Manuel Sedlaczek

“The Origin and Development of the Lingua Franca”

A historical linguistic study

DIPLOMARBEIT

zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

Magister der Philosophie

Studium: Anglistik und Amerikanistik

Universität Klagenfurt

Fakultät für Kulturwissenschaften

Begutachter/in: O. Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Allan Richard James

Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik

November 2010

i Declaration of honour

For Master’s Theses, Diploma Theses and Dissertations

I hereby confirm on my honour that I personally prepared the present academic work and carried out myself the activities directly involved with it. I also confirm that I have used no resources other than those declared. All formulations and concepts adopted literally or in their essential content from printed, unprinted or Internet sources have been cited according to the rules for academic work and identified by means of footnotes or other precise indications of source.

The support provided during the work, including significant assistance from my supervisor has been indicated in full.

The academic work has not been submitted to any other examination authority. The work is submitted in printed and electronic form. I confirm that the content of the digital version is completely identical to that of the printed version.

I am aware that a false declaration will have legal consequences.

(Signature) (Place, date)

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 THE STUDY OF THE LINGUA FRANCA ...... 1 1.2 HISTORICAL LINGUISTICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY ...... 4 1.3 THE CREATING OF HISTORY ...... 5 1.4 THE RE -INTEGRATION OF HISTORY ...... 8 1.5 THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY ...... 10 CHAPTER 2: PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE LINGUA FRANCA ...... 13 2.1 THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY ...... 14 2.2 ATTEMPTS AT SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF HISTORICITY ...... 16 CHAPTER 3: THE LINGUA FRANCA IN THE 19 TH CENTURY ...... 20 3.1 FRENCH AS A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF THE LINGUA FRANCA ...... 21 3.2 SABIR IS NOT THE LINGUA FRANCA ...... 25 3.3 THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY ...... 26 CHAPTER 4: THE LINGUA FRANCA IN THE 16 TH CENTURY ...... 28 4.1 DOCUMENTATION OF THE 16 TH CENTURY LINGUA FRANCA ...... 29 4.2 THE UNITY OF THE LINGUA FRANCA ...... 30 4.3 THE SITUATION OF THE LINGUA FRANCA IN THE 16 TH CENTURY ...... 31 4.4 THE LINGUISTIC SITUATION OF THE LINGUA FRANCA IN 16 TH CENTURY ...... 36 4.4.1 The linguistic stability of the Lingua Franca ...... 39 4.5 THE HISPANICIZED VARIETY ...... 41 4.6 THE ITALIANIZED VARIETY ...... 48 4.6.1 The importance of Italy ...... 50 4.6.2 The Italian colonies ...... 52 4.6.3 The importance of Italians ...... 57 4.6.4 The importance of Italian ...... 60 4.6.5 The establishment of the importance of Italian ...... 65 4.6.6 The slow advance ...... 74 4.6.7 The influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca ...... 77 CHAPTER 5: THE ORIGINS OF THE LINGUA FRANCA ...... 80 5.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF CHANCERY ...... 82 5.1.1 The similarities of chancery and the Lingua Franca ...... 91 5.1.2 Differences between chancery and the Lingua Franca ...... 92 5.2 THE CONNECTION OF CHANCERY LANGUAGE AND THE LINGUA FRANCA ... 94 5.2.1 The date of origin ...... 96 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ...... 103

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 106

iii Chapter 1: Introduction

The study of Pidgins and Creoles offers a great variety of different topics and issues in the field of linguistics. One of such issues is the designated term “lingua franca” which was defined by Schuchardt and basically describes “any widely-spread commercial argot” (Markey, 1979: 32). A lingua franca, therefore, is a language that is known and spoken by a considerable number of people for communication purposes only and therefore is not necessarily spoken with a native-speaker competence. One may think of English as a current lingua franca, as English is widespread in the world and has also become a means of communication for people with different mother tongues. Many people whose mother tongue is different use English as a lingua franca to communicate with people of other nationalities and therefore other linguistic backgrounds. Fascinating as it is, the spoken form of English used as a lingua franca by these people may or may not be similar to the distinctive Pidgin and Creole structure itself. However, the term “lingua franca” derives from a very old Mediterranean language, which was indeed called the Lingua Franca. The Lingua Franca was a commercial or trading language used especially at sea and in the ports of the Mediterranean basin. The Lingua Franca is also said to be the genesis of Pidgins and Creoles itself. Some theories suggest that the Lingua Franca is the Ur-Pidgin of which all Pidgins and Creoles derive. Ur- Pidgin or not, the Lingua Franca is an essential issue in the study of Pidgins and Creoles and many theories about the role of the Lingua Franca for Pidgins and Creoles have evolved. In any case, the Lingua Franca deserves closer attention and should also be studied seriously by anyone focusing on the analysis of Pidgins and Creoles themselves, whether English-lexified or other language-lexified.

1.1 The study of the Lingua Franca

The study of the Lingua Franca is not a new one. Schuchardt (1909) was the first to seriously study the Lingua Franca but there is still a lot to be discovered. One of such aspects is the question about the origin of the Lingua Franca. Many scholars have made different approaches to this question and have come up with numerous theses. However, not much agreement has been reached concerning the origin of the Lingua Franca. There unquestionably remains the problem of the genesis of the Lingua Franca. It is not

1 clear yet how or when the Lingua Franca came into existence and through what conditions and under what circumstances it was created. Many questions remain unanswered. Many opinions how to answer the question raised above have asked “how light could be thrown on the whole issue” (Le Page, 1961: 126). One suggestion was that detailed work needs to be done which should be “descriptive and historical” and “every effort should be made to” cover not only the language itself “but also the history and structure of the society” and also its development through historical and comparative linguistics (Le Page, 1961: 126ff). Because of this state of affairs, further research needs to be carried out and history should be looked at more carefully. A lot has been done about uncovering history in the 19 th century, however, there are a few things one should be aware of. Historical writing, or to be more precise, writing about the discoveries of the 15 th century, which will be one important aspect of this paper, started only in the middle of the 19 th century and as a consequence inhibited the approaches of the 19 th century. Everything not European was excluded and history was seen exclusively from the European point of view. This “European-centredness” (Chaunu, 1979: 206) had the effect that other countries were only considered after Europe had discovered them. “Europe was the only place which counted” (Chaunu, 1979: 206), and everything outside of Europe was simply ignored. This “European-centredness” (Chaunu, 1979: 206) will be avoided here and history will be looked at as a whole. The approach will be to give a complete picture of the events and circumstances of the 15 th century and even the time before that back to the 15 th century BCE to avoid the impression of a “disjointed history” (Chaunu, 1979: 210).

It was only from the middle of the 20 th century that reconstructing history has become a major aspect when “the need to be able to move about easily in time” (Chaunu, 1979: 204) emerged. Until then history had basically been rejected and it was in 1971 when Edwin Ardener, an anthropologist, complained about this ´lack of history´ (1971: 209- 241) in linguistics, especially in historical linguistics. In my opinion, however, his claim is true until today. It was, of course, not only E. Ardener who complained about the lack of history in recent studies. According to J. Arends (2002), who made a similar claim twenty-five years later, “very little historical linguistic work has been done” (2002: 50) in linguistic studies. Arends states that recent studies are rather “sketchy” and only in very few fields has historical work “become more detailed and precise” (2002: 54). Most scholars, with a few exceptions according to Arends, have simply neglected

2 historical aspects even though in most cases the historical evidence is available. Therefore Arends demands “an historically realistic theory of creole formation” (2002: 56). This theory, according to Arends, should “be in agreement with the historical facts” (2002: 56). Arends also mentions that historical evidence should play an essential role in the “evaluation of theories based on purely linguistic considerations” (2002: 56). The largely neglected history in current theories is due to the erroneous belief that the evolution and development of a language is (“paradoxically”) regarded “as an ´a- temporal´ process” (Arends, 2002: 58) where time seems to be irrelevant and therefore completely ignored. Arends states that it is not only “unwarranted to maintain this kind of ahistoricism” but also “hardly defensible at any time” (2002: 58). His final statement is that “historical correctness is not a frequently found feature” (2002: 56). Another scholar who asks for more historicity is J.E. Wansbrough (1996), who states that linguistic models are still far too theoretical as they are “methodologically useful but historically exiguous” (1996: 148). Wansbrough also states that the theoretical construct of historical linguistics, the comparative method, has been in use “since this has never proved especially difficult” but it only serves “to provide regularity with a diachronic dimension” (1996: 156). So it may only give (predetermined) answers to predetermined questions meanwhile the main theory still remains speculative as this kind of “reconstruction can never be other than conjectural” (Wansbrough, 1996: 156). He therefore calls for the “historical reconstruction of contact” (Wansbrough, 1996: 151) as this can eliminate the speculative factor to a certain extent and unlikely possibilities can be ruled out. Others who suggest an approach dealing a lot more with history are e.g. Robert Le Page (1961) who claims that linguistic work should be both “descriptive and historical” as mentioned above and should cover the “history and structure of the society in which it is spoken” (1961: 127). A substantial history of the origin and development of the Lingua Franca is lacking, and if it is dealt with at all in literature, it is only considered briefly. Because of this “lack of history” in approaches of the problem the starting point of this survey will be the classical anthropological approach.

3 1.2 Historical linguistics and anthropology

At this point, it should be clarified why anthropology is going to be used in this study. Anthropology has developed out of many sciences but one of the major elements is natural history. Natural history is the very basis of anthropology and, at its core, is a science of observation which has greatly influenced anthropology. The method of anthropology is used because of its strong observational character and because a language and its development in time is observed. However, an anthropological approach does consist of many other sciences such as history, linguistics, sociology and others as well. Furthermore, as anthropology developed out of many sciences it has also developed into numerous sciences including sociolinguistics and historical linguistics. These sciences may be seen as a combination of anthropology and linguistics. The impact of linguistics on anthropology shows that both share common interests just “as in linguistics and in social sciences the role of language is assumed and asserted” (Dell Hymes, 1971: 49). Anthropological studies share a close connection as a science and can easily be combined with each other. Related subgroups of anthropology like sociolinguistics and historical linguistics have a lot in common and could easily be combined as well. However, there does not seem to be a cooperation of sociolinguistics and historical linguistics “although there is a great need for that” (Hymes, 1971: 50). A cooperation of sociolinguistics and historical linguistics would lead us to insightful conclusions, because sociolinguistics is the study of language in culture and society and there can be no separation between language and society, and historical linguistics is concerned with the origins of a language. The conclusion is that a connection between sociolinguistics and historical linguistics is desirable, because language is not separable from society. The historical linguistic approach is important to gain insights into a (past) society as it considers changes in society which, as a result, also explain changes in language. Ironically, neither natural history nor anthropology nor its subgroups take history itself into consideration even though anthropology developed in part from the science of history. This trend has continued even when anthropology developed into several other subgroups including historical linguistics. History, or to be more precise, the Classical study of History, is missing in anthropology, sociolinguistics and even in historical linguistics.

4 This paradox can be ascribed to the anthropology of the 19 th century. The concept of “history”, as well as “historicity” has been rejected by many anthropologists and consequently by historical linguists and sociolinguists because of a misunderstanding. This misunderstanding which was meant to reject models that offered fake historicity actually caused the rejection of history itself. The models that were created out of this misunderstanding rather “created” history than actually reconstructed history. The most prominent model, the Neogrammarian model, failed to predict history and instead created ´a “possible” past but not a “real” past´ (Ardener, 1971: 211). Linguists, then, turned their back on history as well because it could not offer them anything, so the argument went as a consequence of the lack of competent models. There was indeed a problem with history(icity). Many models in linguistics, especially the Neogrammarian model, were not models of history, as they do not offer history but generate it from forms that were not previously attested. They were a kind of guess, historically speaking, a theory of history without attested facts about history. Therefore, “the Neogrammarian model generates more ´history´ than it puts in” (Ardener, 1971: 215). It produced history and therefore failed history. Historical linguists were, of course, not satisfied with only a guess about history i.e. that there was no real history that could be deduced from this model. Historical linguistic models were also based on the method of reconstructing history, unfortunately this as well was rather a method of construction and did not in itself reveal history. A historical explanation, the most obvious solution, however, was not sought. This, however, will be the main intention of this paper, i.e. to give a historical explanation of the origin and developments of the Lingua Franca.

1.3 The creating of history

Many linguistic models offer a historical interpretation and are essentially ´neutral in regard to history´ (Ardener, 1971: 225). E. Ardener (1971) claims that history was rather created than reconstructed. His most essential point is that history “cannot surely be (re)constructed without the historical records” (1971: 225). If we have the historical records, or at least know what has happened in the course of history, we discover that without any historical records we are “replicating” history and the conclusions that we draw about history, in the absence of historical documents, could be the wrong

5 conclusions or, in other words, could not have happened at all. This is the problem of reconstructing history.

Now, we should not totally reject historical linguistics studies as they still offer valuable insights about the past. We must only be aware that many models of historical linguistics, especially the Neogrammarian model and as a consequence the comparative method, are generative. They do not, however, generate real history and there can be no “winning outright in the attempt to generate ´the past´” (Ardener, 1971: 229). History can not be generated, the past can only be uncovered by “chronologically marked documentation” (Ardener, 1971: 231) and also by historical evidence. We need to bear in mind that “the innovations in a language need not bear any resemblance to what happened historically” (Ardener, 1971: 232). It is a wrong belief that history can be reconstructed from a model alone so we should not “confuse a model with reality” (Ardener, 1971: 236). All of the above does not mean that historical linguistics and the comparative method it incorporates is invalid. Not everything about this model should be rejected and, more importantly, “what is true of one model of history” (Ardener, 1971: 231) is not necessarily true for another model, it just means that we have to consider this problem of history when we are using such a model i.e. the comparative method. Hall (1966) also states that not everything about the Neogrammarian model has to be rejected. He claims that its parameters have been “poorly stated” (1966: 114) and that scholars who rejected or criticised this method have done so for the wrong reasons, just as history has been rejected for the wrong reasons. However, the Neogrammarian model has been modified ever since.

The most basic proposition of the Neogrammarian model is that sound change is regular as long as it is not disturbed by other factors. The comparative method, which is the reconstruction of the ancestral forms of related families of a language, is based upon the principle of sound change and by this principle “it was possible to bring order out of chaos in the history of language and to trace the development of linguistic structures and their change through time from a common source” (Hall, 1966: 114). This is now a standard and also a valid practice in historical linguistics. Languages are considered genetically related if they ´show similarities in morphological and syntactical structures and basic vocabulary´ (Hall, 1966: 114-5). If this is the case

6 we can assume that these languages “must have come from a common source” (Hall, 1966: 114-5). Vocabulary alone is said to be the least reliable source as words can be borrowed very easily. Languages are then related if all of these factors can be found in two or more languages. However, without historical sources we can not be absolutely sure. Linguistics has done a lot to help to understand how languages work, how they are related but as we have seen, historical data have been left out even though it is indispensable. Of course this is also valid the other way around. History alone can not explain all the details about language as only linguistics is able to uncover the details that show patterns and other structural changes. Even though there will be a major attempt to uncover history, linguistics will still be present and will explain those things that history can not. Linguistics is essential just as history, we should not forget this. Hall (1966) phrases this controversy very well as “it is general wise to be cautious in assuming the effect of a substratum on the history of language, unless we have specific and detailed evidence to render such an assumption likely” (1966: 113). Hall tells us to be careful of assuming anything without any historical proof and states that history can be an indicator of language relation. However, it is still linguistics that can show what effects a substratum language has had.

As Alleyne (1988) has mentioned, unrelated languages might share the same structures and without any historical evidence we might draw wrong conclusions. Hall (1966) further expands on this issue and mentions another example. Many American Indian languages have, very similar to English, a type of word formation like the English “compound” words. In many American Indian languages (verb-)compounds are possible, equal to English (noun-) compounds. In each language several hundreds of such “compounds” exist. “On the basis of this situation” (1966: 113) a linguist, Hall argues, could, several decades later, be misled to believe that there was a substratum influence of Amerindian in English. This, in a simplified manner is Hall’s argument (1966: 113). Such an assumption would be far from the truth. However, if this linguist does not consider history, he might come to such a (wrong) conclusion. Hall’s point is that the only way to know for sure is by resorting to history and to examine the historical possibility and, if possible, also confirm the historical plausibility of an event or development. After all, one could easily be led to the wrong conclusions about the origin and development of a language especially “in the absence of history” (Hall, 1966: 115). If we have historical data we can be quite sure, in other instances where historical

7 data is lacking, we are not able to make “a clear-cut decision” (Hall, 1966: 123). This is the so-called “problem of historicity”. Our argument so far is that to be certain about the origin and development of the Lingua Franca we need to know history itself. The problem about the Lingua Franca is that we do not know much of its previous history. Before we can jump to any conclusions about possible connections between historical events and the Lingua Franca we need to reconstruct history, i.e. with the help of historical documents. Many scholars have proposed the idea that there might be a connection between the Lingua Franca, a Portuguese Pidgin and Pidgins and Creoles like Todd, Whinnom and Thompson. None of them, unfortunately, have made the attempt to show a clear historical connection or tried to unfold history. As a consequence, this theory still remains a possibility, a likely idea, a speculation. My argument here is that if we uncover and reconstruct history and its details we might just be able to know more and can uncover the origin of the Lingua Franca itself. This constitutes the present undertaking, to show history and come to a conclusion.

1.4 The re-integration of history

A linguistic study, which alone would be very interesting, might not be enough, therefore we need history. It is history that allows us to be sure if the linguistic conclusions that have been reached so far are actually correct and if the connections that have been assumed so far are historically possible. This is why we start with a historical survey of the Lingua Franca. We will also have a sociohistorical description of the Lingua Franca, how it developed, what it was (a trade language of commerce and chancery) and how much importance and impact it had on Mediterranean trade. The aim of this paper is to give a detailed historical description of the events that led to the creation of the Lingua Franca, which will be accomplished by a historical survey of the different developments of the Lingua Franca in the course of history including a historical description of the social circumstances. Thus the field of this paper will be that of historical linguistics with a sociohistorical aspect.

As we are using historical linguistics we need to have a closer look at the actual study of historical linguistics. Jan Voorhoeve (1961) treats the problem of historical linguistics extensively. For him historical linguistic studies can be divided into “internal and

8 external linguistic history” (1961: 99). External linguistic history, for him, is the circumstances in which a language came into being. Internal linguistic history is how such a language developed including the process of creolisation which he claims is not taken into consideration very often for the lack of reliable records (1961: 99). Here again we see the problem of historicity. However, here we will take into account both, the so called internal linguistic history, which in our case will be the starting point of our short survey and also the external linguistic history, as we will observe the events that led to the creation of the Lingua Franca through time. However, there is once more the problem of the few reliable sources, the problem of historicity. As we can guess, we encounter the problem of historicity the further we go back in time. Recent history is quite well documented. However, a few hundred years back, for the linguistic aspect at least, sources that are revealing are rare or hardly available. They, however, do exist, a fact that has often been neglected.

First, however, the question why history should be studied should be answered as well. Many have questioned the significance of history. However, Alleyne (1988) perfectly describes the need for a historical study. He states that there is a huge argument against the study of history and historical origins. The argument, which is used, is that history is “not only difficult to ascertain” (1988: 2), but it is also uninteresting as it says nothing about the language and its society in its given cultural framework as there are forms that are similar but not necessarily related with each other. History in itself does not explain anything so, the argument concludes, it is rather useful “to look at how a term functions” within its environment and explain its existence in terms of that environment (1988: 2). As we have heard before, this is the main argument against the study of history and it could not be further from the truth. History is an essential part of a culture, and of course, of language itself. History and language are intertwined with each other and can not be separated that easily. Completely ignoring history and trying to recreate it by some abstract linguistic formula (alone) does not lead us anywhere. History is not at all irrelevant and no theory or model should ignore this fact. What has been claimed to be “history” is often little more than speculation. We must keep in mind that ´history is a huge part of the present and to know and understand the present, history is necessary´ (Alleyne, 1988: 3). To be able to understand what has happened and how things were back then can give us valuable insights into linguistic developments as well. We need to

9 uncover the past to be quite certain what “evolutionary processes” (Alleyne, 1988: 3) were involved and what factors determined the development of the Lingua Franca. Also to be sure about the present we need a detailed account of history. It is essential to ask where a culture or cultural traits come from and to be able to answer such questions we need history. In order to understand, in our case the Lingua Franca, we must study how it originated and its linguistic traits and features. We must study how it works, its social settings, its own mechanisms and its development from the past, as far as we know it, to the present. Only then will we be able to draw insightful conclusions. This, of course, has hardly happened in the past. Very few people, lacking the means or the competence as some claim, have attempted such an approach, so very little is know today. This paper is, of course, only an attempt. However, I will try to prove that we can learn a lot from history in linguistic studies. We must study history, specifically what forms survived and what conclusions can be drawn from them. The historical perspective, which is the main aim here, is a perspective of continuity and chronological development, so the main focus will be on documentation and mainly written sources. It is important to say at this point that documents are indispensable for this kind of approach. History tells us where to look and, most importantly, language is always worthy of historical study.

