reason of its superior culture gradually gained theascendancy.15Typical for the whole district (except the Marches) is the reduction tot(and later toj) oflland oflinitial, when followed byioru(Velletri,tuna,tuce; Sora,juna, Ital. luna,jima, Ital. lima; melica. Ital. mollica,bétḛ, Ital. belli, bello, in vulgar Latinbellu; butbella, bella, &c.). The phonological connexions between the Northern Umbrian, the Aretine, and the Gallo-Italic type have already been indicated (B. 2). In what relates to morphology, the -ornoof the 3rd pers. plur. of the perfect of the first conjugation has been pointed out as an essential peculiarity of the Umbro-Roman territory; but even this it shares with the Aquila vernaculars, which, moreover, extend it to the other conjugations (amórno,timórono, &c.), exactly like the -óof the 3rd person singular. Further, this termination is found also in the Tuscan dialects.
Throughout almost the whole district should be noted the distinction between the masculine and neuter substantive, expressed by means of the article, the distinction being that the neuter substantive has an abstract and indeterminate signification;e.g.at S. Ginesio, in the Marches,lu pesce, butlo pesce, of fish in general, as food, &c.; at Sorate wétre, the sheet of glass, butlḛ wétrḛ, glass, the material, original substance.16As to the inflection of verbs, there is in the ancient texts of the region a notable prevalence of perfect form in the formation of the imperfect conjunctive;tolzesse, Ital. togliesse;sostenesse, Ital. sostenesse;conubbessero, Ital. conoscessero, &c. In the northern Marches, we should note the preposition sa, Ital. con (sa lia, Ital. con lei), going back to a type similar to that of the Ital. “con-esso.”
In a large part of Umbria anmortis prefixed to the sign of the dative:t-a lu, a lui;m-al re, al re;17which must be the remains of the auxiliary prepositionsint(us),a(m)pud, cf. Prov.amb,am(cf.Arch.ii. 444-446). By means of the series of Perugine texts this group of dialects may be traced back with confidence to the 13th century; and to this region should also belong a “Confession,” half Latin half vernacular, dating from about the 11th century, edited and annotated by Flechia (Arch.vii. 121 sqq.). The “chronicle” of Monaldeschi has been already mentioned. The MSS. of the Marches go back to the beginning of the 13th century and perhaps still further back. For Roman (see Monaci,Rendic. dell’ Accad. dei Lincei, xvi. 103 sqq.) there is a short inscription of the 11th century. To the 13th century belongs theLiber historiarum Romanorum(Monaci,Archivio della Società rom. di storia patria, xii.; and also,Rendic. dei Lincei, i. 94 sqq.), and to the first half of the same century theFormole volgariof Raineri da Perugia (Monaci,ib., xiv. 268 sqq.). There are more abundant texts for all parts of this district in the 14th century, to which also belongs theCronica Aquilanaof Buccio di Ranallo, republished by De Bartholomaeis (Rome, 1907).
D.Tuscan, and the Literary Language of the Italians.
We have now only to deal with the Tuscan territory. It is bounded on the W. by the sea. To the north it terminates with the Apennines; for Romagna Toscana, the strip of country on the Adriatic versant which belongs to it administratively, is assigned to Emilia as regards dialect. In the north-west also the Emilian presses on the Tuscan, extending as it does down the Mediterranean slope of the Apennines in Lunigiana and Garfagnana. Intrusions which may be called Emilian have also been noted to the west of the Apennines in the district where the Arno and the Tiber take their rise (Aretine dialects); and it has been seen how thence to the sea the Umbrian and Roman dialects surround the Tuscan. Such are the narrow limits of the “promised land” of the language which has succeeded and was worthy to succeed Latin in the history of Italian culture and civilization,—the land which comprises Florence, Siena, Lucca and Pisa. The Tuscan type may be best described by the negative method. There do not exist in it, on the one hand, any of those phenomena by which the other dialectal types of Italy mainly differ from the Latin base (such asü=ṹ; frequent elision of unaccented vowels;ba = gua;š = fl;nn = nd, &c.), nor, on the other hand, is there any series of alterations of the Latin base peculiar to the Tuscan. This twofold negative description may further serve for the Tuscan or literary Italian as contrasted with all the other Neo-Latin languages; indeed, even where the Tuscan has a tendency to alterations common to other types of the family, it shows itself more sober and self-denying—as may be seen in the reduction of thetbetween vowels intodor ofc(k) between vowels intog, which in Italian affects only a small part of the lexical series, while in Provençal or Spanish it may be said to pervade the whole (e.g.Prov. and Span.mudar, Ital.mutare; Prov.segur, Span.seguro, Ital.sicuro). It may consequently be affirmed without any partiality that, in respect to historical nobility, the Italian not only holds the first rank among Neo-Latin languages, but almost constitutes an intermediate grade between the ancient or Latin and the modern or Romance. What has just been said about the Tuscan, as compared with the other dialectal types of Italy, does not, however, preclude the fact that in the various Tuscan veins, and especially in the plebeian forms of speech, there occur particular instances of phonetic decay; but these must of necessity be ignored in so brief a sketch as the present. We shall confine ourselves to noting—what has a wide territorial diffusion—the reduction ofc(k) between vowels to a mere breathing (e.g.fŭóho, fuoco, butporco), or even its complete elision; the same phenomenon occurs also between word and word (e.g.la hasa, butin casa), thus illustrating anew that syntactic class of phonetic alterations, either qualitative or quantitative, conspicuous in this region, also, which has been already discussed for