1.5 The importance of history

We should now look at an example why history is important. Keith Whinnom (1956, 1968, 1977, 1984) has suggested that Portuguese Pidgin might derive from Sabir, a supposed version of the Lingua Franca of the Mediterranean. This idea then has been proposed by Thompson (1961) who said “what could be more exciting that we should prove that this Grammar was a development of that of a Mediterranean lingua franca ” (1961: 113). At this point we must state that Whinnom, for his part, has rather merely suggested this, as he has not fully proven his theory. He has written articles about the Lingua Franca which, unfortunately, are rather short and many questions remain, presumably because of the absence of reliable documents. Many other scholars have then taken over this idea, but they as well have not proven it. Sabir and the connection to Portuguese Pidgin is mentioned often, but only mentioned. If this idea is mentioned it is not further developed or reference is made to statements of other people like

10 Whinnom (1965, 1971, 1984) or Thompson (1961). The only statement that is repeated over and over again is that Portuguese Pidgin might derive from Sabir. At this point history comes in. If we take only a very short look into history we can easily prove that Portuguese Pidgin did not derive from Sabir. Portuguese Pidgin developed during the age of discovery through the import of slaves into Portugal and then later developed further in the colonies which we can date as the fifteenth or early sixteenth century. Sabir, however, is a different story altogether. This Pidgin developed in the mid nineteenth century when the French established colonies in Algiers. We further know from history that France did not establish colonies before Portugal. In fact, the French followed the Portuguese a full hundred years later. Hall (1966) explains this very well, that the Pidgin called Sabir could be found along the northern African coast. This Pidgin, however, was a French Pidgin as its form betrays its Southern French origin. The word /sab ir/ as is “shown by the vowel i is corresponding to the close e of other Romance languages” (1966: 6). The Portuguese Pidgin word would be /sábi/ or /sábe/, the Lingua Franca word is /sab ir/ but came into existence several hundred years earlier. This word derived ultimately from “the Romance word /sapé^re/ “to know” “(1966: 100). Sabir was a North African French Pidgin that “was formed through contact of speakers of French” and “speakers of several different African languages” (1966: 25). African slaves “had deliberately been mixed together on slave ships, slave markets” and later on the plantations (1966: 25). History does not allow this kind of conclusion as Sabir, a French Pidgin, developed almost four centuries later than Portuguese Pidgin. Also, according to Hall (1966), there were no traces of Sabir in that Portuguese Pidgin. These two Pidgins have rather similar forms which could be an indicator that both derived from the Lingua Franca. However, history tells us that Portuguese Pidgin can not have derived from Sabir, so the similarities must have another cause. In fact, Sabir took over the complete Lingua Franca vocabulary, but then, in the mid 19 th century, slowly but entirely replaced the Lingua Franca vocabulary with French vocabulary. Such minor details play a very important part, as they help us find the correct conclusion.

Finally, it has been hopefully shown in detail why history is such an essential part not only of this paper but also of historical and sociolinguistics in general and that the aim of this paper is to draw insightful conclusions from history and use them for linguistic study. With the help of history the major question of the origin and development of the

11 Lingua Franca will be attempted to be answered. It is the question about the origin and development of the Lingua Franca. The sources for the sociohistorical aspect will be based on the work of J. E. Wansbrough, C. Folty and G. Lang who have dealt in detail with the sociohistorical settings of the Lingua Franca. However, there will be reference to the work of others as well such as Elizabeth Tonkin and Rachael Selbach. The reason for the high proportions of historical content is that too many assumptions about a possible past have been made so the attempt will be made to look at what has really happened through historical records and other documents including the external and internal linguistic history. Stating the plausibility of a theory, as many scholars have done, is not enough, as a theory can not be proven or disproven by simply rejecting something or looking the other way, saying that it is unlikely or absurd. A detailed look is necessary, so instead of simply producing a possible past, history will be looked at as it is necessary to look at what really happened. Then, and only then, can a conclusion be drawn, because otherwise no absolute certainty can be reached. History is an essential part of the present and even though the records are sparse they do exist. It is always the question what can be learned from these sources. Rejecting history would be counter- productive as many details would be overlooked and wrong conclusions could be reached. History alone can give clues where to look and what is possible or not. As Wiener has stated when he pointed out the importance of historical study “there is much we must leave, if we like it or not, to the un-´scientific´, narrative method of the professional historian” (Wiener 1948, 1961 edn.: 163-164).

12 Chapter 2: Problems concerning the Lingua Franca

The Lingua Franca is quite an old language that has existed for at least a millennium. Very little is known about the origins and development of the Lingua Franca and therefore a lot of opinions concerning the origin of the Lingua Franca exist. One opinion is that “the Lingua Franca originated at the time of the Crusades (A.D. 1095ff.) on the Jerusalem battlefields” (Hancock, 1977: 283). Through there the Lingua Franca continuously spread westward “along the shores of the Mediterranean” (Hancock, 1977: 283) through military and merchant activity as well as piracy and slavery later on in the 16 th century. The Lingua Franca could easily have been used as a medium of communication between not only Christians and Muslims but also between Christians of different linguistic background. However, there are other opinions that state that the Lingua Franca developed even earlier than that and could have its beginnings a thousand years before the Crusades (Hancock, 1977: 283). This theory seems quite possible if the history of the Mediterranean is considered. Since the third millennium BCE (Wansbrough, 1996) contact between cultures of the Mediterranean had been established and communication was assured through chancery and trade. Contact was common practice, so the Lingua Franca could have developed earlier than the Crusades. The Crusades, however, might have played an essential role, as the Lingua Franca might have “crystallized” (taken shape) through the Crusades and had developed its final shape as we know it from historical documents of the early centuries. Through the Crusades the Lingua Franca might have taken on a more Italianized appearance. The Lingua Franca then probably spread westwards through piracy and slavery until it reached the western shores of the Mediterranean such as Algiers, Tunis and Tangier. Another opinion is that the Lingua Franca might have originated through chancery. Chancery has been used throughout the Mediterranean since 1500 BCE (Wansbrough, 1996) between all the different cultures of the Mediterranean. The Lingua Franca, according to Wansbrough (1996), developed out of chancery and established itself as a language of commerce ensuring communication between the cultures of the Mediterranean. However, despite this continuous contact and establishment of this chancery language very few documents and linguistic evidence have survived about the

13 Lingua Franca.

The history of the Lingua Franca itself is quite obscure as there are references to the Lingua Franca every now and then and the probability that such a language was spoken throughout the Mediterranean is quite high but there is hardly anything concrete to show. The Lingua Franca shares the fate of very many Pidgins and Creoles that are known today that never were “adequately recorded” (Hancock, 1977: 279) or described. It seems the Lingua Franca was such a matter of course on the one hand that nobody felt the need to write about it or to just mention it and was at the same time efficient enough on the other hand that people used it without hesitation. The Lingua Franca most likely developed out of chancery, as we will see. It was a neutral language that was simple, quick and effective. It was used primarily for trade, but then later it was used for communication between master and slave. The Lingua Franca was practical and effective and this just might be the reason for its “insignificance”. It never was adequately recorded or studied except for the 19 th century when the need was suddenly there. The Lingua Franca has survived centuries without even being noticed or regarded as important. The Lingua Franca was a language at best regarded as useful which is fascinating and at the same time doubtlessly shows the low status of this language. A situation which is known from so many Pidgins and Creoles.

2.1 The problem of historicity

Even though “for some languages concrete historical evidence is lacking” (Hancock, 1977: 282) through linguistic clues we are able to reconstruct their history such as the time or circumstances of their origin. For other languages it is the other way around, where we possess historical evidence of their existence but lack any concrete linguistic data. The Lingua Franca is such a case where documentation clearly proves its existence early in time (about the 13 th century CE), but where very few linguistic traits have survived. Linguistic documents about the Lingua Franca are sparse and everything before 1600 hardly qualifies as what could be called a “linguistic description” (Wansbrough, 1996: 149). The majority of the written linguistic evidence that is available is not “much older than a century or two” and “early documentation is especially scant” (Hancock, 1977: 278). For the even earlier period there is no

14 substantial linguistic evidence as the Lingua Franca has not been “adequately recorded throughout its development” (Hancock, 1977: 279). For the most part the Lingua Franca is only mentioned or hinted at. These so-called hints are often “reports of pilgrims blessed with the gift of tongues” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148). It may be necessary to mention that at least these hints “are plentiful” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148). These reports are about the lives of saints, crusaders, pilgrims, expeditions, merchants and garrisons overseas and the like. There are various passages where saints were speaking a lingua franca to communicate with other people along their way. Many of these documents state that often there was no need for an interpreter, as some possessed “the gift of tongues” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148) or had received “the grace of languages” (Hancock, 1977: 285). However, as no examples of these languages are given, it remains unclear if it really is the Lingua Franca or if it was some lingua franca of the time such as “Vulgar Latin” or “Targumic” or some other trade or contact language. As likely as it could really be the Lingua Franca, there still is no final evidence.

Reconstructing the later development of the Lingua Franca is already a difficult task so it is easy to imagine that it is nearly impossible to reconstruct the earlier period or even the beginnings of the Lingua Franca from linguistic evidence alone. For the most part “the crucial evidence is lacking” (Wansbrough, 1996: 16). This can be explained by the “limited sources” (Wansbrough, 1996: 17) on the one hand and that evidence was lost in the course of history on the other hand. Furthermore, both quality and quantity “of the documentation varies considerably across time and space” (Wansbrough, 1996: 45). Depending on what century is looked at, the sources are either dense or hardly available. However, as a general rule it can be stated that the further we go back in time the less documentation is available. There are also temporal ´lacunae´ (Wansbrough, 1996) and other gaps that might create a false impression, i.e. the impression that there was no continuity in trade and communication in the Mediterranean basin. This image can be ascribed to the “random density pattern” (Wansbrough, 1996: 52) in which the Lingua Franca has been documented. However, this so-called “lack of continuity” created due to the lack of documentation is “nothing more than a product of the historical residue” (Wansbrough, 1996: 52). The Lingua Franca has not been recorded adequately enough throughout the centuries and for some time in history evidence, in form of documentation, is lacking completely. However, “it would of

15 course be irresponsible to infer from lack of typical documentation the absence of such activity” (Wansbrough, 1996: 52). From the lack of documents alone we can not conclude the absence of continuity in commerce, chancery and use of Lingua Franca. Especially not as the Lingua Franca reappears time and time again in the course of history after centuries of missing documented proof. Stating that the Lingua Franca was not in existence in the time where there is no documentation or other evidence available, is unacceptable because “after all we cannot consider the absence of documents in Lingua Franca as proof of its nonexistence” (Whinnom, 1984: 302).

2.2 Attempts at solving the problem of historicity

There are many lacunae and gaps concerning the history of the Lingua Franca and therefore a lot of speculation has been made about the origins and development of it. Linguistic documentation is far too “inconclusive” to allow more than a hypothesis as “much still remains unproven” (Hancock, 1977: 278). This is also the crucial point because to reach a conclusion we need more than a hypothesis. After all, “it is nonetheless important to recall that [a] conclusion cannot rest upon a hypothetical construct” (Wansbrough, 1996: 6). A hypothesis based upon linguistic evidence alone, unfortunately, is not enough to reach a conclusion as the available linguistic evidence does not sustain a final conclusion. Therefore there has to be an “escape from this linguistic prison” (Wansbrough, 1996: 8). Instead of basing reconstruction of the Lingua Franca on linguistic evidence alone we should seek an alternative. The origin and development of the Lingua Franca “might be constructed by resort to accessible but different data” (Wansbrough, 1996: 17) so that lacunae, or historical gaps, can be “filled from other kinds of source material” (Wansbrough, 1996: 52). One possibility is to resort to poetry and ordinary prose. However, one must be careful when dealing with such ambivalent sources, as it is essential to decide what is important and what is irrelevant. What might be useful and what might not be helpful is a question not easily answered. Literary evidence may be very helpful and easily understandable but it “can also be deceptive” (Wansbrough, 1996: 40). Undoubtedly there is a dilemma one has to face when “dealing with distinct genres” (Wansbrough, 1996: 40) as in this case linguistics and prose or poetry. The problem is of course that these genres allow a combination only to a certain degree, which affects the reliability of such documents.

16 One must be aware, for poetry (including stage plays) at least, that an author may have distorted the linguistic evidence to achieve a comic or dramatic effect or he may have misinterpreted the linguistic evidence due to a lack of knowledge of the Lingua Franca or he may have adapted the Lingua Franca to make his work easily understandable for an audience that had no knowledge of the Lingua Franca. The samples, written in verse form, of the Lingua Franca that can be found in poetry were “hardly ever produced by writers thoroughly acquainted with the language” (Whinnom, 1984: 296). These verses can hardly be interpreted or be regarded as representative of the Lingua Franca as they were on the one hand “written with [the] intent to amuse their Romance- speaking readers” (Whinnom, 1984: 296) and on the other hand only show “the writer’s ignorance and native linguistic habits” (Whinnom, 1984: 296). Poetry does not necessarily reflect the reality of the Lingua Franca in the earlier period. Also, in the 16 th and 17 th centuries it was custom to portray the Lingua Franca in a slightly distorted way. As Schuchardt says, quoted in Markey, about the 16 th century “this was the century when one loved to hear all manner of broken Italian, naturally with the appropriate caricature, from the stage” (1979: 33). It seems clear from this statement that the Lingua Franca was not (always) portrayed accurately. This was definitely on purpose, just like in the famous play by Moliere “ Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme ”. According to Schuchardt the inaccuracy of the portrayal of the Lingua Franca in Moliere’s play, and also in other plays as well, serves “to add [a] dramatic effect and which is therefore not very reliable in its details” (1979: 34). Concerning prose the situation is quite comparable. We are confronted with a similar, but not quite the same problem in a different medium of documents i.e. in eyewitness reports and travelogues where references to the Lingua Franca and sometimes even linguistic evidence can be found. The travelogue itself is quite an old art form that was ´popular even in the Arabic empire around the 7 th /8 th century´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 149) where it had its literary peak. The few references and linguistic evidence of the Lingua Franca that one can find in travelogues date from the 7 th to the 19 th century. Travelogues were very popular not only in the Arabian empire but their popularity continued far outside the Muslim territory, however in later centuries. Unfortunately, even if there is something written that could be classified as “linguistic evidence” it is mostly not written by a linguist and presumably distorted, misinterpreted and most likely adapted to the author’s mother tongue. Hancock (1977) mentions that references to such languages were always made

17 by “non-native speakers” which always were “speakers of lexically unconnected languages” and therefore the languages were “represented in the orthography of the recorders tongue” (1977: 278). As a consequence “this standardization leads to error”, as pronunciation can easily be mixed up and orthography of two different languages is never, or hardly ever, the same, which again leads to a distortion of the language described (1977: 278). This is especially true for the Lingua Franca. Another source of prose would be the eyewitness reports that were popular from the 16 th to the 19 th century. These reports were mostly writings about the experiences and observations that captured Europeans made during their life in captivity. These reports were often written “with a Eurocentric and one-sided view of Lingua Franca” (Selbach, 2008: 36). What is striking about these reports is that the perception of the Lingua Franca depended on the mother tongue of the author. Those people that were least familiar with the Lingua Franca always wrote more positively and impartially about it. The language available to the author did not only influence the attitude towards the Lingua Franca but also ´the status, perception and even the assessment of the source of the lexicon of the Lingua Franca´ (Selbach, 2008: 44). According to Selbach, French authors more readily suggested French as the main source of the Lingua Franca, Italian authors most often stated that the Lingua Franca was a bastard or broken tongue and only authors of other languages were more tolerant (2008: 44). What is also noteworthy at this point is that only people that had no immediate knowledge of the Lingua Franca wrote about it, especially in the earlier period, as then was the time of travelling abroad and writing about the experience gathered. In the later period the view of the Lingua Franca was always influenced by other factors, which led to a distorted view of the language. Those persons who had knowledge of the Lingua Franca or knew it well enough, hardly ever wrote about it because they did not see the sense in doing so. Other people that also had knowledge about the Lingua Franca never wrote about it because most of them were illiterate, as they belonged to the lowest social classes. The Lingua Franca was at most a peculiarity but never truly studied before 1800. This is quite amazing given the time it had been in existence.

Another possibility is to resort to history. “Historical rather than linguistic evidence must provide the principle lead” (Hancock, 1977: 279). Only by reconstructing the early history of the Lingua Franca and concentrating on relevant historical aspects and situations that stimulated its use, spread and development and then comparing it with

18 the linguistic situation can a conclusion be reached. It is most essential to increase the available “historical knowledge” (Hancock, 1977: 279) to establish the necessary “historical links” (Hancock, 1977: 283) in order to be able to connect aspects of history and historical events that were responsible for shaping the linguistic traits of the Lingua Franca. Many linguistic puzzles could be solved if we knew enough history and, of course, what was relevant for the history of Lingua Franca. This could be the key to successfully explain the linguistic peculiarities of the Lingua Franca. The problem that must be identified at this point is definitely the very huge amount of (historical) data that emerges. It is the vast amount of historical data that makes quantifying the data a real problem. The question what is important and what is not relevant can not easily be answered. Ironically it is this vastness, this “abundance of documentation that generates a range of defensible interpretations rather than a single ´correct´ version” (Wansbrough, 1996: 6). Furthermore, the interpretation of earlier materials poses an additional problem as these materials “suffer from uncertain chronology” (Wansbrough, 1996: 19). So we have to choose between either the lack of linguistic evidence or the abundance of historical evidence or the adapted version of poetry and prose. Making a choice is definitely difficult. All of these sources are important to reconstruct aspects, peculiarities and features of the Lingua Franca. However, all cause immense difficulties in finding an appropriate, even probable, version of the development of the Lingua Franca. At all times we must remember that historical “reconstruction of contact is of course frustrated by spatial lacunae and a notoriously conjectural chronology” (Wansbrough, 1996: 63). What can be done about all these difficulties is to fill the gaps as well and complete as possible by resorting to historical evidence. After all, historical reconstruction is definitely the best alternative for reconstructing the development of the Lingua Franca, as the historical point of view offers a lot more perspectives and can more easily fill gaps and lacunae that neither linguistic evidence nor poetry or prose can due to their restricted documentation. This especially applies to the earlier period, as linguistic evidence is available only from the 16 th century onwards. Therefore history can help a lot but only if one knows where to look. As was mentioned before, linguistic evidence alone is too sparse to reach a final conclusion. However, if we can reconstruct the history of the Lingua Franca we can use the linguistic evidence that is available to check if our theory can hold.

19 Chapter 3: The Lingua Franca in the 19 th century

The start of this survey is the later development of the Lingua Franca. This will be done to clarify some misconceptions that still prevail about the Lingua Franca. By using historical documents the situation in the region of Algiers will be studied in detail, as it is most likely that Sabir evolved in this area. Then the main focus will be on the peak of the Lingua Franca around the 16 th century and then finally the beginnings of the Lingua Franca will be studied with special emphasis on the most important historical events that triggered its origin, spread and development. The last part will also be the most extensive part. A top-down approach will be used starting with the later period (19 th century) of the Lingua Franca (Sabir) and then slowly moving backward in time to the 16 th century and then, finally, the beginnings of the Lingua Franca will be evaluated. This will be done to rule out step by step everything that is not relevant for this study. The attempt will be made to see what is important for the origin and development of the Lingua Franca and therefore it is essential to clarify at what time, or to be more precise, at what decade the Lingua Franca had, or could have had, evolved. The purpose of this chapter will be to show that Sabir has very little in common with the Lingua Franca. In fact, Sabir might have replaced or even eradicated the Lingua Franca. The attempt will be made to prove that Sabir is heavily influenced by French and therefore does not have a connection to the Lingua Franca, because the Lingua Franca was not influenced by French before the beginning of the 19 th century. If it can be proven that Sabir has no (or hardly any) connection to the Lingua Franca, it can also be proven that it is therefore not relevant for this study.

The Frenchification of the Lingua Franca is the key issue. If we know exactly when the Lingua Franca had been Frenchified, we also know when Sabir came into existence. Therefore there is a great need to clarify the amount of French in the Lingua Franca before and after it was influenced. It is also important how the Lingua Franca was influenced and what the consequences were. There is a clear connection between the Frenchification of the Lingua Franca and Sabir. The beginning of the Frenchification of the Lingua Franca also marks the beginning of the emergence of Sabir. This complex issue will be uncovered by resorting to history and also to historical documents. However, it will be attempted to prove this claim first, as there still prevails the misunderstanding of calling Lingua Franca and Sabir the same.

20 The Lingua Franca has often been called “Sabir”, even though this term seems to be inappropriate if history is considered. This myth about Lingua Franca and Sabir being one and the same language has prevailed for quite some time and it is necessary to clarify that this is not the case. To say that “Sabir” is the Lingua Franca of the Mediterranean is not correct as there is no historical proof for Sabir before the first half of the 19 th century. Furthermore, Sabir seems to be restricted in time and place. It was only used in the area of Algiers, which the French occupied and Sabir was also soon extinct itself. Sabir came into existence in about 1830 with the conquest and colonisation of Algiers by the French and developed through contact of the Arab and Berber population with the French. The term “Sabir” itself is a later development that also can not be found in any historical documents before 1850 and, therefore, can not have evolved before the 19 th century. As Hall (1966) has already suggested, Sabir is a French based pidgin. To be precise, Sabir is based on Southern French as the name already indicates. The connection of Sabir to the Lingua Franca is sparse as only “remains of the Lingua Franca continue to exist” (Castellanos, 2010: 4) in Sabir and even these “remains” (or fragments) of the Lingua Franca were soon replaced by French and Arabic terms. The connection of Sabir to the Lingua Franca is very tenuous and the connection to the medieval Lingua Franca is basically non-existent.

3.1 French as a possible source of the Lingua Franca

It is important not to mix up Sabir and Lingua Franca, as otherwise one could be led to the (wrong) conclusion that the Lingua Franca actually derived in part from French, which is not correct. Schuchardt (1979) mentions that the Lingua Franca itself never was to a noticeable degree influenced by French before 1800. Only in the 17 th century were Southern French words taken into the Lingua Franca, but its role was minimal (1979: 38). The amount of French in Lingua Franca needs to be looked at in more detail, as it is an important point that needs clarification. As Schuchardt says, the amount of French in the Lingua Franca is rather low, so we can assume that French as such did not play a major role in the development of the Lingua Franca. However, we do find references that Lingua Franca is composed in part of “French, Italian and Spanish” (Dan 1637, quoted in Selbach, 2008: 39 and Folty, 1984: 14) and also “Spanish, French and Italian” (Dapper 1668, quoted in Selbach, 2008: 40), and there are other sources that

21 mention French. This seems to contradict what we have heard so far, especially as it was Schuchardt that told us otherwise. Schuchardt (1979) does mention an intake of French words in the 17 th century, but again the amount was a very low one (1979: 38). If we take a closer look at these references, however, we discover that none of them possesses the linguistic finesse, sophistication or expertise that can be found in Schuchardt’s work. Dan, a French priest, is on the one hand not a refined linguist as he misinterprets the linguistic data, and on the other hand seems to show less than an open mind. He “comments favourably – albeit expectedly haughtily” (Selbach, 2008: 39) on what he calls “le franc” (Dan, quoted in Selbach, 2008: 39 and Folty, 1984: 14). Dan either means the Lingua Franca or he could mean Petite Mauresque and unfortunately this is not clear from the reference given in Selbach (2008). However, as the full reference is given in Folty (1984: 14), we can deduce that Dan is talking about the Lingua Franca. Dan definitely had a distorted impression of the language spoken there for favour of French and, according to Selbach (2008), he could have been “chauvinistic”, as he put quite much emphasis on French (2008: 39). Folty (1984) supports this theory, as he as well states that “die Hervorhebung des Französischen in der Zusammenfassung der Lingua Franca ist wohl ausschließlich der Nationalität des Verfassers [...] zuzuschreiben” (1984: 14-15) So it is due to Dan’s nationality that French is emphasised in the Lingua Franca and not due to a linguistic competence. A similar reference, quoted in Folty (1984), is made by La Condamine. La Condamine comments on “la langue franque” which is “un mélange de provencal, de grec vulgaire, de latin, et surtout d´italien corrompu” (1984: 22). The linguistic skills of La Condamine are without doubt sophisticated and his description of the Lingua Franca is precise, accurate and carefully carried out. He recognises the difference between the Lingua Franca in Tripoli and Algiers where in Algiers more Spanish is used and in Tripoli a more Italianized version exists. The only flaw in his argument is that he favourably emphasises French as a main source of the Lingua Franca, even though this is not the case. This emphasis of French, according to Folty (1984), is also due to his nationality, quite similarly to Dan (1984: 22). Dapper on the other hand is a secondary account, as he never went to the area he described himself. So there is, unfortunately, the possibility that his description may not be accurate. If we compare these sources, which all may not be very accurate, to other sources which were made either by men with a linguistic background like Haedo and Rehbinder and therefore may provide more accuracy in the linguistic description, we

22 find that French is not mentioned by these sources at all. Not even in the extensive 1800 source by Rehbinder (quoted in Folty, 1984: 30) is there a reference to French as a part of the Lingua Franca. In fact, Rehbinder even mentions that ´in Algiers besides the Lingua Franca other European languages are spoken like Italian, Portuguese and Spanish except French which is hardly spoken in Algiers´ (1984: 26). Rehbinder, quoted in Folty, says “in den Städten wird außer LF auch Portugiesisch, Spanisch, Italienisch, aber kaum Französisch gesprochen” (1984: 26). There is another reference to French in the Lingua Franca made by J.J. Rousseau (quoted in Folty, 1984: 23) in which French is mentioned as a source of the Lingua Franca. However, here again we can find that this is due to an error and not to a linguistic analysis. According to Folty (1984), Rousseau quotes a definition from a dictionary about the Lingua Franca and Schuchardt has also commented on the sentence given about “la langue Franque” (Markey, 1979: 33) which has got nothing to do with the Lingua Franca. The only other sources that mention French are Abbé Poirot and Renaudot (both quoted in Folty, 1984: 24-28). Poirot states about the language spoken in the area of Algiers by the Berbers and Bedouin-Arabs that it consists of “ein Gemisch von Spanisch, Italienisch, Provenzalisch” (1984: 24). However, we must be careful before we leap to any conclusions. If this reference is analysed in more detail it becomes clear that this reference is not to the Lingua Franca but to a local dialect of Arabic, the so-called Petit Mauresque (“das Klein-Maurische” 1984: 24). Basically, the source by Abbé Poirot quoted in Folty (1984: 24), states that Petite Mauresque was ´Spanish, Italian and French which served to communicate with the European nations´ (1984: 24). The source by M. Renaudot, which is actually a historical introduction in a book about paintings in Algiers and includes a description about several expeditions to Algiers even mentions that “man spricht auch eine andere Mundart, die man das Klein-Maurische nennt, nämlich ein Gemisch von Spanisch, Italienisch, Provenzalisch” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 28). So, from this source, it becomes clear that Petite Mauresque was a local (Arabian) dialect that was not the Lingua Franca. If there is a connection to the Lingua Franca it is unclear, as a consideration of the languages on which Petite Mauresque is built would suggest that it is either based on the Lingua Franca, or it could also be based on Italian and Spanish itself, as in Algiers in the 18/19 th century the European powers and their languages, especially Italian, Spanish and also Portuguese, were strongly present. Castellanos (2010) also mentions something that makes it more likely that

23 Petite Mauresque comes from the European colonial languages. He states that “this period constantly approached more nearly the colonial languages, French in particular” (2010: 6). Furthermore, there is a side note by Corré on this sentence stating that the reference to French is not to the Lingua Franca but to Petite Mauresque which is a local dialect of Arabic. (2010: 7) From these two sources alone we can not reach a final conclusion. However, it would seem likely that Petite Mauresque developed independently, with only a minor influence from the Lingua Franca. The sources quoted in Folty (1984) rather indicate that Petite Mauresque was a local dialect that arose through contact of speakers of Arabic and Berber with French speakers. Again, the link to the Lingua Franca can not be excluded as these speakers of Arabic and Berber might have known the Lingua Franca. Still, what can definitely be concluded is that regardless of the influence of the Lingua Franca, Peitite Mauresque and Lingua Franca were two separate languages. An additional point may be mentioned here, namely that Petite Mauresque also seems to be restricted to the region of Algiers, which underlines the statement that Petite Mauresque and Lingua Franca are two separate languages because the Lingua Franca was used throughout the Mediterranean by a whole variety of people. The reason that Petite Mauresque is mentioned at this point is that the French, or to be more precise the “Dictionnaire de la langue fraque ou petite mauresque” quoted in Markey (1979: 40), indifferently called the Italianized Lingua Franca “Petite Mauresque” even though there does not seem to be a (close) connection between the Lingua Franca and Petite Mauresque. So the link one can find is that it probably has been erroneously mistaken with the Lingua Franca. Furthermore, if all other references and documents that are quoted in Schuchardt (Markey, 1979: 39), Rossetti (2005: 8) and all other sources by Folty (1989), as his work is a collection of references, are considered, there are no other references that suggest that the Lingua Franca had any connection to French. Not even around 1800 where there is an extensive document by Rehbinder (quoted in Markey, 1979: 39-40 and Folty, 1984: 25-26) is there a reference to French in the Lingua Franca. There are only references to “Italian, Spanish and Arabic” (Filippo Pananti quoted in Rossetti, 2005: 8 and Folty, 1984: 26), “eine Mischung aus Türkisch und Spanisch und vielen Dialekten” by Cervantes (quoted in Folty, 1984: 18). Another reference is by Dr. John Covel (quoted in Folty 1984) who states that the Lingua Franca is “bastard Spanish, mixt with words of most trading nations” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 21). Furthermore the famous quote by Rehbinder himself is “ein schlechtes Italienisch, mit etwas Spanisch, und mit

24 einigen arabischen Worten und Wendungen vermischt” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 25) and, of course, there are other relevant quotes as well.

3.2 Sabir is not the Lingua Franca

It can be concluded that the Lingua Franca was not, not to a considerable extent and definitely not before 1800, influenced by French. It was only after the colonisation and conquest of Algiers in 1830 that French became a great influence on the Lingua Franca. Schuchardt (1979) claims that during and especially after 1830 “the Frenchification went on” (1979: 43). What is meant is the change from the Lingua Franca to Sabir which, according also to Folty (1984), is already noticeable in 1830. So the Frenchification might have started a little earlier than 1830. However, we can exclude everything before 1820 as in a reference, quoted in Rossetti (2005), we are told that in 1820 there only was a mixture of “Italian, Spanish and African” (2005: 8).

Folty (1984) goes even further and states that there is a great danger in undermining a Frenchification to other texts before 1830, as they do not show any tendency or connection to French. This is due to the fact that the “Dictionnaire” is the only extensive source of the Lingua Franca and when it was published there already was a beginning of a Frenchification of the Lingua Franca. Folty says that the oldest attestations of Sabir is dated 1849. He quotes: die seit der Besetzung Algiers im Jahre 1830 entstandene französisch-arabische Vermittlungssprache, die zwar die Nachfolgerin der LF in Nordafrika ist und deshalb zunächst noch einige Merkmale beibehält, recht bald jedoch den gemischt-romanischen Wortschatz ersetzt (1984: 30)

The first time, according to Folty (1984), that the term “Sabir” itself is mentioned, is dated 1852, but as it is a newspaper article that describes the categorization of Sabir into “petit sabir” and “grand sabir” it can be assumed that the term is a little older (1984: 30). Schuchardt (1979) also mentions this distinction between “petit sabir” and “grand sabir”. However, according to Schuchardt this distinction seems to be on a political basis and not on a linguistic basis (1979: 43). The obvious conclusion would be that the term Sabir itself derived between 1830 and 1850. Folty (1984) mentions another attestation by General Faidherbe in which he says that the French called the Lingua Franca Sabir since the conquest of Algiers: “die LF

25 werde seit der Eroberung Algeriens von den Franzosen Sabir genannt” (1984: 31). The possibility that the term Sabir came into existence around 1830 is there. However, as this quotation is rather a side note and another attestation can be found only 20 years later, the exact date still remains unclear. Folty (1984) also mentions that the Frenchification, which is the change from the Lingua Franca to Sabir, took place from around 1840 to 1890, with 1890 marking the final ´loss of the Romance-lexicon in favour of French and Arabic terms´ and the completion of the process of Sabir becoming a French pidgin (1984: 32). This Frenchification caused the emergence of Sabir and sealed the fate of the Lingua Franca. Sabir, therefore, is a French pidgin that was (minimally) based on the Lingua Franca at first but then the amount of Lingua Franca changed drastically as “the scope of Lingua Franca was increasingly narrowed down” (Markey, 1979: 43). By and by the Romance based terms were replaced by French or Arabic terms and Sabir became a French pidgin with only a few words remaining from the Lingua Franca. Proof for this can also be found in Kahane (1958), who states that in the 19 th century the Italian terminology throughout the Mediterranean was slowly “replaced by the modern international terminology” which was entirely French (1958: 31). So the Lingua Franca, “the professional medium of communication of the Levantine merchantry” (Kahane, 1958: 31), was supplemented by French terminology and was finally replaced by a French Pidgin.

3.3 The importance of history

As we have seen, the whole story is somewhat complicated as there are many references, but unfortunately, not all of them are accurate and sometimes they even contradict themselves. This is the previously mentioned problem of historicity. Documents are sparse and those that are available offer several versions of the same story. However, it is through the documents that we can unfold some of the mistakes that have prevailed for quite some time. What we have seen so far is that the Lingua Franca has not been heavily influenced by French before the conquest of Algiers in 1830. Afterwards the Lingua Franca was heavily influenced by French and finally became a French pidgin called Sabir. The Lingua Franca had little influence on Sabir and this influence was soon lost completely. Again, the Lingua Franca was not

26 influenced by French before the 19 th century. However, there was a local Arabian dialect called Petite Mauresque that consisted of Spanish, Italian and Provençal. Petite Mauresque, however, was not the Lingua Franca, even though it seems very likely that Lingua Franca had some influence on Petite Mauresque, but Petite Mauresque could also have developed separately. What can be said is that it was “a local dialect of Arabic” (Castellanos, 2010: 7) and it existed besides the Lingua Franca and could only be found in the restricted area of Algiers. As we know from history, the French had an interest in and connection to Algiers earlier than 1800. The reason why there is further confusion about Petite Mauresque is because the “Dictionnaire” called the Italianized version of the Lingua Franca Petite Mauresque and the Hispanicized version of Algiers Sabir, which created some misunderstanding. Even though the “Dictionnaire” is one of the most extensive sources about the Lingua Franca it is also, according to Schuchardt, “a paltry concoction afflicted with every possible fault” (Markey, 1979: 40). So in some regard the “Dictionnaire” is not reliable and therefore not very helpful either, still it offers some insights if we know enough of the background of the Lingua Franca. History still needs to be considered. With this in mind we can conclude that neither Sabir nor Petite Mauresque is relevant for this study as both languages have evolved centuries after the Lingua Franca is supposed to have emerged. An influence of any of these two languages can definitely be excluded as Petite Mauresque had a local restriction to Algiers and Sabir developed in 1830 after the French conquest and colonisation which is far later than the time at which the Lingua Franca was created.

27 Chapter 4: The Lingua Franca in the 16 th century

The 16 th century is a very important period not only for the Lingua Franca, but because it marks a new development in the Mediterranean, a time of warfare, colonisation and the struggle of the powers of Europe. The 16 th century also marks the shift of power from Italy to Spain. Spain showed great interest in Italy and eventually conquered parts of Italy, namely Sicily in 1559 which remained under Spanish influence for a long time. Italy, at that time consisted of independent city-states that controlled parts of the Mediterranean with Sicily controlling the western part. Through conquest by other states, Italy (but not Italian) lost more and more influence, especially economically, as it was seized by other colonial powers such as Spain and also Austria-Hungary. As a result, the centre of trade and commerce, the domain of the Lingua Franca, moved from the Eastern Mediterranean (the Levant) to the Western Mediterranean. At the same time the influence of Spain grew economically, politically and consequently linguistically. This, of course, had a major effect on the Lingua Franca which was influenced mainly lexically by these changes and even caused the emergence of two varieties of the Lingua Franca. One variety had a high Spanish content and another variety was strongly influenced by Italian. Each variety represented the influence of two European nations, Spain and Italy. What is important is that the 16 th century marks the beginning on the one hand, and the continuation on the other hand, of these varieties of the Lingua Franca. As Schuchardt says “just as Lingua Franca in the Eastern Mediterranean evolved out of Italian, so in the Western Mediterranean it evolved from Spanish, though at a later period” (Markey, 1979: 34). The Italianized variety of the Lingua Franca can be regarded rather as a continuation, even as a logical development, of the earlier Lingua Franca. Meanwhile the Hispanicized variety marks the beginning of a development of the Lingua Franca which started around 1500 with the Spanish Reconquista. Therefore, we now look at the Hispanicized variety first as it marks the beginning of a new variety of the Lingua Franca and then we will examine the Italianized variety, which will also be the starting point to go back further in history to find the origins of the Lingua Franca. It is easier to analyse the Hispanicized variety as there are “substantial documentary sources” (Arends, 2003: 227) for the Spanish version and only “literary text fragments” (Arends, 2003: 227) for the Italian version. Interestingly, the Spanish version also seems to be

28 “pidginized” (Arends, 2003: 227), while the Italian version never pidginized and remained a lingua franca, or a koiné as Wansbrough (1996) called it. Through the Italianized variety we can approach the beginnings and the origin of the Lingua Franca. Thus, we will try to trace the origin of both, the Hispanicized and Italianized variety of the Lingua Franca, using history to see what led to its creation, and we will also have a detailed look at the historical documentation of the Lingua Franca in the 16 th century.

4.1 Documentation of the 16 th century Lingua Franca

Several (reliable) sources indicate and some sources even state that there were two varieties of the Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean. Some of the sources that clearly state that there was a difference are the (in)famous “Dictionnaire” in which is stated “it [the Lingua Franca] differs in several respects according to the cities in which it is spoken” (translated by Selbach, 2008: 43). It is further stated that the Lingua Franca of Tunis is not exactly the same as in Algiers and that especially in Tunis and Tripoli the Lingua Franca is very close to Italian, while the Lingua Franca of Algiers is close to Spanish. Another source, which is reliable, is to be found in a travelogue of Charles de La Condamine written after a short visit to Algiers in around 1730 “Le franc de Tunis et celui de Tripoli tient beaucoup plus de l´italien, comme celui d´Alger tient de l´espagnol” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 22). La Condamine also goes into further detail and states that especially in the area of Tripolis a variety “et surtout d´italien corrompu” is used and in the area of Algiers more Spanish is heard (quoted in Folty, 1984: 22). Other sources that do not clearly state that there were two varieties are still revealing, as a clear pattern is perceptible. Those sources that are either from Tunis, Tripoli or other cities that had a connection to Italy and Italian or talk about such cities always state that there is a considerable amount of Italian influence. Those sources that mention Algiers or the Barbary Coast always mention Spanish as a major influence. The more recent sources always talk of “bad” or “corrupted” Italian or Spanish, while earlier records only state an influence of Italian and the earliest sources solely talk about the so-called Franc language. No such attributions like “corrupted” or “broken” can be found here. The reason for this peculiarity can be found in history. Especially in the 19 th century, but also earlier, the colonial languages including Italian, Spanish, French etc. gained more and more prestige because “the balance of power shifted in favour of the European

29 states” (Selbach, 2008: 41), which resulted in the perception that all languages that were not the one of these “main languages” were inferior, especially Pidgin and Creole languages including the Lingua Franca.

4.2 The unity of the Lingua Franca

The fact that there are historical documents which clearly prove that there were variations within the Lingua Franca have led scholars like Robert A. Hall (1966) to question the unity of the Lingua Franca. Such statements can not simply be ignored and Hall’s argument is a valid objection too. However, if a closer and more detailed look is taken we discover that there indeed was unity within the Lingua Franca as is proven by history. The Lingua Franca was spoken throughout the whole Mediterranean for a vast amount of time and considering the “flexibility” of the Lingua Franca, it seems quite plausible that there were differences. Indeed, in the 16 th century we can clearly see that there were two varieties of the Lingua Franca. In the West and also, to a certain degree, in the Central Mediterranean a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca existed and was used extensively and in the East an Italianized variety was prevalent. However, even though this might be the case, a very interesting fact is noted by Schuchardt (1979). These two varieties, according to Schuchardt, had a lot in common like the grammar or, as Schuchardt calls it, their “lack of grammar”, and also a vast amount of words was shared and only “minor discrepancies in pronunciation” marked a difference between these varieties (1979: 35). Furthermore, also noted by Schuchardt (1979), “reciprocal influence arose quite naturally” as “only the western and eastern extremities are monochromatic” (1979: 35). These two varieties differed only in minor details, and because of their minor differences but great intelligibility they also influenced each other, especially in what Schuchardt calls the “geographical mid-point” which is Algiers (1979: 35). In Algiers these two varieties met, and it does not seem to be the case that they were spoken separately, but they were blended together (with one another). This very interesting fact not only serves to show the enormous “flexibility” of the Lingua Franca but also that there never was a “barrier of communication” (Whinnom, 1984: 299) or a lack of unity in the Lingua Franca. The reason was the intelligibility of these two varieties. This so-called “intelligibility” was due to the Romance ancestry that the

30 Christian languages shared with each other. This ancestry made it possible to understand each other and even recognise blends and terms that resembled each other. After all, the Romance languages were more similar in former times than they are today. Another fact that also increased intelligibility was that contact existed on both sides of the Mediterranean, East and West. In fact, Rossetti (2005) even comments on the “continuum” of the Lingua Franca, which despite being used by so many different people and being exposed to several (lexical) influences “shows a remarkable level of consistency” (2005: 17). There were only minor lexical differences but there never were problems in communication, comprehensibility or intelligibility.

4.3 The situation of the Lingua Franca in the 16 th century

Schuchardt (1979) also notes that the reason why Algiers was the centre where these two varieties met was not because the “spheres of power” of Italy and Spain met in Algiers (1979: 35). As Sicily was a part of Spain it could be assumed that the mid-point would have been further East, in Tripoli for example. However, Algiers became this mid-point because it was the piracy capital of the Mediterranean, as it had established “a network of piracy” (Markey, 1979: 35) over the Mediterranean. As Schuchardt has said, the reason how and why such a language develops depends on “external circumstances” (1979: 31). The external, social and historical, factors need to be considered to explain the development of a language. Georg Lang (1992) has commented on this phenomenon too, stating that the reason for a language to be chosen as a contact language can be explained through the external “social circumstances” (1992: 72). He further states that “linguistic arrangements do not depend on any intrinsic or inner nature of languages in contact” meaning that no language itself is chosen due to its linguistic structure but rather due to other external factors (1992: 72). Wansbrough (1996) supports this view and also states that it is not linguistic traits that enabled that the Lingua Franca to be adopted, but that the reasons are “social, political and cultural” (1996: 159). If a language proves to be useful, is already well established or possesses social prestige or any other aspect of social importance, it is very likely to be adopted. Of course, for the Lingua Franca to be adopted and retained more than one external factor or circumstance was necessary. Indeed, there were several factors in various fields (of contact) that stimulated the use of the Lingua Franca. An example for

31 one of these “external circumstances” is the shift of power from Italian to Spanish in the 16 th century, which enabled the increase of the influence of the Lingua Franca. This can be observed especially in the slave colonies of the Barbary Coast where the Lingua Franca gained more and more prestige especially in the slave colony of Algiers, as Algiers was the largest and most powerful slave colony.

We must not forget that in the 16 th century the Western Mediterranean was under the control of powerful semi-independent pirate city states which were also slave colonies, so-called “pirate nations” (Selbach, 2008: 33). While officially these pirate nations were ruled by the Ottoman Empire, they still managed to be independent for the most part and operated on their own. Their independence was gained through their economy or as Selbach (2008) described it through “free enterprising on the sea” (2008: 33). However, even though these slave raids were carried out by independent corsairs, the broader picture is that there was a war between great empires and their religion, a war between Christians and Muslims, between Hapsburgs and Ottomans. At this point it has to be mentioned that both parties actively participated not only in slave raids but also in slave trade and this practice continued even until the 19th century.

In the whole Mediterranean pirates, also called corsairs, captured ships, crews and even passengers to enslave them and take them to one of the many slave colonies that spread all over the Barbary Coast, which is today’s Maghreb. The most important slave centres along the Barbary Coast were Tunis, Tripoli and Algiers, with Algiers marking the largest of these colonies, which held around “25000 Christian slaves” (Markey, 1979: 35), i.e. about a quarter of the population “at its height in 1660” (Selbach, 2008: 33). Especially Algiers, but also the other pirate nations, were dependent on the trade with slaves, as slaves were not only captured and resold but were also kept to provide manpower for hard work and other chores. If their numbers were insufficient so-called “land raids” (Selbach, 2008: 33) were carried out to capture a huge number of slaves especially on the northern Mediterranean coast. The slaves usually stayed in captivity up to five years or until they could free themselves or if they came from wealthy families they were freed from ransom. Slaves were also divided into ´publicly and privately owned slaves´ (Selbach, 2008: 34), the difference being that publicly owned slaves were used for public work during the day and locked up in “large prison complexes called bagnos” (Selbach, 2008: 33) at night, while privately owned slaves

32 usually stayed at the house where they were working. Depending completely on the slave market, Algiers therefore was both, a slave centre but also a trade centre which held great economic importance.