insular and southern Italy (B. 2; C. 2, 3), and could be exemplified for the Roman region as well (C. 4). As regards one or two individual phenomena, it must also be confessed that the Tuscan or literary Italian is not so well preserved as some other Neo-Latin tongues. Thus, French always keeps in the beginning of words the Latin formulaecl,pl,fl(clef,plaisir,fleur, in contrast with the Italianchiave,piacere,fiore); but the Italian makes up for this by the greater vigour with which it is wont to resolve the same formula within the words, and by the greater symmetry thus produced between the two series (in opposition to the Frenchclef, clave, we have, for example, the Frenchœil, oclo; whereas, in the Italian,chiaveandocchiocorrespond to each other). The Italian as well as the Rumanian has lost the ancient sibilant at the end (-sof the plurals, of the nominative singular, of the 2nd persons, &c.), which throughout the rest of the Romance area has been preserved more or less tenaciously; and consequently it stands lower than old Provençal and old French, as far as true declension or, more precisely, the functional distinction between the forms of thecasus rectusand thecasus obliquusis concerned. But even in this respect the superiority of French and Provençal has proved merely transitory, and in their modern condition all the Neo-Latin forms of speech are generally surpassed by Italian even as regards the pure grammatical consistency of the noun. In conjugation Tuscan has lost that tense which for the sake of brevity we shall continue to call the pluperfect indicative; though it still survives outside of Italy and in other dialectal types of Italy itself (C. 3b; cf. B. 2). It has also lost thefuturum exactum, or perfect subjunctive, which is found in Spanish and Rumanian. But no one would on that account maintain that the Italian conjugation is less truly Latin than the Spanish, the Rumanian, or that of any other Neo-Latin language. It is, on the contrary, by far the most distinctively Latin as regards the tradition both of form and function, although many effects of the principle of analogy are to be observed, sometimes common to Italian with the other Neo-Latin languages and sometimes peculiar to itself.
Those who find it hard to believe in the ethnological explanationof linguistic varieties ought to be convinced by any example so clear as that which Italy presents in the difference between the Tuscan or purely Italian type on the one side and the Gallo-Italic on the other. The names in this instance correspond exactly to the facts of the case. For the Gallo-Italic on either side of the Alps is evidently nothing else than a modification—varying in degree, but always very great—of the vulgar Latin, due to the reaction of the language or rather the oral tendencies of the Celts who succumbed to the Roman civilization. In other words, the case is one of new ethnic individualities arising from the fusion of two national entities, one of which, numerically more or less weak, is so far victorious that its speech is adopted, while the other succeeds in adapting that speech to its own habits of utterance. Genuine Italian, on the other hand, is not the result of the combination or conflict of the vulgar Latin with other tongues, but is the pure development of this alone. In other words, the case is that of an ancient national fusion in which vulgar Latin itself originated. Here that is native which in the other case was intrusive. This greater purity of constitution gives the language a persistency which approaches permanent stability. There is no Old Italian to oppose to Modern Italian in the same sense as we have an Old French to oppose to a Modern French. It is true that in the old French writers, and even in the writers who used the dialects of Upper Italy, there was a tendency to bring back the popular forms to their ancient dignity; and it is true also that the Tuscan or literary Italian has suffered from the changes of centuries; but nevertheless it remains undoubted that in the former cases we have to deal with general transformations between old and new, while in the latter it is evident that the language of Dante continues to be the Italian of modern speech and literature. This character of invariability has thus been in direct proportion to the purity of its Latin origin, while, on the contrary, where popular Latin has been adopted by peoples of foreign speech, the elaboration which it has undergone along the lines of their oral tendencies becomes always the greater the farther we get away from the point at which the Latin reached them,—in proportion, that is, to the time and space through which it has been transmitted in these foreign mouths.18
As for the primitive seat of the literary language of Italy, not only must it be regarded as confined within the limits of that narrower Tuscany already described; strictly speaking, it must be identified with the city of Florence alone. Leaving out of account, therefore, a small number of words borrowed from other Italian dialects, as a certain number have naturally been borrowed from foreign tongues, it may be said that all that was not Tuscan was eliminated from the literary form of speech. If we go back to the time of Dante, we find, throughout almost all the dialects of the mainland with the exception of Tuscan, the change of vowels between singular and plural seen inpaese,paisi;quello,quilli;amore,amuri(see B. 1; C. 3b); but the literary language knows nothing at all of such a phenomenon, because it was unknown to the Tuscan region. But in Tuscan itself there were differences between Florentine and non-Florentine; in Florentine,e.g.it was and is usual to sayunto,giunto,punto, while the non-Florentine had itonto,gionto,ponto, (Lat.unctu, &c.); at Florence they saypiazza,meźźo, while elsewhere (at Lucca, Pisa) they say or used to say,piassa,meśśo. Now, it is precisely the Florentine forms which alone have currency in the literary language.