The whole situation enabled “the growth of powerful regencies along the Barbary Coast” (Selbach, 2008: 32), which created not only large multicultural urban centres along the coast but also opened the doors not only for religious refugees, Jews and Muslims, from Europe, but also for adventurers, freelancers, outcasts, etc. Especially Algiers grew into what Whinnom (1984) called “a refuge for the scum of Europe” (1984: 300). Furthermore, many captured slaves converted and spend the rest of their lives as so-called renegades, (that is) “Christians who converted to Islam” (Selbach, 2008: 35). The success of the corsairs can even be explained through these renegades as it was these people that “had taught them how to build better boats” (Whinnom, 1984: 300). These renegades provided the pirate nations with their valuable knowledge, most importantly about ´shipbuilding but also quarry, construction work and galley work´ (Selbach, 2008: 34) and slaves supplied the “necessary skilled labour” (Selbach, 2008: 34). Especially the Italian captives were used in the dockyards and did work according to their technical skills. It is also important to mention that half of the admirals of ships in the Ottman Empire at that time were renegades of all different nationalities, many among them Italians, and these renegades were even in the position to give orders to the slaves. As Kahane (1958) informs us “there were many Christian renegades even among the highest ranks” (1958: 15). The slaves themselves were completely deprived of their freedom. They were even deprived of their clothes, as clothes were a very strong marker of identity and they were not only expected to work, but they were also expected to pay for their lodging inside the bagnos and they were expected to pay a ransoming fee. They basically only had an hour of free time a day, which was used to gather money by begging or doing little chores. However, even though slaves basically were deprived of anything they had, they were not deprived of their religion, culture or language.

It is very interesting that culture, identity and curiously language were not taken from the Christian slaves and that the Islamic religion and consequently its language were not forced upon the slaves, possibly because the rulers wanted to keep their own language away from the Christians (slaves). Of course, there was an Arabic influence on the

33 Lingua Franca as some words found their way into the Lingua Franca lexicon, but we can scarcely doubt the words of Hugo Schuchardt (1979) when he states that “the Romance vocabulary of Lingua Franca appears to have been enriched by a number of Arabic words, but for comparative purposes the number is probably not greater than that of Arabic loans in Spanish”, the number of which is quite low (1979: 30). As we can see, there were only few Arabic words that were adopted into the Lingua Franca and Turkish was almost insignificant. All of these words rather seem to be adopted by the slaves themselves for communicative purposes rather than forced upon them by the rulers. All the Arabic words that were taken over ´seem to be useful for everyday use such as “rai” (shepherd), “rubié” (spring), “serigia” (pack sattle), “unif” (black slave), “mabul“ (crazy) or “bezef” (very)´ (Markey, 1979: 30-31.). Other words that were introduced from Arabic were either words that had no Romance equivalent such as “yoldach”, Turkish janissaries called “yoldas”, or Arabic titles such as Dey, Effendi or Pasha (Selbach, 2008: 47). Other Arabic words that were taken into the Lingua Franca were words that were introduced “due to similarity with corresponding Romance forms ”such as “casana” (cupboard) that has a phonetic similarity to Arabic “hezána” or “maréia” (mirror) which is close to “meráia” (Markey, 1979: 30). Furthermore there are also Romance words in Arabic dress such as “barmil” from “barril” (barrel), “quastal” from “castali” (chestnut) and “corsan” from “qorsan” (pirate) (Markey, 1979: 30). What becomes clear is that all these words are simple and convey the most important and most essential messages necessary for everyday communication. All of these words convey simple and general ideas and might just have been adopted because they were useful or necessary for communication and intelligibility. Furthermore, slaves were not only able to unfold their culture, but they could also emphasize their culture in language and pronunciation. As Selbach (2008) has observed, it was possible for slaves “to mark their religious, political and cultural identity” (2008: 46) in the Lingua Franca. An example of this would be the various spellings of words; for instance the word “bagnos” is also written as “bagnes” and sometimes “bános” (2008: 46). Another example would be the word “bono”, which also seems to be a special case altogether. Various spellings can be found such as “bouno”, “bonou”, “bouonou”, “bueno” and “bon” (2008: 46). The special variation of bono can be explained by the words of Schuchardt (1979), who states that specific words are semantically expanded and that “[such] a favoured form is bono” (1979: 29).

34 It seems very likely that pronunciation of words varied and both, spelling and pronunciation, may simply be reflections of the speakers own identity, meaning that depending on the culture of the slave, whether they may have been Italian, Portuguese or Spanish, spelling and pronunciation would vary accordingly as the slave would integrate its own culture and consequently identity into the Lingua Franca (and therefore spelling and pronunciation varied). Of course, this was never done to the extent that it could present a barrier to communication.

Selbach (2008) further states that the possibility of keeping their own identity also allowed the extensive use of Lingua Franca as “the permission to retain their Christian identity fed into LF and vice versa” (2008: 52). Meaning that the Lingua Franca could not only be infused with lexical and pronouncing markers of personal (cultural) identity, but also served as an identity marker of the Christian religion and therefore of Christian identity. The Lingua Franca was used by the captured slaves as they clung not only to their own identity but also to the Christian identity which seems to have been represented by the Lingua Franca. The Christian identity may have been more of a general idea but it seems likely that it was this feeling of solidarity due to the Christian identity that made the slaves trust each other and also unite, in a way. The Lingua Franca may also have been used to oppose the Moslem identity, since after all the war between Christians and Muslims still waged on. Furthermore, Lingua Franca could also be a marker of individual identity as cultural aspects could be infused into the Lingua Franca most obviously by choice of vocabulary (lexically), by pronunciation and also spelling of words. However, these were only minor linguistic features that never presented a problem to intelligibility.

This is also a perfect example of an “external circumstance” that makes a language be adopted for such a long time. It explains why the Lingua Franca was adopted without hesitation by the slaves because they were able to put their own identity, cultural and religious, into the Lingua Franca and could therefore identify themselves with it. As slaves were allowed to keep their culture, identity and also religion and “were not forced to abandon the words of their language” (Selbach, 2008: 54) they openly showed their identities, especially if they had hope of returning home. For the slaves things had changed “but not necessarily forever” (Selbach, 2008: 54) and therefore they also maintained their own culture. They were allowed to do so because “the annihilation or

35 subjugation of a culture was not an aim of the rulers of the Barbary Coast” (Selbach, 2008: 53).

Another factor that explains why the Lingua Franca was used as a communication language was that the Lingua Franca had been in use in the Mediterranean centuries before it became extensively used in Algiers. Many people that came to Algiers as slaves might have already known the Lingua Franca beforehand and the rulers probably knew the Lingua Franca as well, which would have made communication much easier. One must admit that given the omnipresence of the Lingua Franca in the whole Mediterranean and the fact that it was spoken in all ports of call of the Mediterranean as is remarked by La Condamine (quoted in Folty, 1984: 22), the question to use it or not may have never occurred. The Lingua Franca always had been a simple and effective jargon that was used without any hesitation and there does not seem to be any reason why the situation should have been different in Algiers of the 16 th century. At least in the earlier centuries, including the 16 th and 17 th century, the Lingua Franca was used without hesitation. However, in the later centuries, especially in the 19 th century, there was some kind of aversion towards the Lingua Franca due to the (wrong) belief of purism, but the Lingua Franca still proved too useful not to be used. This explains why the Lingua Franca was retained as a language and it also explains why it was used extensively and why it was successfully adopted by all different parties of such slave colonies. It could even explain why the Lingua Franca was adopted as a communication language in the first place. The whole situation in the Mediterranean stimulated the growth and use of the Lingua Franca which proved, in several respects, very useful.

4.4 The linguistic situation of the Lingua Franca in 16 th century

This leads us directly to the linguistic situation of the Barbary Coast, especially Algiers in the 16 th century. We must not forget that the situation was similar in all pirate nations across the Mediterranean. The only difference was that the Western pirate nations rather had Spanish speaking slaves and the East predominantly had Italian speaking slaves which is one reason why there was a Western and Eastern variety of the Lingua Franca. Algiers was the largest pirate nation and somehow representative for the other pirate

36 nations. In Algiers there were ´25000 slaves´ (Markey, 1979: 35) and evidence suggests that they all came from different cultural backgrounds as the corsairs captured ships, crews and passengers indifferently and completely independent of their European identity. Consequently, the slaves also came from different linguistic backgrounds. From Fray Diego de Haedo we get a very fine and detailed description of the communities and languages that were spoken in Algiers around 1600. The information Haedo provides has also been studied by various other scholars like Lang (1992), Selbach (2008), Folty (1984) and Whinnom (1984) and very valuable comments have been made. Especially Whinnom (1984) gives a very good amount of additional information that makes it possible for us to go into even further detail concerning the linguistic background and the languages spoken not only by the slaves but also by the rest of the population of Algiers. Haedo lists three languages that are spoken: the first language is Turkish, which is also the official language and used in public places such as courts etc., the second language is Arabic which is the language of religion and the last language is Lingua Franca which, according to Haedo, is spoken fluently by almost all of the population to communicate with each other, “los más dellos muy bien, no le hablan” (Whinnom, 1984: 301). Concerning the linguistic background, Haedo lists five different linguistic communities including Turks, Jews, “Moros” who are Spaniards of Moslem decent, captured Christians and renegade Christians (Whinnom, 1984: 300). According to Whinnom (1984), however, these five categories may not be enough to describe the linguistic background, as the term of both captured and renegade Christians can be extended to mean Western Christians and this alone would include more than five categories (1984: 300). Whinnom explains that even though captured Christians were predominantly Spanish, Portuguese, French and Italian, the Christian renegades even included Englishmen which, according to Whinnom, would lead to the conclusion that all these (Western) Christians included in total Spaniards, Portuguese, Catalans, Italians, Frenchmen, Provencaux and even Englishmen (1984: 300). This can easily be proven by the account of Dan from 1637 (quoted in Lang, 1992: 71) in which it is stated that there were ´22 different languages spoken in the bagnos´ (1992: 71). Concerning Englishmen, we can find a reference of 1760 (quoted in Folty, 1984: 23). An Algerian ship crashed on the coast of Cornwall and even in this remote part of the northern sea a man that had been in the Levant trade and knew a bit of Italian and

37 Lingua Franca could be found and was able to communicate with the crew (1984: 23). This incident clearly shows how well established the Lingua Franca was and from remarks of Chaunu (1979) we know that this was also the case long before 1700, as already “Phoenicians trade[d] for tin with the ancient inhabitants of Cornwall” (Whinnom, 1984: 302). It was in the earlier history of the Mediterranean that ships were trading with the English, so a connection between the Western Mediterranean and England definitely had been established, which also remained even in the later centuries. Considering this, it seems quite plausible that there have also been English renegades. It also shows the tremendous importance of the Lingua Franca over the centuries as ´even in such a remote area such as Cornwall someone acquainted with the Lingua Franca could be found´ (Collier, 1977: 284).

Furthermore, apart from the Western Christians there were also other linguistic communities like “Greeks, Armenians and Jews” (Whinnom, 1984: 301), but also Muslims that had returned from Christian captivity. Finally there were also Arabs and Berbers. Haedo does not distinguish between them as there was ´not a major difference between these two communities by 1610´ (Whinnom, 1984: 300). However, according to Whinnom (1984), Haedo does state that there was a “mutual incomprehensibility” of Arabic and Berber dialects (1984: 300). Of course, there were also Turks, but their number seems to have been relatively few. From this fact it can be inferred that there was a vast number of different linguistic communities including Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Catalan, Provencaux, English, Greek, Armenian, Jewish, Arabic and Turkish that coexisted in the slave colonies and communicated with each other and “the only language common to every community was Lingua Franca” (Whinnom, 1984: 301). Among all the possible languages that could have been used as a means of communication the Lingua Franca was the only language that qualified, as it enabled all these communities to communicate with each other. As Haedo states ´there was not a single house in which the Lingua Franca was not found, that Turks, Arabs and Berbers used it and that the majority spoke it very fluently´ (quoted and translated in Whinnom, 1984: 301). Given this very complex (linguistic) situation with so many different linguistic communities that could not communicate with each other except in Lingua Franca, it seems reasonable that such a language was well adapted by the whole population (including slaves) and that in this linguistic

38 context the “Lingua Franca flourished” (Whinnom, 1984: 300).

Given the multicultural and multiethnic dimension of these slave colonies, it is not surprising that Lingua Franca was so extensively used. However, it is surprising that Lingua Franca remained so stable over the centuries and consequently remained Romance based. However, if we once more take the advice of Hugo Schuchardt (1979), we can find in his work a reference stating that ´it is bilingualism (and also multilingualism) that ensures the stability of the Lingua Franca´ (1979: 29-30). Even though the Lingua Franca was open to changes, for the most part in the area of the lexicon, there was a core that always remained fixed. The multilingualism of Algiers did not harm the Lingua Franca as multiculturalism, even more than bilingualism, stabilized the Lingua Franca as more than two parties had to use the Lingua Franca and no party could change the Lingua Franca to any considerable degree as otherwise Lingua Franca would have become unintelligible to the other parties. This made linguistic changes, except for the lexicon, rather impossible. It seems quite logical since for the ability of several different parties to communicate with each other only one language was necessary, but to retain this communication (intact) this language needed to be stable. Acquiring new vocabulary does not seem to have been a problem, but the very core always stayed the same.

4.4.1 The linguistic stability of the Lingua Franca

One question that still remains and should probably be answered as well is the question why the Lingua Franca was never heavily influenced by Turkish or Arabic. The answer might lie in a variety of factors. For one, Turkish was almost negligible as the number of Turks in the North African provinces was very low, occupying powerful, but very few, positions of administration. Most of them were “administrative representatives of the Ottoman government, army, and navy” (Kahane, 1958: 20), meaning that the Turks never were “more than a dwindling minority group in a preponderantly Arabic environment” (Kahane, 1958: 20). Turkish influence was there but neither immediate nor absolute, with the centre of the Ottoman Empire being too far away for a greater influence. Linguistically, the language was never heavily used in daily life as it rather was a language of prestige used by those in higher position.

39 However, one curiosity should be mentioned, reduplication. Reduplication is a very common feature in the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca and, curiously, it is also ´a major (and basic) grammatical feature of Turkish´ (Arends, 2003: 229). Even though Turkish may not have been used on every occasion, if a Turkish representative were to speak to another person of lower position or even to a slave he would definitely use reduplication just as he would in Turkish. According to Arends (2003) this ´is especially the case with adverbs´ (2003: 229). However, before a hasty conclusion stating that Turkish created reduplication in the Lingua Franca is reached, other historical documents should be consulted additionally. The historical evidence suggests that reduplication is a common feature not only in the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca, but also in the Italianized version and can even be found in the earlier sources of the Lingua Franca. From this it can be inferred that it was not Turkish that created reduplication in the Lingua Franca because reduplication already was a common feature of the Lingua Franca. However, reduplication was supported through Turkish, as reduplication is also a quite common feature in Turkish, and therefore favourably used in the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. Turkish can not totally be disregarded as an influence for the Lingua Franca, but this influence still was very limited, almost negligible.

Another factor would be the time spent in captivity which was already short, at maximum five years. However, many slaves left even earlier either by ransom, escape or death ´as there was work that often was fatal i.e. galley work´ (Selbach, 2008: 34). This short time-span might have prevented Turkish and Arabic being either adopted or influencing the Lingua Franca to any degree. Given this short time-span it would definitely be easier and more efficient to have those in power, i.e. Turks, Arabs and renegades, use the Lingua Franca themselves as a means of communication. As the Lingua Franca might have already been known by a large number of people, not only slaves in this case, or was at least very easy to learn for the Christian slaves and renegades, no time was lost for acquiring it. Both, that the Lingua Franca was easily understood by the slaves and that it was already used by quite a number of people, can easily be proven by an account of Cortelazzo (quoted in Folty, 1984: 6). Cortelazzo states that the Lingua Franca was easily understood by Europeans, especially people from the Mediterranean and people that often trafficked along the ports of the Levant. “Essere facilmente compreso degli Europei, i mediterranei” (Cortelazzo, quoted

40 in Folty, 1984: 6). Cortelazzo further states that the Lingua Franca was not only easily understood by the people in the Mediterranean, but that it was used along all the coasts and ports in the Mediterranean by traders, merchants and seamen (quoted in Folty, 1984: 6). “Si usa fra i marinai […] fra i Mercanti del Mediterraneo […] di tutte le costiere del Levante” (Cortelazzo, quoted in Folty, 1984: 7). This clearly shows how widespread the Lingua Franca was at the time even in the parts of the Mediterranean conquered by the Ottomans. Therefore, as the Lingua Franca was already established and easily understood, learning Turkish or Arabic would have been too difficult and would definitely give unsatisfactory results in such a small amount of time. The Lingua Franca simply provided the better alternative.

One last factor might lie in the strategies and goals that were pursued by those in power. It might be possible to suggest that Christianization did not pursue the same goals and strategies as Turkification or Arabicization. In fact, Turkification was never interested in the sea as it was “on the whole, inland in character” (Kahane, 1958: 11), and as the Lingua Franca was predominantly a language used at sea and in the vicinity of ports and never inside the country, it is easily conceivable that Turkish never did influence the Lingua Franca. Rossetti (2005) gives an exact explanation of where the Lingua Franca was used “The Lingua Franca did not venture beyond a tightly knit urban context of pirates and traders confined to the port vicinity” he further states that the Lingua Franca did not expand onto the land trade as it “was of little use in the country” (Rossetti, 2005: 10). Furthermore, the Arabic and Turkish rulers allowed the Christian slaves to keep their culture and religion and did not seem to have the desire to use or integrate their own language. In fact, they even tried to keep their language away from the Christians. After all it can be stated that “the goals of the Arab regime in Algiers were not those of European colonisation” (Selbach, 2008: 53) and therefore using the Lingua Franca did not present a problem, which can be regarded as another external circumstance.

4.5 The Hispanicized variety

However, it was not the situation of Algiers itself that created a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca, this must have happened before these slave colonies emerged.

41 Multiculturalism, in this case, also did not create a new language but contributed to the enormous stability of a language already in existence. Now the question that arises is why it was adopted in the first place and with the help of history it can be evaluated what has led to these changes. The best clue is Fray Diego de Haedo (parts of original text quoted in Folty, 1984: 13- 14 and Markey, 1979: 36-37), for from his account we know that in Algiers around 1600 there already was a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. What should be mentioned at this point is that Haedo published the Captivity Report, which was originally written by his uncle, a Benedictine monk who had been captured and spent four years in captivity from 1578 to 1581. However, even though Haedo had not been in captivity himself, he still makes very valuable comments on the situation of the Lingua Franca in Algiers (around 1580) and offers great insights into the creation of the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. Unfortunately, Haedo is only one of very few who make references to the Lingua Franca. There are only two other references that state the existence of a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. One such reference is given in a travelogue of 1591 (quoted in Folty, 1984: 13), which mentions the presence of Spanish in the Lingua Franca for the first time. This travelogue is actually about Constantinople, but via the comments of Folty (1984) it is discovered that the admiral, who obviously led this “viaggio” had been a former slave in Algiers and therefore spoke the Lingua Franca with many Spanish phrases, “interponendovi molto parole spagnole” (1984: 13). We can notice that this “viaggio” (Folty, 1984: 13) took place ten years after the report of Haedo. However, we must take into consideration that Haedo’s account was published later in 1612. From these sources alone it can be concluded that by the end of the 16 th century there definitely existed a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca (in Algiers).

The only other reference given is a poem by Juan del Encina, the “Villancico” (quoted in Lang, 1992: 69). Encina wrote this comic poem after his pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1520 and this is also the very first attestation of the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. Again, as it is a poem, there are a few facts that need to be taken into consideration. Encina’s poem is “a burlesque in the classic sense” (Lang, 1992: 73), it is a parody of the language of Levantine traders that harassed Christian pilgrims. It was typical of that time to ridicule somebody by means of letting them speak a “broken” language. Additionally it seems that Encina had a ´restricted mastery of this language as

42 there are scribal errors, variation between forms of words and there is no consistency in genders´ (Lang, 1992: 69) and therefore some of the features that he presents may not be accurate. Furthermore, the intention was rather to amuse his Spanish readers by ridiculing the language and the people who spoke it. Consequently, this piece of evidence may not be taken as an accurate representation of the Lingua Franca as “it is impossible to neglect the several layers of distortion actual LF must have suffered in this satirical transposition” (Lang, 1992: 68). Furthermore, as this poem is about a street trader in the Levant, the question arises if the trader actually used a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca, if he actually knew a Spanish variety of the Lingua Franca. What can be said for sure is that neither a Christian pilgrim nor a Levantine trader could have used their own language to communicate with each other and the trader definitely did not know Castilian. However, as there were thousands of pilgrims the trader must have had great knowledge of the Lingua Franca, not necessarily a Hispanicized variety, but probably something similar. Furthermore, this trader must also have had a good knowledge of the languages of the European pilgrims, primarily vocabulary of several Romance languages, probably even Castilian depending if this trader had contact with Castilian pilgrims. Georg Lang (1992) comments on the Lingua Franca used by the trader as follows: “this lingo or something close was spoken by the Levantine trader” (1992: 69). What Lang probably means is that the Levantine trader could have used either the Lingua Franca, or something similar to the Lingua Franca. However, it is further possible that not the Levantine trader himself used a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca, but that Encina (himself) put the Lingua Franca into the mouth of the Levantine trader. After all, it was common practice that “if a Spaniard wanted to put words in the mouth of a Muslim character, the words would be in LF” (Lang, 1992: 70). Encina probably would have used a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca to represent the tongue of the Levantine trader. If a Levantine trader used a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca (it would be possible given the circumstances) might be irrelevant in this case, as the poem itself tells us something different, it represents the linguistic situation of the Lingua Franca in the Western Mediterranean and not in the Levant. Even though it is possible that there was some kind of Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca in the Levant introduced through Christian pilgrims of the southern littoral, whether the Levantine trader used it or not is not the elementary question.

43 The question that should be looked at more carefully is why Encina used a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca for his Spanish audience in the first place. It can be assumed that Encina knew that the Lingua Franca was well understood by his audience, well enough to understand the humour that he wanted to put across. Georg Lang (1992) even describes the situation of the intelligibility of the Lingua Franca in 16 th century Spain: “we must assume that it was a code recognizable to most literate Spanish” (1992: 69). So the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca must have been intelligible, otherwise Encina would not have used this language. It can further be assumed that he used a variety that was already there and did not create it himself, because despite all the mistakes that Encina makes, the language is still recognizable as a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. These mistakes can be explained by Encina’s imperfect mastery of this language and consequently also due to “a reversion to Spanish habit” (Lang, 1992: 72). Encina probably reverted to using Spanish grammar when he was using the Lingua Franca. It is not uncommon that while using the Lingua Franca Encina “whose mother tongue was a Romance language would occasionally throw in a conjugated verb out of habit” (Collier, 1977: 286). After all, due to its Romance base, the Lingua Franca was close to Encina’s Castilian and it could easily happen that a form was conjugated. It is also possible that forms were conjugated due to comprehension purposes for his Castilian audience. It can be concluded that Lingua Franca in its Hispanicized variety was a known language and it can further be concluded that the Lingua Franca was not only a powerful and recognized language by the end of the 16 th century but it was already in existence from the beginning of the 16 th century, as the poem of 1521 by Encina proves.

Now we still need to answer the question how it came into existence in the first place. As was mentioned, Haedo does not only give a detailed account of the linguistic situation of Algiers around 1600, he also gives clues as what has led to the emergence of the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca. The answer can be found in “the expulsion from Christian Spain of Jews and Muslims [often called “Moros”] in 1492” (Wansbrough, 1996: 28) due to the Reconquista (and also in ´the later expulsion of the Moriscos, Muslims that had converted to Christianity before 1492, in 1614´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 28) due to the Inquisition). It was the Reconquista, the re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula by Christian powers that forcefully expelled Spaniards of Islamic belief from Andalusia and led to the creation of the Hispanicized variety of the

44 Lingua Franca. The Reconquista was officially finished in 1492, however, the complete expulsion only started around 1500 and was finished only a century later (when the last Moros were expelled). This was a process “which bore immediate effects” (Lang, 1992: 71), not only linguistically. There was one radical expulsion of the Moslem population in 1501 which, according to Kahane (1958), “crowded into the North African ports” (1958: 19). The emigrants from Spain took refuge all along the North African coast, especially in cities with large ports, and most of these expelled people took refuge in the Maghreb, particularly Morocco. According to Haedo ´the main settlements were in Tetouan and Fes, in the kingdom of Fez´ (original text quoted in Folty, 1984: 13-14). Even today the influence of these Spanish refugees can be felt as in both towns Spanish is still spoken by many people and there are even old houses of refugees of the Reconquista. Tetouan was also known for its pirate reputation. In fact, most of the cities and kingdoms along the west and southwest coast of the Mediterranean had quite “a tradition of seafaring and piracy” (Kahane, 1958: 19). The kingdom of Fez, now part of Morocco, was populated in the beginnings of the 16 th century by the Spanish refugees. According to Haedo many of these refugees also found a refuge in Algiers and even settled there, which would explain the high Spanish content of the Lingua Franca in Algiers. As we can see, the influence of Spanish started as soon as Spanish Muslims and Jews, whose first language was Spanish, where expelled from the Iberian Peninsula and settled in the Maghreb. Most of these refugees turned pirate as many had a special grudge for being expelled, not only against the Spanish but the whole Christian society. As thousands of people with Spanish as their first language, or at least a very good knowledge of Spanish, involuntarily emigrated to the Southern Coast of the Mediterranean it seems almost logical that the increase of Spanish in the Maghreb must have had immediate effects on the already existing Lingua Franca. Also many refugees settled on the coast in cities with larger ports, so there definitely was an influence of the Lingua Franca by Spanish. Additionally the influence of Spain was enormous in the 16 th century. “Spain did control much of the coast” (Rossetti, 2005: 5). Rossetti (2005) gives a detailed account of the cities and parts of the Mediterranean that Spain controlled which included Melilla since 1496, Ceuta since 1580 which was taken from the Portuguese who had captured Ceuta in 1415. Spain also controlled other cities with large and important ports for some time such as Oran from 1509 until 1792, the Tunisian shore from 1535 until 1574 and even

45 Algiers, but only for a short time from 1509 until 1529 (2005: 5-6). All these (external) circumstances provide a very good explanation how a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca originated. The Lingua Franca was already ´spoken throughout the whole Mediterranean ports´ (La Condamine, quoted in Folty, 1984: 22). There are also other references that state the importance of the Lingua Franca in the whole Mediterranean, which was not only the language of traffic and commerce but also “the language of diplomacy” (Whinnom, 1984: 300), for instance in Tunis. The Lingua Franca was not simply there but omnipresent and given the “flexibility” and “openness of lexicon” (Selbach, 2008: 49) that the Lingua Franca possessed, it seems almost logical that the Lingua Franca took on a Spanish note in these regions. As Spanish gained more and more importance and the Spanish language increased in the Southern Coast of the Western Mediterranean the Lingua Franca adopted many Spanish words into its lexicon and through the settled refugees these words were retained as the necessary stability for steady use was gained. If such stability was not present, the Spanish influence in the Lingua Franca would probably have been lost over time. Haedo even gives an example where due to a particular incident the Lingua Franca was influenced by a language, but then this influence was lost as there was no stable contact that could uphold it. Haedo (1984) mentions the “Battle of Alcazaquivir” of 1578 in which the Portuguese king San Sebastian took part and which was fought in Northern Morocco (quoted in Folty, 1984: 13-14). The Christian army, around 23,000 men, was totally outnumbered and quickly defeated (Haedo, quoted in Folty, 1984: 13-14). The result was that 16,000 Portuguese were taken prisoner and, according to Haedo, where taken to Algiers which led to an enormous increase in the Portuguese vocabulary in the Lingua Franca (Haedo, quoted in Folty, 1984: 13-14). However, the Portuguese vocabulary soon was lost almost completely as the prisoners were released some time afterwards (Haedo, quoted in Folty, 1984: 13-14). Haedo is the only one who mentions this curiosity. In no other reference is an influence of Portuguese mentioned. It is only stated in the very late references of the late 17 th century that the Lingua Franca possesses ´features of the languages of all trading nations´ (Folty, 1984: 21), to which Portugal definitely belonged, but no definite statement about Portuguese is given. Schuchardt (1979) also does not mention Portuguese as a main source for the Lingua Franca and Castellanos (2010) even states that the influence of Portuguese “we can adjudge minimal” (2010: 4). The Portuguese influence on the Lingua Franca was very short-lived as it was gone as quickly as it

46 emerged. This shows the enormous flexibility of the Lingua Franca and the openness of its lexicon, as words could be as easily adopted as they could be lost again. Haedo even states that the battle had further consequences, as after the battle of Alcazaquivir a mixing of all kinds of languages and ways of speaking came about (quoted in Folty, 1984: 13-14). According to Haedo languages from all different kingdoms and provinces were mixed after the battle (Haedo, quoted in Folty, 1984: 13- 14). This battle was the key to what Schuchardt (1979) had called “blending” of the Eastern and Western variety of the Lingua Franca (1979: 34). Haedo describes what Schuchardt had also noticed and if history is considered we know how the Lingua Franca in Algiers came to be spoken. It was the expulsion of the Spanish Muslims, Jews and later Moriscos that created the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca, which was then shaped and fixed in the course of history. Additionally, in the late 16 th century in Algiers the Lingua Franca varieties were blended together. However, this seems to be a special case, as it only happened in Algiers.

It can be concluded that a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca was spoken in the Western Mediterranean since the beginning of the 16th century and that various external factors and circumstances provided a supporting basis for the successful adoption, further spread and retention of the Lingua Franca. Given these circumstances there never seems to have been a doubt about using the Lingua Franca as it was far too useful to not be used to its fullest potential. The Lingua Franca probably was the best choice for a language of communication and, compared to other languages, definitely the best alternative. Considering the historical evidence, we can make a rough guess when the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca emerged. Its development effectively started with the expulsion of Moros from Spain in 1492 and if we consider the immediate effect that this event had, we can further conclude that it took roughly 15 to 20 years for a Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca to develop and stabilize in the Western Mediterranean. If we want to assign a date for a relatively stabilized Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca it would be around 1510 which is, again, a rough guess (that I can not prove). As we can see, the influence of Spanish on the Lingua Franca and the creation of the Hispanicized variety of the Lingua Franca all happened around the beginning of the 16 th century, which is an interesting but also logical development if the external circumstances and history are considered. Therefore we should not totally disregard or even ignore history.

47 4.6 The Italianized variety

The Italianized variety of the Lingua Franca is also said to have emerged in the 16 th century. However, considering historical evidence this does not seem to be quite correct. Some theories suggest that both varieties of the Lingua Franca, the Hispanicized and Italianized, emerged in the 16 th . While this is true for the Hispanicized variety, which emerged around 1500, this does not seem to be the case for the Italianized variety. The 16 th century was seen as a major point of change in history because of the (erroneous) perception of history in the 19 th century. History and historical events concerning the 16 th century have been investigated only since the 19 th century and linked to the Renaissance. The image that the 19 th century imposed on the 16 th century was the image of the Renaissance “breaking away from the Middle Ages” (Chaunu, 1979: 205). While it is true that changes occurred in the 16 th century, the often mentioned “massive political shifts of the 16 th century” (Wansbrough, 1996: 54) are in fact only an economic shift from “what might be described as a ´northern tier´” (Wansbrough, 1996: 9), which is Barcelona, Naples, Crete etc. to a “southern tier” (Wansbrough, 1996: 9), which is Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, Palermo etc. The reason for this shift was due to “the presence of Ottoman authority from Oran to Alexandria and the Syrian ports” (Wansbrough, 1996: 9). The 16 th century was also the century of discovery where new worlds were opened up. However, this did not affect the Mediterranean (language) system. The 16 th century definitely did not mark a break in the already existing and established continuity of the old system of contact, commerce and chancery in the Mediterranean. Quite the contrary, what was perceived as new, the technological and economic changes and innovations of the 16 th century, were in reality established much earlier in the 13 th century, but due to the erroneous perception of history in the 19 th century all these achievements were attributed to the Renaissance, especially the 16 th century. What predominated was the “all consuming idea of the Renaissance as a major break in history” (Chanu, 1979: 206). This, of course, is a doubtful perception of history and it definitely is not true for the Lingua Franca. If the history of Italy is considered, including the importance that the Italian language held for centuries starting in the earliest centuries of Mediterranean contact, commerce and chancery, the Italianized variety of the Lingua Franca rather seems to be a continuation of a very powerful language rather than to have emerged in the 16 th century.

48 Italian was used throughout the Levant for centuries and Whinnom (1984) even considers the possibility that “Italian here means Lingua Franca” (1984: 297). Considering the historical documents, this seems quite plausible as the Lingua Franca was often regarded as “bad” or “corrupted” Italian, especially by Italians. Furthermore, linguistically speaking, the Lingua Franca does not only possess a “Romance word- order” (Whinnom, 1965: 524), but even seems to be Italian-based as especially Genoese and Venetian provided most of the words of the Lingua Franca lexicon and Italian is also predominant in all varieties of the Lingua Franca, also in the Hispanicized variety, and the main vocabulary is also “principally Italian” (Collier, 1977: 282). Furthermore, both varieties of the Lingua Franca, Hispanicized and Italianized, are mutually intelligible which illustrates the high content of Italian in both varieties. Considering this, an Italian influence must have happened a lot earlier than the 16 th century. Italian was an important language in the Mediterranean ever since and to know how the Lingua Franca was influenced by Italian and when it got its (final) Italian shape, it is necessary to trace the history of Italian through the centuries and consider the social importance that Italian had. If the history of Italian is considered, it will become clear what happened to the Lingua Franca in the course of history. What can be said is, according to Castellanos (2010), that there was a difference between the Lingua Franca of the 7th century and the Lingua Franca of the 16 th century (2010: 4). The 7 th century Lingua Franca Castellanos calls the “Original Lingua Franca”, and the Lingua Franca of the 16 th century, Castellanos calls the “Evolved Lingua Franca” (2010: 4). Various other scholars, like Rossetti (2005) and Whinnom (1984), have stated that there was a difference between the Lingua Franca of the earliest centuries and the Lingua Franca of the 16 th century. However, this impression might be caused through the problem of historicity as many historical documents might have been lost in the course of history and therefore the picture that we get may be quite different.

It is therefore necessary to evaluate how and when this difference emerged, and the key to this change might be the influence of Italian in the Mediterranean and consequently on the Lingua Franca and the social importance of Italian itself. Furthermore it is necessary to establish the origins of the Lingua Franca because to fully answer this question it is important to know how the Lingua Franca looked before the Italian influence set in. Another possibility that should be considered as well is that it seems

49 likely that the Lingua Franca, which was based in part on an ancestor of Italian, was relexified by a modern version of Italian itself. Through tracing the history of Italy we might just be able to answer the question of what part Italian played in the creation of the Lingua Franca. We will start with the importance of Italy in Mediterranean commerce, then the influence of Italian and then move backwards in time and establish the difference in the Lingua Franca and finally the origin of the Lingua Franca will be examined.

4.6.1 The importance of Italy

Commerce has been conducted in the Mediterranean from earliest times and through the centuries the volume of commerce increased considerably. By the 16 th century it is possible to talk about the great extent of commerce. The whole Mediterranean area has always been in continuous contact or as Wansbrough (1996) states, “it is the ineluctable circumstance of man to be in continuous motion and uninterrupted contact” (1996: 22). Isolation was a rare case in the Mediterranean, in fact, Wansbrough (1996) not only mentions the “density of contact in the Mediterranean space” he even talks about the “intimacy of contact” in the Mediterranean space (1996: 75). It is important, however, to consider that this “intimacy” or “density” of contact was assured through commerce (and chancery). If a closer look is taken at the situation in the 15 th century, it becomes clear how vast the influence of commerce must have been. In the 15 th century about 30 million people populated the Mediterranean area and if only one per cent were to be involved in long distance trade, this alone would “yield a substantial vehicle of contact and exchange” (Wansbrough, 1996: 193). The figures, of course, were greater than one per cent. However, the most peculiar aspect about the great extent of commerce in the Mediterranean is that it was dominated since earliest times by Italians. Italy was the “centre of gravity” (Chaunu, 1979: 205) in the Mediterranean, not only in the field of commerce but also in the field of naval technology, shipbuilding, banking, chancery, in short everything that was necessary for trading, and later in the field of art during the Renaissance. The “proximity of Italy” (Chaunu, 1979: 94) could be felt in the whole Mediterranean area and even beyond it in the Orient and the Atlantic Ocean. Italians since the earliest centuries were truly “at the hub of the old Mediterranean

50 trading system” (Chaunu, 1979: 95) and the Mediterranean Sea could even be described as the “Italian pied-a-terre” (Chaunu, 1979: 305). Italy dominated not only the Greek Sea but also the whole Levant and even the whole “Arab universe” (Chaunu, 1979: 218) became an extension of the eastern Mediterranean. Trade with the whole Orient was dominated by Italy and even Turkey was “opened for Italian merchants” (Kahane, 1958: 5) in the 13 th century. Consequently Italy, especially Venice, controlled the western ends of all four trading routes that spanned through the Levant and connected the Orient with the Mediterranean. These trading routes included both inland routes as well as sea routes whose western ends were all dominated by Italian commerce. This, of course, made Italy the most important trading “empire” in the whole Mediterranean and one can imagine the vast influence that Italy possessed during this long time. Not even Muslim rulers were able to completely free themselves from this Italian influence. After all, the Ottoman Empire was very powerful, but still dependent on the Italian maritime empire and its expertise. Furthermore, Italy controlled the Atlantic Ocean as well which right “at the start belonged to the Mediterranean peoples” (Chaunu, 1979: 192). It can be stated that the whole Mediterranean Sea and even the sea beyond its borders was dominated by Italy. In fact, Italy was the most important mediator between East and West and even controlled the relations between East and West. Furthermore, Italy was the richest and most powerful province since the 7 th century in the Mediterranean. It should become apparent that Italy controlled the Mediterranean through maritime commerce and that all of “Italy’s fortunes depended on her naval power” (Chaunu, 1979: 79). Italy is and always has been closely connected to maritime commerce and talking about Italy is talking about maritime city-states, maritime republics or even about maritime empires. However, talking about Italy of the earlier centuries does not mean talking about one “republic” or “empire” but talking about several independent empires. Italy itself consisted of these independent maritime city states and the most powerful and influential states were Genoa and Venice. Of course there were other city states such as Pisa or Florence, but these city states “did not manage ever to rival Venice or Genoa” (Wansbrough, 1996: 75). The most important city states always were Venice and Genoa with Venice controlling the East and Genoa controlling the West of the Mediterranean. It is not sufficient to only mention the enormous importance of Venice, but it is necessary to state that Venice had a monopoly on Mediterranean trade too.

51 Wansbrough (1996) even states that there was an “oligarchy of Venetian merchants” on the Eastern Mediterranean (1996: 52). While Venice had a monopoly of commerce in the Levant, especially with Egypt and Syria, Genoa on the other hand had a closer connection to Persia. However, at the end of the 13th century Genoa turned its back on the Levant trade and shifted its commerce to the Western Mediterranean to gain more independence from Venice and to be involved in even more profitable trade. When the northern Atlantic was opened up in the 12 th century Genoa became Atlantic oriented and started trading even with Flanders. Soon Genoa controlled the whole Western Mediterranean including the Atlantic Ocean but also parts of the central Mediterranean. By way of illustration the traffic volume in the 15th century according to Chaunu (1979) was 8,000 tons that were carried by shipment by Venice and Genoa alone, with Genoa shipping more than two thirds of the whole 8,000 tons (1979: 82). In fact, most of the traffic goods were “distributed through Christendom by Italian merchants” and most of these goods were, of course, shipped through Genoa and Venice (1979: 298).

4.6.2 The Italian colonies

The question arises how it was possible for Italy to establish this extent of commerce. What is certain is that it was not established within only a short period of time but through at least a century. However, more important seems to be the question how Italy could have extended its influence outside its own territory and how it could have maintained and sustained this influence. According to Chaunu (1979), “Italy needed to rely on something way beyond the sphere of great cities” (1979: 261). The whole extent of the commerce of Italy is “only conceivable within an established network of communication” (Wansbrough, 1996: 52), meaning that Italy needed an established infrastructure including ports, safe conducts, established traffic routes by sea etc. to sustain this vast commerce. Italy needed a direct connection to the cities and its ports across the whole Mediterranean. It was essential to be able to move around freely in the whole Mediterranean to develop the great extent of commerce that can be found in the 15 th century. Italy needed a “network of routes and terminals” (Wansbrough, 1996: 1) so that traffic could be assured. However, even an established infrastructure alone would not uphold such an extent of influence for a long time, as there would be the further possibility of other states interfering or changing their politics towards Italy.

52 A simple but effective answer that would enable Italy to not only gain further importance but also maintain its influence can be given. Through colonies Italy was able to control not only this extent of commerce, but also to maintain its influence far outside its own territory. It should be mentioned that at that time a “still primitive form of capitalism” (Chaunu, 1979: 261) existed and that colonies provided the necessary means that enabled Italy to move from one port to another without great difficulties. Colonies further provided safety, financial support and important strategic positions, which all contributed to the growth of power and influence of the Italian maritime empires. It should also be mentioned at this point that there were many different designations for these colonies such as trading colonies, naval bases, fortresses, possessions, settlements, Italian quarters, etc. The reason for this is that colonies of the earlier centuries were not the same as colonies today. These colonies were only a “sector of town [that] was usually situated near the port” (Chaunu, 1979: 262). The “colonies” were rather small and “consisted of one or more streets of traders’ premises and fondachi or warehouses” (Chaunu, 1979: 262). Through these warehouses the merchants and even “merchants from concessionary towns” (Chaunu, 1979: 262) could store their commodities. It was most helpful for commerce to be able to store goods all over the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the traders established themselves in these sectors and were able to live there in their secondary residences and “enjoyed complete exemption from any tariffs” (Chaunu, 1979: 262). The main difference between these Italian colonies and the colonies of today was that “these colonies did not try to rule over the whole country” (Chaunu, 1979: 262) like modern colonies tried to do. The Italian colonies were, by no doubt, independent and enjoyed many benefits, but they were set up for (profitable) trade and did not try to impose on the rest of the country. This was also a reason why these colonies and Italy itself were accepted throughout the Mediterranean and could establish themselves so successfully. However, they were all colonies in the strict sense that they all belonged to Italy. Even though there was much rivalry between the Italian empires, these colonies were still connected and belonged to an Italian network. The colonies not only connected commercial routes with each other but also connected the whole Mediterranean with Italy. So vast then was the influence of Italy. Italy, of course, had colonies everywhere in the whole Mediterranean and even beyond its boarders ranging “from London to Alexandria” (Wansbrough, 1996: 75). Most importantly, all of these colonies which were scattered all along the Mediterranean and

53 even far outside, overseas, always were situated in the vicinity or actually directly at ports of (larger) cities. After all, Italy was predominantly a naval empire and even though it also controlled parts of the inland trade routes, its main focus was trade on the Mediterranean coasts and coastal cities. As a result, Italy had a “great influence on coastal areas” (Kahane, 1958: 3), so it was not by chance that Italy had established its influence through colonies.