In the ancient compositions in the vulgar tongue, especially in poetry, non-Tuscan authors on the one hand accommodated their own dialect to the analogy of that which they felt to be the purest representative of the language of ancient Roman culture, while the Tuscan authors in their turn did not refuse to adopt the forms which had received the rights of citizenship from the literary celebrities of other parts of Italy. It was this state of matters which gave rise in past times to the numerous disputes about the true fatherland and origin of the literary language of the Italians. But these have been deprived of all right to exist by the scientific investigation of the history of that language. If the older Italian poetry assumed or maintained forms alien to Tuscan speech, these forms were afterwards gradually eliminated, and the field was left to those which were purely Tuscan and indeed purely Florentine. And thus it remains absolutely true that, so far as phonetics, morphology, rudimental syntax, and in short the whole character and material of words and sentences are concerned, there is no literary language of Europe that is more thoroughly characterized by homogeneity and oneness, as if it had come forth in a single cast from the furnace, than the Italian.
But on the other hand it remains equally true that, so far as concerns a living confidence and uniformity in the use and style of the literary language—that is, of this Tuscan or Florentine material called to nourish the civilization and culture of all the Italians—the case is not a little altered, and the Italian nation appears to enjoy less fortunate conditions than other nations of Europe. Modern Italy had no glowing centre for the life of the whole nation into which and out of which the collective thought and language could be poured in ceaseless current for all and by all. Florence has not been Paris. Territorial contiguity and the little difference of the local dialect facilitated in the modern Rome the elevation of the language of conversation to a level with the literary language that came from Tuscany. A form of speech was thus produced which, though certainly destitute of the grace and the abundant flexibility of the Florentine, gives a good idea of what the dialect of a city becomes when it makes itself the language of a nation that is ripening its civilization in many and dissimilar centres. In such a case the dialect loses its slang and petty localisms, and at the same time also somewhat of its freshness; but it learns to express with more conscious sobriety and with more assured dignity the thought and the feeling of the various peoples which are fused in one national life. But what took place readily in Rome could not with equal ease happen in districts whose dialects were far removed from the Tuscan. In Piedmont, for example, or in Lombardy, the language of conversation did not correspond with the language of books, and the latter accordingly became artificial and laboured. Poetry was least affected by these unfortunate conditions; for poetry may work well with a multiform language, where the need and the stimulus of the author’s individuality assert themselves more strongly. But prose suffered immensely, and the Italians had good cause to envy the spontaneity and confidence of foreign literatures—of the French more particularly. In this reasonable envy lay the justification and the strength of the Manzoni school, which aimed at that absolute naturalness of the literary language, that absolute identity between the language of conversation and that of books, which the bulk of the Italians could reach and maintain only by naturalizing themselves in the living speech of modern Florence. The revolt of Manzoni against artificiality and mannerism in language and style was worthy of his genius, and has been largely fruitful. But the historical difference between the case of France (with the colloquial language of Paris) and that of Italy (with the colloquial language of Florence) implies more than one difficulty of principle; in the latter case there is sought to be produced by deliberate effort of theliteratiwhat in the former has been and remains the necessary and spontaneous product of the entire civilization. Manzoni’s theories too easily lent themselves to deplorable exaggerations; men fell into a new artificiality, a manner of writing which might be called vulgar and almost slangy. The remedy for this must lie in the regulating power of the labour of the now regenerate Italian intellect,—a labour ever growing wider in its scope, more assiduous and more thoroughly united.
The most ancient document in the Tuscan dialect is a very short fragment of a jongleur’s song (12th century; see Monaci,Crestomazia, 9-10). After that there is nothing till the 13th century. P. Santini has published the important and fairlynumerous fragments of a book of notes of some Florentine bankers, of the year 1211. About the middle of the century, our attention is arrested by theMemorialiof the Sienese Matasala di Spinello. To 1278 belongs the MS. in which is preserved the Pistojan version of theTrattati moraliof Albertano, which we owe to Sofredi del Grathia. The RiccardianTristano, published and annotated by E. G. Parodi, seems to belong to the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries. For other 13th-century writings see Monaci,op. cit.31-32, 40, and Parodi,Giornale storico della letteratura italiana, x. 178-179. For the question concerning language, see Ascoli,Arch. glott.i. v. et seq.; D’ Ovidio,Le Correzioni ai Promessi Sposi e la questione della lingua, 4th ed. Naples, 1895.