By way of illustration, to show the extent of colonies scattered all over the Mediterranean, it is necessary to mention where the most important colonies were located. According to Kahane (1958) in the East Italy had trading colonies on all three coasts of Asia Minor, in the North Pontic area, in the Aegean Sea and also the Northern Sporades including Chios and there were also settlements all along the Red Coast (1958: 3). In the Western Mediterranean Italy had colonies in Southern Spain but also on the whole Iberian Peninsula, there were several islands such as the Azores, Canaries and Madeira and, of course, colonies in the South and Central Mediterranean (1958: 3). What can be said about the Italian colonies is that some of them were lost over time, others were reconquered but most of these colonies remained in Italian hands due to the enormous power and influence that Italy possessed. (1958: 3). Of course, most of these colonies did either belong to Venice or Genoa. Venice possessed many colonies in the Aegean Sea, in Greece and the Peloponnese, along the Dalmatian Coast, and also the Ionian Islands were in Venetian hands. One of the most important trading colonies that Venice possessed was in Constantinople, which was most essential for trade with the Levant. Genoa, on the other hand, was even more influential as it possessed colonies all over the Mediterranean from ´Tripoli, Tunis and Honein to Ceuta and Malaga up to Arciala, Larache, Salé and many more´ (de Granda, 1976: 15). Genoa also had large establishments at various points on the Iberian Peninsula including Lisbon which secured its influence in Spain and Portugal. Genoese merchants could even be found in ´Fez, Tarkuku and Tabarka´ (de Granda, 1976: 18). Furthermore, Genoa had established itself on the Crimean Peninsula, especially Crimera and Galata which were important for Italian trade and most essential for Genoese trade.

However, these colonies, like all other colonies, were not ruled by a single instance but were in the hands of many Italian families and it also was these families that ruled and controlled them. This was because all these colonies worked in a “polynuclear

54 framework” (Wansbrough, 1996: 189) which means they operated “without a centre” (Wansbrough, 1996: 189). Colonies were not governed by a single administration but by several Italian families which remained independent from each other. The reason, most likely political, was quite simple. It would be an illusion to gain direct control from one single administrative centre over such a vast and complex space and it would further require “an enhanced administrative input (necessary) to sustain this” (Wansbrough, 1996: 55). It would simply be too expensive, as an immense quantity of administration would be necessary to achieve this kind of control, and furthermore, it would barely be possible to overview this complex process, and to maintain this kind of control would generate massive additional costs. Wansbrough (1996) also states that control from a centre does not necessarily mean an increase in profit as “it is questionable whether extension of political power generates economic profit” (1996: 55). However, profit was what all these Italian families sought and therefore the Italian commercial empire operated in a polynuclear framework which worked perfectly. In fact, it worked so well that it also generated “a self perpetuating infrastructure which operates irrespective of particular policies or participants” (Wansbrough, 1996: 74). In short, it operated on its own. Italy had thus created a “compound of commodity staple, colonial foundation and efficient communication” (Wansbrough, 1996: 53). It had established a well-functioning “network of communications” (Chaunu, 1979: 215), which was “a dynamic unit […] with a life, development and growth of its own” (Chaunu, 1979: 219). Even though this network of communications was fully independent, communication between these independent units was maintained and as Wansbrough (1996) states, “contact was the rule not the exception” (1996: 95). This network of communications enabled commerce at a very high level. It was not only immensely successful and operated autonomously but it also “remained constant for a long time” (Chaunu, 1979: 219). To maintain this network, communication was not only upheld within itself but there was constant interaction with its surroundings. After all, “no network of (maritime) communication existed independently” (Chaunu, 1979: 232). Without communication, this network would not have existed for long. Wansbrough (1996) states that the main reason that communication with the whole Mediterranean was upheld was chancery.

To sum up, even though this network was polynuclear a connection was still maintained. This connection could be found in what Wansbrough (1996) calls “the

55 extended family” (1996: 22). As all colonies were not only in the hand of families but also had a close connection to their surroundings, other colonies and the mainland, Italy, we can also talk about family networks. There was, of course, a lot of rivalry and competition between these families, as all of them tried to expand their influence and increase their trade and profit. However, very often several Italian colonies could be found next to each other. It was not rare to find a ´Pisan, Genoese and Venetian quarter alongside each other, i.e. in Acre´ (Roesetti, 2005: 2). Despite this rivalry between these Italian families (and also the city states to which they belonged) all of these colonies still belonged to an Italian network. An example of such a family network would be a ´Venetian family network which was not only linked to Venice and its colonies but also to the African littoral and also Nurnberg, Braunschweig and Lübeck´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 22). Another example would be ´the Gattilusi family which had its main establishment in the Aegean Sea and possessed several islands such as Enos and Thasos´ (Kahane, 1958: 12). The Gattilusi family was still connected to Genoa and was most important for the Genoese trade with the Levant as the Gattilusi family itself traded with the Levant and further connected Genoa with the Levant. Of course, there were many other families that also established a connection between Genoa and the Levant. Rossetti (2005) mentions several other family names and further states that their names also indicate their main establishment and where they were represented. Names such as “Algeri, Cairo, Tripoli, Tunisi, Di Persia, Moresco, Orano, Levante, Turcato, Damasco, Caiazzo etc.” can be found (2005: 6).

As has been stated all the colonies were owned by a family and were not only connected with each other but with their surroundings and also with Italy itself. Wansbrough (1996) notes that these family networks were closely linked due to “the role of kinship” (1996: 22). It was through “kinship” that a network throughout the Mediterranean could be established and it was “kinship” that made long distance trade possible in the first place (1996: 22). However, not only was the Mediterranean Sea dominated by Italy but by Italian family networks. These networks were highly competitive. However, they were connected at least within themselves and there was also contact between these family networks even though it was not always friendly. In a sense, it was the pursuit of profit that united them and which created “a fluid situation in which gain was the common aim” (Wansbrough, 1996: 16)

56 4.6.3 The importance of Italians

It is an important aspect that all Italian colonies were run by Italian families because these family networks supported the establishment of large Italian communities. These networks had previously ensured the establishment of the Italian maritime empire and now they ensured the establishment of the Italian communities. Given the enormous importance that the Italian families possessed at that time and considering how vastly their colonies were spread all over the Mediterranean, it does not seem far-fetched that Italian communities could be established in the most important commercial centres of the whole Mediterranean. Furthermore, many Italians were working for these networks, as Italian expertise was in great demand and Italians enjoyed a lot of prestige. Therefore, it is possible to state that family networks provided the basis for the further establishment of Italian communities. The main reason for the establishment of these Italian communities, however, was that Italians played a major role in the whole sector of commerce and seafaring and were strongly demanded and represented in the whole Mediterranean. As Italy was leading the way in all important inventions and sectors of commerce, seafaring and banking, Italians also profited from this circumstance. Italians had very high qualifications and were therefore greatly in demand due to their expertise not only in these family networks but by every other Empire or republic in the whole Mediterranean. Quite a number of sailors, merchants and bankers that could be found in the Mediterranean space were Italians due to the enormous importance and influence that Italy possessed. As a result, Italians also sought work elsewhere as they were guaranteed secured employment outside of Italy. It is easily conceivable that due to their prestige, there were a lot of Italians living, working and trading in the Mediterranean.

Therefore, due to the extensive establishment of Italian family networks that employed Italians all over the Mediterranean and due to the high demand for Italians in all parts of the Mediterranean, Italian communities could be found everywhere. According to Rossetti (2005) “Egypt always had a sizeable community of Italian ancestry”. However, Italian communities were not only to be found in Egypt (2005: 2). There was an Italian community in ´Tabarka which was also a Genoese colony from the 15 th to the 18 th century and huge Italian communities could be found in Tunis and Tripoli´ (Rossetti, 2005: 4-5). The Italian community in these cities was quite large that even an “Italian

57 consulate” was present (Rossetti, 2005: 3). Furthermore, especially Tunis and Tripoli, but also other cities in the Levant for the most part consisted of Italian people. Rossetti (2005) mentions that Tunis “was mainly composed of people from Genoa, Corsica, Naples and Rome” (Rossetti, 2005: 8). Concerning Tripoli, the situation is quite similar. In Tripoli the Italian community was so large that the Pasha “was surrounded by Italians” (Rossetti, 2005: 9). In the Western Mediterranean not much difference could be found concerning Italian communities. According to Chaunu (1979) Barcelona had a well established Italian community as “Barcelona was at the heart of an almost Italian communication network” (1979: 168). It can be assumed that there were many other Italian communities everywhere (else) in the Mediterranean. This, again, was partially because of the enormous importance and countless establishments of Italian (family) networks which employed exclusively Italians and further supported the establishment of these communities. Furthermore, these Italian (family) networks covered not only the whole Mediterranean but also conducted far- reaching business with the help of agents, which resulted in a further spread of Italians in the Mediterranean. A quote from Kahane (1958) definitely sustains this point, as Italian merchants conducted business “far and near and had agents in all the important ports and markets of towns” (1958: 15).These agents, certainly Italian as well, could be found everywhere because commerce, seafaring, even the whole banking system was dominated by Italian merchants and their agents. In fact, the whole field of commerce and seafaring was almost completely dominated by Italians. Chaunu (1979) further sustains this point as he mentions the “wide scattering of Italian merchant bankers and navigators throughout the ports, coasts and seas” (1979: 259).

As a consequence of the importance of Italian merchants and their far-reaching businesses there also developed a separate “merchant class” (Wansbrough, 1996: 67) in Italy which completely depended on commercial relations, treaties and transactions. In order to keep their importance, this merchant class tried to keep their commercial relations with other countries and they had great success. Through good relations “Italians were secure and autonomous” (Kahane, 1958: 15). As Italy, especially Venice, was closely linked to the Levant, the whole merchant class maintained good relations with the Levant. An example, given by Wansbrough (1996), would be an Arabic letter from Tunis to Pisa which arrived in 1366 containing “an offer of safeconduct for Italian traders” (1996: 161).

58 This also serves to show how favoured Italian merchants were at that time in the Mediterranean and their influence only grew. However, Italians were not only scattered all over the Mediterranean because all of them were members, merchants or bankers of influential Italian families (that on top of that owned colonies themselves) or belonged to a wealthy merchant class. The reason can rather be found in the leading role of Italy which had brought the Mediterranean all the important inventions in the commercial, seafaring and banking sector. As Italy was leading the way, Italians as well held great prestige in these fields. As an Italian it was easy to find work as a ´sailor, mariner, shipbuilder, notary´ (Rossetti, 2005: 3) or any other expertise in any of these fields. Chaunu (1979) states that “the Mediterranean still had sufficient prestige for a Genoese sailor to find employment”, which is not only true for any other Italian (who did not necessarily have to be Genoese), but this is especially true for the earlier centuries (1979: 146). In this text passage, Chaunu talks about the 16 th century where Italians still held prestige but not as much as in the 13 th century (1979: 146). So, Italians were scattered all over the Mediterranean because they could easily find work. However, another reason for the wide scattering of Italians in the Mediterranean is that by the end of the 13 th century “a great exodus” (Chaunu, 1979: 259) of Italians took place. Most of these Italians moved to the West to “Southern Spain, Portugal, the Low Countries and England” (Chaunu, 1979: 259). While it was mostly Genoese that moved to the West, Venetians on the other hand moved further to the East. Soon Italians could be found in the whole Mediterranean. As already stated, due to the prestige that these Italians held they were also greatly in demand. As a further result it was mostly Italians that were employed in the prestigious professions, mainly in the sector of seafaring but there were others as well. Rossetti (2005) mentions several different professions in which Italians held great prestige including ´secretaries of Deys and Pashas, many Italian engineers but also painters and architects (2005: 6-11). Other professions included surgeons and doctors and there were even Italian priests and writers´ (2005: 4- 5). Furthermore, shipbuilding as well was an Italian profession. The main professions, however, that Italians practised were as sailors, mariners and merchants, i.e. basically everything that had a connection to commerce and seafaring. De Granda (1976), for instance, talks about the presence of “Genoese and Venetian navigators and sailors” (1976: 13) and many Italians also held high positions in fleets such as ´admirals´ and also naval technicians were mostly Italians (1976: 14). Naval technology and seafaring were highly acknowledged and Italians held much prestige in these sectors as well.

59 Italians provided their expertise to the whole Mediterranean and even the Muslim rulers could not entirely “free themselves from dependence upon Italian expertise” (Wansbrough, 1996: 53). For that reason many Italians were employed by the Ottoman Empire. At first the expertise was provided by Greeks, but as many Greeks sought refugee from the Ottoman Empire they were more and more replaced by Italians. However, when the great age of piracy started the Italians were replaced by captives, who were also Italian. Kahane (1958) states that it was “all types of artisans among the Italian captives” that were used by the Ottoman Empire (1958: 15). In fact, all Italian captives that had knowledge about shipbuilding, navigation or any other naval technology were employed in the Ottoman dockyards, ships or even in the fleet. The main use for Italian captives in the Ottoman Empire was primarily as ´mariners and engineers´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 189). As slaves were used for work and many slaves changed sides, there were quite a number of Italian renegades represented in the Ottoman naval fleet, some of them “even among the highest ranks” (Kahane, 1958: 15). Kahane (1958) further states that “the warships were manned in part by hired specialists, Greeks and Italians” (1958: 15). Kahane also mentions that quite a number of renegades were Italians and ´among them were Venetians, Corsicans, Calabrians, Sicilians and Neapolitanians´ (1958: 15). There were, of course, other Italian renegades such as Genoese, Florentines, Pisans etc. that could be found in the Ottoman Empire.

4.6.4 The importance of Italian

Now that we have a notion of how vast and numerous these Italian communities were we can understand how widespread and favoured Italians were. Therefore, Italians could be found everywhere in the whole Mediterranean, even in the Low Countries and England. As Italians were represented so strongly and also enjoyed much prestige it is easily conceivable that Italian too was prestigious and used across the whole Mediterranean space. In fact, Italian was so thoroughly established across the Mediterranean and its influence so great that Rossetti (2005) even talks about “the prevalence of Italian” (2005: 3). This prevalence went so far that Italian was preferred over other languages and even remained the “cultivated language” of the Mediterranean (2005: 21). To put it bluntly, Italian simply was “more popular” (Rossetti, 2005: 21) than any other language in the Mediterranean, except perhaps the Lingua Franca, but there also seems

60 to be a close connection between these two languages. However, Italian was spoken everywhere, in the Levant, on the Barbary Coast, and Italian was even spoken by other European nations and everywhere Italian-speaking people or people with a good knowledge of Italian were employed to handle trade and diplomatic relations. This was due to the enormous influence that the Italian language possessed. Folty (1984) mentions that ´Italian was spoken in all important cities of the Mediterranean´ (1984: 26) including Algiers and Oran, but it was especially Tunis, Tripoli and other Levantine cities where Italian was predominant. Italian not only played a central role but it was also standard practice in everyday life. Even though the number of people with Italian as a first language was rather low, around five per cent of the local population according to Folty (1984: 29), Italian was spoken predominantly. “Italian in Tunis was used from the piazza to the court” (Trizuli quoted in Folty, 1984: 29), meaning that basically only Italian was spoken in Tunis, Tripoli and furthermore in all other Levantine cities. Through Italian one could easily make oneself understood and according to a reference quoted in Folty (1984) Italian was not only a means of communication, but it easily enabled communication: “er spricht flüssig Italienisch so daß er sich aktiv und passiv verständlich machen kann” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 17). Italian was spoken almost everywhere.

The reason for the prevalence of Italian was, as was mentioned before, due to external circumstances which were mainly political. As Folty (1984) mentions, Italian was “die Sprache des Handels, der Seefahrt und der Diplomatie” (1984: 29). As Italian was represented not only in commerce and seafaring but also in chancery it can be concluded that Italy was a political force and a powerful force indeed. There could only be such a vast influence of Italian on such a vast space, after all ´the Mediterranean was 2330 miles in length´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 9), if there was a political force present which supported this process. It was Wansbrough (1996) who emphasizes the importance of Italian politics on the Mediterranean space and states “political configuration could not but have an influence” (1996: 9). This political influence manifested itself not only in the strong presence of Italians in the Mediterranean but also in the presence of Italian representation such as in Italian consulates, in diplomatic relations which were “couched in Italian” (Rossetti, 2005: 4), in the “language of central administration” (Rossetti, 2005: 6) which was, of course, also Italian and even in “trade conventions […] written in Italian” (Rossetti,

61 2005: 11). Italian was the most important language of official administration, for instance, “passports were usually written in Italian” (Rossetti, 2005: 4) and ´Deys and Pashas employed Italian secretaries to deal with official correspondence in Italian´ (Rossetti, 2005: 4) and even European consuls “generally adopt the Italian language” (Rossetti, 2005: 4). Most importantly, due to its enormous significance, Italian was also ´known to Turkish ambassadors and also Deys, Beys and Pashas spoke Italian, some only a bit but others had quite a knowledge of Italian´ (Rossetti, 2005: 9). Curiously, “the secretary of the state of the Bey […] was often an Italian” (Rossetti, 2005: 11). The secretary of the state being today’s prime minister. Furthermore, Italian was most established in seafaring and due to the political influence and commercial monopoly of Italy, Italian, according to Rossetti (2005), was also “the paramount language” of the navy (2005: 6). Not only of the Italian navy but of the whole navy of the Mediterranean including the French navy and the Austrian navy (2005: 6,11). Even the ´Turkish navy borrowed the Italian terminology´ (Kahane, 1958: 15). Italian was further present in newspapers, of which one was published in Tunis (Rossetti, 2005: 11). However, there are two more examples that perfectly demonstrate the influence of political power upon the choice of (official) language. The first example is mentioned by Rossetti (2005) concerning “the first diplomatic treaty between France and Tunis of 1621” which was held in Italian (2005: 4). The second example is mentioned by Wansbrough (1996) who states that when ´England entered the Hapsburg-Ottoman competition for the Mediterranean trade the language that was finally chosen was Italian´ (1996: 77). The reason being the role of Venice, as Italy, especially Venice in this case, held enough political power to influence even the language of diplomacy and chancery (1996: 77-78.). As Wansbrough (1996) notes: “Italian had already penetrated the traditional Arabic format [of Arabic chancery]” due to ´a precedent use of Italian in chancery´ (1996: 78). The influence of Italian on Ottoman chancery relations demonstrates the vast influence of Italy and its enormous political power and it further “might suggest dependence of the Arabic upon the Italian” (1996: 163). This dependence, resulting through the political power of Italy which seems to have been greater than the Arabic, also suggests that in chancery there existed, what Wansbrough (1996) calls, “an Italian Vorlage” (1996: 166). As chancery is highly formulaic and consists mainly of fixed phrases, structures, set of expressions, stylistic features and a fixed terminology which was dominated by Italian, it becomes clear that Italian as a language must have been widely present.

62 It was also through the political influence of Italy on the whole Mediterranean that “a terminology, rich in Italian elements” (Kahane, 1958: 15) developed. This terminology was the “terminology of overseas trade, of commerce in the more modern sense, banking, maritime insurance, etc.” (Kahane, 1958: 16) and it was all “dominated by Italian” (Kahane, 1958: 16). Kahane (1958) further states that the terminology in these fields was so complete that it was adopted without reluctance by the whole Mediterranean including the Ottoman Empire (1958: 16). This terminology was “purely Italian” and this Italian terminology was so far established that only ´in the 19 th century it was replaced by a French terminology´, also due to external circumstances which were mainly political (1958: 31).

There can be no doubt that Italian influenced the Lingua Franca, given the political importance and presence of Italy. Furthermore, it seems that this Italian terminology which also developed due to the importance of Italy in the fields of commerce, banking and chancery was most likely adopted by the Lingua Franca as well. The question that arises is when Italian started to influence the Lingua Franca. If a closer look is taken at the language situation in the Mediterranean, two peculiarities are discovered. One is that both, Italian and Lingua Franca coexisted and were spoken simultaneously in the Mediterranean and the other peculiarity is that the Lingua Franca always was described as “an Italian of some sort” (Rossetti, 2005: 3). Folty (1984), for instance, mentions several references where the coexistence of Italian and the Lingua Franca is stated. There is the statement of Dr John Covel that “we were informed by our guides who spoke broken Italian and Lingua Franca” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 21). Further there is the report mentioned already above of an Algerian ship that crashed on the Cornwall coast and an interpreter could be found who had “a smattering of Lingua Franciae, as well as Italian” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 23). There is also a statement by J.J. Rosseau that says that Italian as well as the Lingua Franca is spoken in the Mediterranean “l´Ambassadeur entendoit la langue franque et parloit l´italien…” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 23). From these few references it can be concluded that Italian and Lingua Franca were spoken simultaneously by the Mediterranean population. Italian and Lingua Franca were not, as Whinnom (1984) has indicated, the same language. Whinnom (1984) states that Italian itself was a lingua franca and that there is a possibility that “Italian here means Lingua Franca” (1984: 297). The concern of Whinnom that Italian could actually mean Lingua Franca can be discarded by Folty, as

63 Folty not only gives references that Italian and Lingua Franca were both spoken in the Mediterranean, but also gives the reason why this was the case and further answers the question who these people were and if they all spoke both Italian and Lingua Franca to the same extent. Folty (1984) gives a valuable clue to how things were at that time and mentions that there was a difference between classes (1984: 12). ´It was predominantly nobles that spoke Italian, dressed in the Italian manner and even imitated the Italian traditions´ (1984: 12). Other people that spoke good Italian either belonged to a noble family or were employed at a prestigious organisation, so it was definitely people with a higher status that had good knowledge of Italian. On the other hand, it was the people from the lower classes that spoke the Lingua Franca such as people from the city, “cittadini” (Folty, 1984: 12), and predominantly, as Rossetti (2005) adds, “merchants, sailors, notaries, ship owners, renegades and captives” (2005: 7). Italian was a language of prestige spoken by nobles, ambassadors and others holding high positions, for instance, in administration. “Pure” Italian was spoken only by people of higher classes. People from the lower classes did not speak this “pure” Italian but rather a local unintelligible dialect. Furthermore, most people from the lower classes were illiterate, however, they did speak at least the Lingua Franca. Rehbinder, quoted in Folty (1984), confirms the low status of the Lingua Franca by stating that ´people who believe that Lingua Franca is the same as the pure and fine Italian language are in danger of ridiculing themselves´ (quoted in Folty, 1984: 25). This should explain how different Italian and Lingua Franca were perceived in the Mediterranean and that there was a difference between Italian and the Lingua Franca at least in the perception of some people. However, in several references the Lingua Franca is described as (either an Italian of some sort or) at least related to Italian and in a reference by Davis, quoted in Folty (1984), it is even mentioned how similar the Lingua Franca was to Italian “lingua Franca, or Italian of the country” (1984: 27). Another reference states that Italian was “d´un italien corrompu” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 17), “en italien qu´il entendit parfaitement” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 23), “schlechtes und verdorbenes Italiensich” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 25), “un misto d´Italiano” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 27), “un italien tres corrompou est la base” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 29) and “un ´mélange d´italien” (quoted in Folty, 1984: 29). There are, of course, several other references that all state that the basis of the Lingua Franca was (corrupted) Italian.

64 The reason for the Lingua Franca being viewed as some kind of Italian was due to the large Italian vocabulary that the Lingua Franca shared. As was mentioned before, due to the importance of Italy and the prevalence of Italian which further enabled the development of an Italian terminology which dominated commerce, seafaring and chancery of the Mediterranean, it seems almost logical that the Lingua Franca fully adopted an Italian vocabulary. Furthermore, people that were employed in these fields were predominately Italians that also used the Lingua Franca, so the adoption of this terminology was further supported. The reasons, again, were external, as the terminology in the fields of Italian dominance was so complete that it was only reasonable to be fully taken over by the Lingua Franca.

4.6.5 The establishment of the importance of Italian

The question that subsequently arises is how, when and why did Italy develop such a considerable importance that these developments could have happened. It definitely did not happen in the 16 th century, because as Wansbrough (1996) states: “certainly, by the 15 th century the machinery was in place” (1996: 194). What Wansbrough (1996) calls the ´machinery´ was the complex network of chancery and commerce which was dominated by Italian. The establishment of the enormous political influence of Italy and Italian started much earlier and by tracing the beginnings of this development it is also possible to elaborate when the Lingua Franca became so very influenced by Italian. If the assumption that the influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca started as soon as Italy gained commercial and political influence is correct, then history needs to be consulted to find out at what particular time (or period of time) Italy gained this commercial and political dominance. Only if commerce in the history of the Mediterranean is studied, is it possible to find the starting point of the influence of Italian. The only problem about commerce in the Mediterranean is that trade has always been conducted throughout its whole history. Wansbrough (1996) mentions that “a graph of maritime activity over any segment of recorded Mediterranean history would show the preponderance of commerce” (1996: 25). However, commerce has not been conducted with the same density over the history of the Mediterranean and this just might be a clue that needs to be pursued further. Density of commerce varied over the centuries but it reached a minimum around the 7 th

65 century. The reason was the Arab invasion which represented a catastrophe, to commerce at least. The grounds for commerce almost coming to a halt was “the fluctuating relationship between Christendom and the Maghreb” (Chaunu, 1979: 295). The relationship of these two political powers was very instable and furthermore mutual understanding was not always prevalent. Consequently “hatred between them presumes[d] a minimum of communication” (Chaunu, 1979: 57). This minimum of communication continued and was maintained for a long time. Even though there was not a complete break, the level of communication that was maintained was quite low compared to the dense commercial relations before the seventh century. However, even though communication was hardly there these two powers made sure that commerce, at least, was maintained as it was far too established and far too profitable to be totally discarded. Therefore, “the two systems of communication met for a minimum of limited but profitable trade” (Chaunu, 1979: 57).

While it is true that the Arabs had conquered the whole southern littoral and could have easily blocked the northern littoral of the Mediterranean they “could neither have benefited from nor have been interested in a maritime blockade of the northern littoral” (Wansbrough, 1996: 26). After all, as Wansbrough (1996) states, it has always happened in history that “military contact […] would influence but hardly eliminate commerce” (1996: 50). However, all of this changed with the increasing demand of the urban centres of the Mediterranean as the consumption level of these centres increased dramatically due to their multiplication all along the Mediterranean. Wansbrough (1996) states that “the higher consumption level of urban centres was hardly new, at least for the Mediterranean, but their linkage and multiplication must have generated an exponential increase in demand” (1996: 70). Wansbrough (1996) further mentions that this increase in demand could also have easily resulted in war, but for some reason this was then met with the re-establishment of commerce between the two political powers which led not only to an increase in commerce but also an intensification of diplomatic relations, and Wansbrough observes “that this should be met by commercial expansion rather than further conquest and / or plunder was undoubtedly a political, not an economic, decision” (1996: 70). Instead of plunder, conquest or other warlike activity, it was the establishment of commerce that ensured more or less peaceful, but not always friendly, relations between the Mediterranean powers. Political power and influence rested on commerce itself and

66 this was also the reason for the invention, development and improvement of new and old techniques in commerce and the first step towards the Italian maritime empire.

Therefore we need to identify two “historical junctures” (de Granda 1976: 13) or important turning points in history to evaluate when all of this happened. The first important turning point was the re-establishment of communication between East and West, and the second point was the starting point of large-scale commerce. What can be stated is that commerce since the 7 th century was almost negligible and conducted on a negligible level, but when it started to establish itself soon afterwards the connection between East and West was re-established. The point of this re-establishment is easily found, as occurring in the 11 th century with the birth of Europe. Furthermore, it was Italy that became the mediator between the East and the West and also controlled the relations of this communication. “From the time of birth of Europe in the eleventh century, Italy played a crucial part in re-establishing communications across the Mediterranean, and in controlling relations between east and west” (Chaunu, 1979: 79). Italy held the position as a mediator because Italy had always held commercial and diplomatic relations with the Arabic Empire.

The question then arises when the real establishment of commerce in the Mediterranean started to evolve. It is very difficult to postulate an exact date. However, what seems most likely at first sight is the 12 th century, as “the 12 th century attests certainly to increased traffic” (Wansbrough, 1996: 136). However, as it should be clear that this actually happened before the 11 th century the starting point can not have been the 12 th century. If history is pursued in more detail it becomes clear that the success of commerce only became visible in the 12 th century, but the real starting point was a few centuries earlier. The 12 th century only “signalled an expansion, not merely the beginning, of international trade” (Wansbrough, 1996: 52). This, again, was only a visible consequence of the establishment of commerce, but if history is consulted the starting point can be assigned to another century. The starting point of this extensive commerce that affected the whole Mediterranean was definitely the tenth century with its high point and then sudden stop - it was rather a setback not a complete halt - occurring in the 13 th century. It can be stated at this point that it was the time period of the 10 th to the 13 th century that was the real starting point of the development, re- establishment, and final fixation of commerce and political relations, with the results

67 becoming visible from the 12 th century onwards and the high point, the point where traffic, profit and treaties were most numerous, being the 13 th century. The sudden halt was of course the Black Death in 1348. Everything before that, concerning commerce at least, was by far too insignificant to affect the whole Mediterranean. As Chaunu (1979) states, it was ´the increase in population, the spread of human settlement in the whole Mediterranean which started around the 10th century and further both caused and accompanied the commercial but also technical developments, which never were greater than at any other time in the history of the Mediterranean´ (1979: 59). Chaunu further states that “during the period 1000 to 1350, the number of people increased four-fold, production per capita more than doubled and trade increased ten- fold” (1979: 262-263.). The development of (large-scale) commerce was accompanied by a real upswing which was visible from the 12 th century onwards and lasted until the start of the Black Death in 1350.

In this period of time the Mediterranean people “reached and maintained a peak of prosperity, territorial conquest, population growth and technical development” (Chaunu, 1979: 61) that was ´unsurpassed until the 17 th century´ (Chaunu, 1979: 262). This technical development was in all different sectors which were connected in some way or another to commerce, which included shipbuilding, chancery, business and exchange practices and the banking system. It was exactly this technical development that enabled the great establishment of commerce and, most importantly, all of these inventions, innovations and developments were Italian. These technical developments and inventions were on the one hand naval technologies, but on the other hand also banking practices. All of these included “caravel, compass or sextant, […] deposit banks, bills of exchange, the whole network of merchant exchange bankers, the great companies with their branch offices [etc.]” (Chaunu, 1979: 262). Most importantly, Italy was “leading the way” (Chaunu, 1979: 251) in all of these inventions which started to appear from the 10 th century onwards. However, it took until the 12 th century for these new technologies and practices to become widely established, which then further led to other technical innovations to be invented. Italy, however, was “the most important area in this field” (Chaunu, 1979: 259) and it was in fact Italy alone that “produced most of the early inventions, and provided the impetus and co- ordination. The compass, portolans and martelogio tables all appeared first in Italy, then in the western Mediterranean” (Chaunu, 1979: 259), which explains why Italians were

68 so highly demanded because they were acquainted with these inventions and techniques and further possessed the knowledge and experience of using them. The whole Mediterranean “benefitted from the intellectual and technical skills of Italy” (Chaunu, 1979: 306) and it was due to Italy that commerce became so widely established all over the Mediterranean and was consequently also dominated by Italy itself. In fact, these inventions were not used to their fullest potential outside of Italy before the 15 th century. These techniques and tools “had been set up early on, but to begin with its full potential was not realized outside Italy” (Chaunu, 1979: 269), which means that Italy from the 10 th century onwards became the most important centre of commerce and it consequently developed an enormous political influence.

What can be said at this point is that the real starting point of commerce occurred with the establishment of the then still primitive form of capitalism and the establishment of the banking system. It was the establishment of these systems that led to long distance trade and consequently created the need for the further development of seafaring and nautical technologies. The beginnings of large-scale commerce can be assigned to the 10 th century with the establishment of capitalism. Even though capitalism originated in Athens centuries earlier, it was “lost and long forgotten” (Chaunu, 1979: 260) by the Mediterranean until the 10 th century when it reappeared in Italy. Italy, again, was leading the way, after all, “this new form of capitalism derived from Italian experience” (Chaunu, 1979: 269). The starting point of this still primitive form of capitalism was the commercial company called a “commenda ” (Chaunu, 1979: 80) which was a “periodic partnership lasting for one season” (Chaunu, 1979: 80). The first proof of what at that time was termed a company can be found “in a text dated 976” (Chaunu, 1979: 261). Curiously, the origins of the commenda itself may have been Oriental and probably had their roots in “more sophisticated financial procedures like the hwála (credit transfer) and qirád (limited liability investment)” (Wansbrough, 1996: 67). Wansbrough further supports this point stating that the Italian commenda had “Islamic origins” and that the hwála as well as the qirád were “putative precursors of the Italian commenda” (1996: 67). Even though capitalism was further developed in the Orient and the diffusion of the new technologies may well be adduced to “Arabic speaking merchants” (1996: 67), the definite start of commerce in the Mediterranean was effectively induced by Italy. After the creation of these techniques of commerce Italy further developed these techniques and also

69 improved its tools until “eleventh-century Italy established the most rudimentary tools of commercial capitalism” (Chaunu, 1979: 260-261). From then on these commercial companies, or partnerships, only gained in power and importance and their “sphere of influence expanded from the confines of the Mediterranean and the Orient” (Chaunu, 1979: 260). There were several forms of partnerships. The earliest form was the commenda which appeared in the 10 th century and, according to Chaunu (1979), basically consisted of only two persons, one providing the capital and another who travelled but did not provide any capital (1979: 80). These companies developed and changed their settings accordingly. This change in settings can be noticed through the development from the commenda into another, but still quite similar form of partnership. In the commenda too much risk lay on the one providing the capital, therefore the developed form of the commenda, the “ collegenza ” (Chaunu, 1979: 261), was created which consisted of ´someone providing most of the capital and another who only provided a minor part of the capital but still travelled´ (Chaunu, 1979: 80). This kind of partnership also lasted for only one season.

Such developments tremendously changed the commercial practices and methods used in the 12 th and 13 th century and through these developments a great step forward could be made which finally resulted in ´the establishment of larger companies, permanent companies and also unspecialized companies´ (Chaunu, 1979: 80). By the end of the 10 th and the start of the 11 th century, companies were able to expand and set up branch offices which spread all over the Mediterranean area. This enabled a key development in commerce, which was the development “from a temporary partnership lasting for a single commercial season to a permanent capitalist partnership” (Chaunu, 1979: 268). This step really was decisive, as earlier companies were only set up for a short period of time and the now permanent partnership enabled larger companies to be set up and, most importantly, these companies were able to conduct commerce internationally. Furthermore, companies not only expanded but they also joined each other and as a result used the same commercial practices to allow interaction and competition within each other. The advantages of companies joining together were “shared out risks” (Chaunu, 1979: 80), but also the international use of “deposit banks, bills of exchange and double entry book-keeping” (Chaunu, 1979: 80) and other highly developed practices of commerce. Chaunu (1979) states about the commercial techniques that were used: “these methods gradually developed and became universally used” (1979:

70 80). One of such highly developed commercial techniques was the “bill of exchange” (Chaunu, 1979: 267), the so-called “joint-venture” (Wansbrough, 1996: 73). Chaunu (1979) describes the bill of exchange as “the best instrument of credit” (1979: 267). It was a highly developed “instrument of credit linked to an instrument of exchange” (1979: 267). A credit was given in one place but could be paid back in another place, i.e. another state or country, and also in another currency. It was a genial instrument which was particularly designed for international trade and “developed outside the deposit bank by an élite group, the great merchant bankers or merchant exchange brokers who had secure international connections” (Chaunu, 1979: 267) across the whole Mediterranean. These international connections were, of course, assured through colonies which upheld commercial relations and influence. It was, however, through the bill of exchange which was “deeply rooted in international trade” (Chaunu, 1979: 267) that such a extensive establishment of commerce in the Mediterranean was possible. There were, of course, other techniques as well developed over the centuries and finally became universally used by the Mediterranean people. An example which shows how these innovations were diffused in the Mediterranean and what crucial role Italy played in its diffusion is given by Wansbrough (1996) concerning the Florentine insertion into the Levant trade which consisted of the input and development of double-entry bookkeeping (1996: 74-75). This form of bookkeeping itself probably originated from Genoa. However, it was through the Florentine participation in the Levant trade that this practice and other practices as well such as the sea loan and the maritime insurance were extended to the Levant (1996: 74- 75).

It may be noticed that other practices were diffused in a similar manner, after all the Mediterranean was a dynamic unit which was quite interactive, highly adaptive and open to change. As a result, as these practices were all Italian inventions and developments, Italy dominated the whole Mediterranean trade by the 13 th century. The developments that were to follow in the later centuries were “really more an improvement than an innovation” (Chaunu, 1979: 81). What is most astonishing about the 13 th century is that the efficiency that was achieved by the end of this century was incomparable to the earlier centuries and most surprisingly never reached again until centuries later. Chaunu (1979) states that “at this time the tools of commercial

71 capitalism took shape, and they soon achieved a degree of efficiency unsurpassed until the start of the seventeenth century” (1979: 262). No other time achieved so many inventions, improvements and developments than the 13 th century. A further development, which was rather a consequence of the commercial practices was innovation in naval technology. Commerce was primarily conducted by sea, so an improvement of technology was bound to occur and also became necessary with the vast increase of commerce itself. Furthermore, from the start of the commercial companies, one most important factor which supported the further development of nautical technology was the circumstance that “at this time the merchant was also a mariner” (Chaunu, 1979: 261). According to Wansbrough (1996), ´in the beginnings of commerce the sailor and the merchant were most likely the same´ (1996: 25). As a result, the merchants were experts in both commerce and seamanship. This further supported the development of nautical technology. It should be mentioned at this point that due to this circumstance, that merchant and mariner were most often the same, medieval naval technologies were developed and improved to their fullest extent. Due to the experience gathered through travelling, the naval technologies could be refined and the nautical knowledge increased to a maximum. Before the time of the great inventions, existing technologies were refined to their fullest extent. For one, ships themselves were improved, but especially the old technologies of seafaring were improved and refined until navigation, at that time still empirical, achieved an incredibly high degree of efficiency and precision. However, the real revolution in sea-going techniques only started in the 12 th century when most of the (Italian) inventions emerged. These inventions were truly scientific innovations and not the empirical skills of early sailors. These inventions included ´the magnetic needle and compass, the rhumb line´ (Chaunu, 1979: 250) and ´the sextant and the most important invention the portolan chart´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 25). The real turning point, however, was not the invention of these nautical tools, but the ability of their ´full utilization´ (Chaunu, 1979: 250). It may be noted that most of these inventions were “known in the academic circles at least since the 12 th century” (Chaunu, 1979: 85). However, it was only since the 13 th century that most of these inventions were used. Chaunu (1979) states that “it needed two long centuries of adoption, experiment and dissemination before all this potential was properly within the grasp of those who needed it” (1979: 85).

72 It took even longer before all these inventions could be used by the whole Mediterranean because “the full potential [of these inventions] was not realized outside of Italy” (Chaunu, 1979: 269). These inventions, “the compass, portolans and martelogio tables [which] all appeared first in Italy” (Chaunu, 1979: 259), were slowly diffused from Italy to the rest of the Mediterranean and, more importantly, it was Italy that “produced most of these inventions, and provided the impetus and coordination” (Chaunu, 1979: 259). Wansbrough (1996) notes a real “time-lag between invention, diffusion and application” of these inventions which only becomes understandable if it is viewed in the light of fragmentation (1996: 29). It was not one major and sudden revolution that changed Mediterranean commerce overnight, but a continuous process of technological development, improvement, refinement and innovation that slowly created the basis for these inventions and the subsequent wide establishment of commerce and also the control and domination of the Mediterranean by the Italian maritime empire. It was this “condition of dispersed energies, insights and materials” (Wansbrough, 1996: 68) that finally created this vast result.

The refinements of medieval empirical seafaring techniques as well as the inventions of the academic circles and the ability for their utilization were all features that slowly merged together and created the most important tools of commerce and seafaring. The high point of this development, of this “accumulation of expertise” (Wansbrough, 1996: 24) is definitely represented by the “medieval sea-charts known as portolani” (Wansbrough, 1996: 24), since the portolan combines ´the skills of sailors, mathematicians and astronomers with the concepts of accuracy, practicability and commercial production´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 24). Furthermore, the portolan combines ´empirical knowledge with abstract concepts´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 24), which means that empirical techniques like reckoning, and other techniques, were combined with other technical instruments such as ´the compass and the rhumb line and the so-called hydrographic notation´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 24-25). All of this together created the portolan. The earliest portolan was created ´around 1270´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 25) and reflected the contemporary status of navigational techniques. The later portolani, however, were developed even further as the technologies were refined as well. The sea- charts, portolani, were the most important tool of seafaring up to the 17 th century. However, all of these inventions, technologies etc. could not have merged together if their diffusion was not assured through the highly developed network of commerce and

73 communications in the Mediterranean. As Wansbrough (1996) states “technology transfer was anyway assured by established traffic patterns” (1996: 142). All the inventions and “their metamorphosis as instruments and tables (for measurements and calculation)” (Wansbrough, 1996: 25) is truly astonishing.

4.6.6 The slow advance

The question that consequently arises is why it took centuries from invention to diffusion to final utilization of these technologies and tools. To be able to answer this question the pace of movement by land and by sea must be considered. Travelling in the Mediterranean in the earlier centuries was a lengthy process. As a comparison, Wansbrough (1996) mentions that ´a camel could travel for three days without water carrying a load up to 180 kilograms and move over a distance of 100 kilometres in this short time´ (1996: 15). Chaunu (1979) further adds that this makes an average of ´about thirty-five to forty kilometres a day which could take up to ten hours. Furthermore, it took twenty camels about eight to ten weeks to move a ton of goods across the whole Sahara, which is about 5,000 kilometres´ (1979: 233). A ship at that time needed a couple of months to travel across the whole Mediterranean which is also about 5,000 kilometers. Wansbrough further states that up to the 16 th century the journey across the Mediterranean could therefore easily be measured and gives the length of journey from Venice to other locations as an example. ´From Venice to Alexandria took about 89 days, to Istanbul about 81 days and to Damascus the journey was about 102 days´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 9). Comparing travelling by land and by sea astonishingly leads to the conclusion that transport by land was faster than transport by sea. Chaunu (1979) also states that compared to the sea route “the land route was in many cases quicker” (1979: 234). The reason for this peculiarity was the galley, a very well designed merchant vessel, equipped against enemy attack and also a great means for cargo transport, but, however, also very slow. The galley’s propulsion was human strength, oars to be precise, which made it a very reliable but slow cargo vessel. Sailing ships would have been by far quicker but it was due to the Venetian trading monopoly that the galley was used until the 16 th century in the Mediterranean basin. The galley had a speed of up to fifty miles per day and ´a journey from Venice to Jaffa took about forty to fifty days and a journey

74 to Alexandra took up to 5 months´ (Chaunu, 1979: 236), which matches the time measured by Wansbrough.

Most importantly these figures hardly changed over time, which further leads to the conclusion that the time necessary for travelling across this Mediterranean network “hardly altered for well over a millennium” (Wansbrough, 1996: 43). It is most astonishing how constant the time of travel was over the centuries and how little change there was “(for the millennium) since the establishment of Roman naval dominance” (Wansbrough, 1996: 26). Wansbrough further states that “the voyage between Marseilles and Alexandria took as long in the 12 th century as it had in the 2 nd ” (1996: 27). This can only mean that the technological achievements up to the 12 th , probably also the 13 th century, including “bulk haulage, safety and comfort, had not been able to reduce time under sail” (1996: 27). So it can be stated that invention, diffusion and application of technologies took centuries to reach the whole Mediterranean because the time necessary for travel itself was a difficult, complex, and overall a lengthy process which only allowed a slow advance (of technological development).

All of the technological advance, the developments in seafaring, the creation of capitalistic practices and the creation of the banking system had two further consequences for the Mediterranean world of commerce. For one, this ´technological refinement led to intensive commercial traffic which further affected transaction and transport costs dramatically´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 26). In short, commerce, especially by sea, became frequently cheaper, after all, “lower costs generate greater activity which exhibits lower costs” (Wansbrough, 1996: 27). The technological refinement enabled commerce to be conducted more effectively, as commerce became a lot more comfortable and secure. The density of commerce also increased tremendously and therefore commerce by sea became a lot cheaper, especially compared to transport by land. As, again, Wansbrough (1996), correctly notes, “repetition generates density” (1996: 73). As the frequency of trade and the distribution of goods not only increased but were also maintained and stabilized it further created not only the “density of contact in the Mediterranean space” (1996: 195) but it also created the “density of communication” (1996: 189). This was also the other consequence, the creation of a commercial network with a commercial language with its own (Italian) terminology. Today, such a language would

75 be called a business language. This commercial language, or rather language of commerce, had “a distinct element of practicality” (Wansbrough, 1996: 168). As Wansbrough states, this language of commerce developed through increased and refined traffic and was a highly stylistic and formulaic language adopted to special needs for commerce and consisted of `a fixed phraseology, a concealment of agency, a flat prosaic style and this kind of style was adopted because it could be achieved by any (other) language. It further facilitated interlingual communication` (1996: 168). As this language was quite similar to chancery language, it also had a “contractual nature” and its “procedure was explicitly documentary” (1996: 139). Therefore, paperwork that was required for commerce became a lot “easier because it was largely formulaic [and] it would take less time” (1996: 194). After all, this was not a spoken language but, like chancery, it was predominantly a written language consisting of contracts, treaties, petitions etc. So there was a lot of paperwork, but the paperwork that was required could easily and, more importantly, quickly be handled. The result of this language of commerce and its terminology was “internationally understood practice and increased productivity” (Wansbrough, 1996: 139). The most important aspect, however, was that all this technological advance and the resulting commercial language was dominated by Italian, as the terminology and phraseology that was used was predominantly Italian. The whole process started around the 10 th century and it was around the 12 th /13 th century when this commercial language was dominated by Italian and also had its high point and greatest influence. One may be deceived to believe that this language of commerce was actually THE Lingua Franca. However, there are many clues that indicate something else. This commercial language was not the Lingua Franca, as it was a written language, a language similar to chancery. The Lingua Franca, however, was not a written language at all, it was purely a spoken language, nothing was ever written in this language, especially not business records, treaties or contracts. The Lingua Franca was only a means of person to person communication, not of official correspondence. Furthermore, the Lingua Franca existed earlier on, at least from the 7 th century onwards.

The conclusion that can be drawn from this at this point is that the Lingua Franca was influenced by this commercial language probably since the 12 th /13 th century onwards, maybe even earlier. If the first attestation of the Lingua Franca is consulted, the so- called Grion poem (quoted in Folty, 1984: 7), which is said to be the beginning of an

76 Italian based terminology in the Lingua Franca, it can be noticed that the time it was written, the date of 1285 is suggested, matches this assumption (1984: 7).

4.6.7 The influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca

Finally, we should be able to answer the question why the Lingua Franca was so heavily influenced by Italian that the Lingua Franca became so similar to Italian itself. As has been seen, the historical explanation for this assumption can be found in the leading role of Italy in the Mediterranean commerce. Not only did Italy dominate commerce, banking, seafaring and even chancery but it was also the main creator, distributor and the main user of all these inventions, technologies and practices. From the start of commerce, banking and seafaring Italy took the lead and it also maintained its leading position. Italy truly was the “backcloth” (Chaunu, 1979: 289) of all the developments of commerce in the Mediterranean. This process started in the 10 th century, but due to the slower pace of movement, development and diffusion at that time it took until the 12 th /13 th century for Italy to unfold all of its potential. As noted, the dominance in the sectors of commerce etc. resulted in the development of an Italian terminology that was used in these sectors and through the enormous importance of Italy, its influence and its stability this terminology was maintained. This, of course, was one aspect of the influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca. Another (external) circumstance was the Crusades. The reasons why the Crusades must have had such an enormous influence on the Lingua Franca were various. One reason was the circumstance that Italy dominated not only the language of commerce but also transport itself. At this point it should be stated that the first and the second Crusade were carried out by the land route, and the land route was only in part controlled by Italy and the Lingua Franca was most likely not used on the land route. However, the third Crusade and the Crusades that followed were carried out via the sea route and the sea route was fully controlled by Italy. Here, the important aspect necessary to explain the influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca lies in one peculiarity of the Lingua Franca itself. The Lingua Franca was spoken on the sea, on ships and in ports. As the third and the following Crusades used the sea route, which could take up to a couple of months, and Italian was the predominant language in transport itself and, of course, on Italian transport ships. It should become clear that there must have been a strong influence of

77 Italian on the Lingua Franca. It was the (external) circumstances which clearly favoured Italian on ships and in sea transport (and through the banking system which had enabled transport), that as a further result enabled the influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca. As Wansbrough (1996) states, “transport was an Italian monopoly, also competitive but to some degree regularized with the Crusades” (1996: 53). Again, this was only one aspect of this influence, another aspect was that “the Crusader states Genoa, Pisa and Venice controlled not only the carrying-trade, but acquired commodity concessions and property rights (church market) in every port (including Jerusalem) they helped to capture” (Wansbrough, 1996: 53). This means that Italy and therefore Italian was widely established in the Muslim states. In fact, Italy was so far established that there were Italian quarters and settlements everywhere and Italian was also spoken in the cities of the Levant which further influenced the Lingua Franca. The Lingua Franca was also present and predominantly used in the Muslim cities for communication between Muslims and Christians. Many Italians, or Franks at least, lived side by side with Muslims in these Crusader cities and also communicated with each other which, of course, influenced the Lingua Franca, as the language that was predominantly used was Italian. One can not rule out the influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca during the Crusades especially in the cities captured by the Europeans that also had a large Italian settlement. One last circumstance which definitely affected the Lingua Franca was that Italy controlled communications between East and West. In fact, Italy had established a whole network of communication in the Mediterranean which was of course Italian- based. Since the “birth of Europe in the 11 th century, Italy played a crucial part in re- establishing communications across the Mediterranean, and in controlling relations between the east and the west” (Chaunu, 1979: 79). The very old division of the Mediterranean between East and West was for the most part a geographical division but also a political and a religious division. Italy, however, had successfully established a link between the East and the West through its commercial empire and as Italy was a very powerful political entity, it also had the means to maintain this communication. Italy had established a whole network (of communications) which was not only dominated by Italian but also dependent on Italian. However, the most important aspect about this network was that the Lingua Franca was the unofficial language (and in- official means) of communication here. It should become clear how great the influence of Italian must have been on the Lingua Franca. The communication established by this

78 network was also the “real unity in the Mediterranean world” (Chaunu, 1979: 192), and the one language that enabled communication in this network was the Lingua Franca (as the Lingua Franca was spoken in the whole Mediterranean). Again, the beginning of the influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca started at latest in the 11 th century with the establishment of a link between East and West and the establishment of an extensive network of communication by Italy.

Thus it can finally be stated that an influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca started in the 11 th century for various reasons. Italy established the earliest tools for commerce, was so successful that it consequently dominated commerce, was able to uphold its dominance because it was also responsible for the most important inventions of seafaring etc., and out of its leading role in the Mediterranean world of commerce, chancery, diplomacy and various other fields Italian also dominated the terminology and the expressions used concerning this terminology, used only in these fields. This, in turn, further influenced the Lingua Franca which already had been present in the whole Mediterranean. The Italian terminology, then, was simply adopted by the people who needed it, who were mainly merchants, mariners and also bankers or their agents, and as the influence of Italian was maintained up to the 17 th century the Lingua Franca adopted more and more Italian terms until it became very much alike to Italian itself. The results of this process, the Italian influence on the Lingua Franca, become visible from around the 13 th century onwards, but it can be stated that the real influence of Italian on the Lingua Franca started in the 11 th century and, through a slower pace of movement and diffusion at that time, it took until about the 13 th century until the Lingua Franca became its (final) Italian shape as we know it today.

79 Chapter 5: The origins of the Lingua Franca

The most complicated issue about the Lingua Franca is the question concerning its origins. Many theories have been stated of which most were advanced in the field of contact linguistics. However, these theories “tend to be outnumbered by hypothesis for their interpretation” (Wansbrough, 1996: 177). Even though these theories have the advantage of the sociolinguistic perspective and offer valuable insights, they are still theoretical and, as Wansbrough (1996) calls it, “historically exiguous” (1996: 148). Of these several theories none can really prove how the Lingua Franca originated. In fact, speculation about the “putative origins have so stunningly proliferated in recent scholarship that no single version is likely to attract unqualified assent” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148). Of course, the more theories there are, the more difficult it gets to single out a correct version. However, concerning the theories about the origin of the Lingua Franca most of these are very unspecific and whereas other theories state, or even restate, the same. Therefore, here a theory will be consulted which is fascinating, as it is unknown. The scholar proposing the theory is J.E. Wansbrough (1996), who gives a historical perspective on the Lingua Franca, which has been ignored in all in other theories. Wansbrough analysed history, to be more precise, the history of contact in the Mediterranean basin. His findings are that contact can be dated in the Mediterranean at least since 1500 BCE and that the matrix of this contact was diplomacy (and, as a further consequence, diplomatic (trade) relations). It is astonishing that contact was established so early between the Mediterranean peoples and it is even more astonishing that the kind of contact was diplomatic, which indicates the presence of a high culture in these early times. The Lingua Franca was created out of contact of the Mediterranean peoples that communicated through diplomatic relations. How and when this happened will now be discussed in detail.

Diplomacy assured regularized, steady and continuous contact. After all, diplomacy itself “is an array of techniques devised precisely to formalise and facilitate communication” (Wansbrough, 1996: 77). However, it was not diplomacy as such that created the Lingua Franca but one central aspect of diplomacy, chancery. Chancery was the “source and framework of state diplomacy” (Wansbrough, 1996: 1). Diplomacy assured continuous contact but it was chancery that enabled communication itself as

80 diplomatic contact, at that time, was for the most part conducted in written form. The main forms of communication were through ´treaties, decrees, letters, covenant etc.´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 194) and consisted of fixed expressions and formulae that were facilitated through chancery practice. Chancery was, therefore, “designed to fix the terms of political and economic intercourse” (Wansbrough, 1996: 45). Chancery was the determining factor in diplomatic relations as it allowed communication due to chancery language which was developed as “the matrix of intelligibility” (Wansbrough, 1996: 180). Through continuous diplomatic contact a language developed, the best term however would be “Fachsprache” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166), called chancery language in which style was the most important aspect. “Chancery language does tend to crystallize in phrasal patterns and lexical collocation” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148). Even though chancery language was used only in contexts of diplomacy and commerce it was still a widely used medium of communication that facilitated intelligibility and enabled effective communication in precisely these fields. Furthermore, diplomacy was always directly linked to (maritime) commerce. Ever since 1500 BCE, but not earlier, commerce was conducted by sea and, as Wansbrough states, “chancery activity (that) nicely corresponds with maritime technology” (1996: 64). The circumstance that made this possible was that the necessary technology, both “nautical and organisational”, was available already around “1500 BCE” (1996: 64), which is astonishing. However, chancery language is not the Lingua Franca itself but it was diplomacy, chancery and commerce that provided the necessary input for the creation of the Lingua Franca. Diplomacy ensured and established contact throughout the Mediterranean, so that the whole Mediterranean could interact. Commerce was important as well as the manifestation and pursual of diplomacy and diplomatic relations. Chancery language enabled, maintained and regularized communication and created the basis for a style of communication that was not only intelligible to all participants but could also be achieved in any language. It can be stated that the Lingua Franca emerged through “economic, political and administrative input” (Wansbrough, 1996: 1). This seems very plausible as any lingua franca “whether dialect, pidgin or creole requires input from several sources” (Wansbrough, 1996: 147).

Once again it was the external circumstances that were responsible for the formation of the Lingua Franca and to trace the beginnings and the development of the Lingua Franca the circumstances of chancery, commerce and diplomacy must be elaborated.

81 Wansbrough further undermines the position of external circumstances being responsible for the creation of the Lingua Franca by stating that for the formation of the Lingua Franca “a strictly linguistic reason is not obvious” (1996: 179). It is fascinating that the Lingua Franca but also many other Pidgins and Creoles were formed “for reasons that are seldom purely linguistic” (1996: 153).

5.1 The importance of chancery

Chancery practice is a very old craft and was already established in the Bronze Age. Wansbrough states that chancery seems to have “what appear to be Bronze Age origins” (1996: 1). However, as it was already established around 1200 BCE its original creation seems to date back even further. Wansbrough states that “the innovation [of chancery practice] was very likely preceded by a period of experiment” (1996: 64). According to Wansbrough the “evolution of chancery practice” (1996: 12) starts with “visible language, or writing” (1996: 30). As chancery is a written practice it seems almost logical that only the establishment of writing itself can be the starting point for chancery practice. Writing, like any other profession or technique, can be and was, of course, further developed (and one of the end results was the creation of chancery). Wansbrough calls this the phase of “scribal experiment” but it was not until the invention of another technique that writing, or literacy the evolved form of writing, spread all across the Mediterranean (1996: 35). “The craft of writing was already at its beginning established and distributed. Its evolution still had to experience the alphabet” (1996: 149). It was the invention of the alphabet that enabled the diffusion of writing and, as a further consequence, literacy in the Mediterranean (1996: 34). Its diffusion, of course, is “only conceivable within an established network of communication” (1996: 32). History allows this assumption. Chancery was already established in 1200 BCE and writing was developed even earlier than that. However, if literacy spread through an established network then the question remains what network could fulfil this paradigm. As was mentioned before, chancery and commerce were closely linked and it was, in fact, through the network established by commerce that literacy spread in the Mediterranean. According to Wansbrough “the traverse of the entire Mediterranean was achieved at that period, almost not earlier than 1500 BCE” (1996: 65). So, chancery was

82 established after the invention of writing, the invention of the alphabet, which allowed “efficiency and prestige” in writing, and the diffusion of literacy, which is the result of writing and the alphabet, in the Mediterranean (1996: 4). The alphabet itself was invented in the Levant and from there it spread westward as well as eastward. The trajectory of the alphabet across the whole Mediterranean and the very final establishment of chancery took over a millennium, as Wansbrough states: “the timescale is inordinately generous, approximately twelve centuries (1500 – 300 BCE)” (1996: 179). During this time there were, of course, many modifications made “which would certainly enhance its usefulness” (1996: 140). What can be said is that with the spread of literacy chancery could evolve.

Interestingly enough one would expect that the diffusion of the alphabet, development of literacy and establishment of chancery were “the product of an inclusive political system” (Wansbrough, 1996: 140). However, “the actual historical development is probably the opposite” (Wansbrough, 1996: 140). It was not a political system that created writing, the alphabet or literacy nor chancery itself, but it was the evolution of chancery that created a (political and economic) unity in the Mediterranean. In fact, it is doubtful that a political entity vast enough to induce such developments existed during the time of the evolution of writing and, as a further consequence, chancery. However, regardless if there was a political system or not, by 1200 BCE, at the latest, “a framework for Mediterranean communication was now in place” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49), which is chancery, of course. The further consequence of the establishment and regular use of chancery was the “acknowledgement of the written record as paradigm for the conduct of business and diplomacy” (Wansbrough, 1996: 45). Chancery was the evolved form of written communication. However, what is most important about this aspect of evolution of chancery is that the establishment and development of chancery practice “is coterminous with the history of the Mediterranean lingua franca” (Wansbrough, 1996: 32)

Before the evolution of chancery can be elaborated there was one problem that chancery had to solve before it could progress any further. As was mentioned before, chancery was an accumulation of expertise, writing and especially the alphabet in this case. However, through this accumulation a rather disadvantageous (side)effect occurred,

83 namely redundancy. Wansbrough states that “redundancy is the standard concomitant of any accumulation” (1996: 31) which negatively effects intelligibility and efficiency in writing. However, in the course of history this tendency was most often “not merely noticed but eliminated, or at least reduced” (1996: 31). The consequence of this tendency on the other hand, even though matters are simplified here, was the reduction, even elimination in later years, of redundancy itself “and that was the product of chancery practice” (1996: 31). It was chancery itself that reduced redundancy in writing and enabled its own further development. This was achieved in that “a specific problem of technology was solved in a more or less recoverable context” (Wansbrough, 1996: 31). To be more precise, chancery employed several techniques which were separated, then individually developed and finally put together again, which was quite a lengthy process. Techniques of chancery, according to Wansbrough were “originally isolated, gradually juxtaposed and finally amalgamated in the interests of efficiency” (1996: 139). This evolution of chancery, which Wansbrough calls “chancery experiment”, took quite some time until it was finished and, furthermore, until the final product in the first Millenium BCE, the process was far from unitary (1996: 32). As Wansbrough states: “the evolution and proliferation of chancery office was hardly uniform: its history exhibits considerable local variation” (1996: 120). The more astonishing is that these variations were all minor enough to establish a uniform code that was known and accepted as a standard. Such minor obstacles could only be overcome if all participants in chancery practice were in regular, not necessarily dense but continuous contact with each other. Contact would be indispensible for such parallel development. This steady contact was ensured through the establishment of a (commercial) communication network in the Mediterranean, and also the diffusion of the alphabet itself can, according to Wansbrough, be regarded as “a guarantee of cultural contact” (1996: 34). Furthermore, despite all these obstacles of local variation, many similarities can be detected in chancery practice. The most important aspect in chancery is that all its local variations shared one distinct element. This distinct element is the achievement of a “communicative clarity” (Wansbrough, 1996: 158), which is a uniform code of effective communication. Therefore, chancery evolved into “the matrix of intelligibility, authority and, above all, practicality” (Wansbrough, 1996: 180). Chancery evolved into a uniform code that was recognized in the Mediterranean and was intelligible and, most importantly, also accepted and taken over by the whole Mediterranean at latest by 500-

84 300 BCE. This code, as soon as it was established, consisted of “an agreed lexicon of administrative and juridical terms/concepts, acknowledged procural uniformity, and an emblematic format to convey these” (Wansbrough, 1996: 180).

This development, the uniformity of chancery, at first sight also seems to be the product of a central authority such as the Roman Empire. Wansbrough states “the imposition of a uniform legal code, fiscal system and linguistic register requires dissemination from a central place recognized as source of judgement and style” (1996: 36). Chancery is without doubt an instrument of power which “ideally expands with the extension of power” (1996: 36). The more power and influence chancery gained in the course of its evolution, the further it spread across the Mediterranean. This, most definitely, is also the “primary feature of an imperial system” (Wansbrough, 1996: 44). Furthermore, chancery all over the Mediterranean varied, but at the same time had many shared features of which a “fixed sequence of components” (Wansbrough, 1996: 144) was the most important and most central determining factor which could be found in chancery of the whole Mediterranean. So “the focus was upon format” (Wansbrough¸ 1996: 144). Wansbrough summarizes the importance of format in chancery very well as “the role of formulaic expression, characteristic of any usus loquendi but critical in the jargon of commerce and diplomacy” (1996: 145). Chancery was a determining factor in Mediterranean contact and its procedures were fixed, more or less at the time of “chancery experiment” (which is the time of evolution of chancery), but still adaptable and mutually intelligible to local variations, and chancery also enjoyed a lot of prestige which “suggests a system both flexible and sophisticated” (Wansbrough, 1996: 51). This, even more, “presupposes an acknowledged source of power” (Wansbrough, 1996: 120).

However, if not an empire such as the Roman Empire can be regarded as the source of authority, what else could be important enough to have such a centralising power to qualify as such. The answer is rather unexpected, but not at all unlikely. It is only astonishing to find this at such an early time in history. After a long time of scribal experiment, the spread of literacy and “chancery experiment” the Mediterranean saw the development of a unitary written code, a “code of practice” (Wansbrough, 1996: 120). Once established (in the Mediterranean) it was this uniform code itself which became “the very instrument that facilitated centralization of authority” (Wansbrough, 1996:

85 120). Wansbrough calls this “central authority” (1996: 36), and it was this uniform code of chancery that became the central authority itself. Chancery itself became a central authority after it had developed by itself not by an empire. However, once developed it became, like an empire, a centralising power. The development into a centralising power itself was possible due to the fact that the mechanisms of chancery are “features of pyramidal and hierarchic organization” (Wansbrough, 1996: 120) which make it an instrument of power and qualifies it as a tool for central authority. Chancery did have many features that would qualify it as an empire with a centralising power. However, as chancery was not an empire, around 1500 BCE there was hardly anything that would qualify as such, but a set of procedures, or a “code of practice” (Wansbrough, 1996: 120). Becoming this central authority itself had a fascinating effect on chancery. As “the focus was upon format” (Wansbrough, 1996: 144) in chancery and, furthermore, chancery gained greater influence, the effect occurred of “extending authority to the format itself” (Wansbrough, 1996: 119). Chancery format itself became “the display of authority” (Wansbrough, 1996: 124).

That this has quite often happened in history is not surprising. After all, “the emergence of a self-perpetuating infrastructure which operates irrespective of particular policies [of kingdoms, empires, etc.] or participants […] is expected of any bureaucracy” (Wansbrough, 1996: 74). On a broader level it was, of course, bureaucracy. Chancery was merely one form of it, which was ´this “central authority” and not an empire or dynasty, if there even was such in the Mediterranean around 1500 BCE, which emerged as the locus of authority´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 136). As Wansbrough states: “the machinery of administration generates its own momentum is a familiar phenomenon” (1996: 136). More importantly, if it is considered that bureaucracy at that time was “devised to regulate the activities of a population of some 55 millions” it should become clear how important chancery was in this early age of history (1996: 71). Furthermore, bureaucracy could only establish this enormous influence through a fixed framework of communication, steady contact and routine administrative structures, which were primarily “fiscal and juridical” (1996: 65). This further implies that chancery as such was “a model of the chambers and procedures of magistrate and notoriat” (1996: 120). Chancery was not only a unitary code but also an enactment of law. Wansbrough mentions that “chancery material is not dispositive, but evidential” (1996: 110). This in other words leads to the conclusion that it was “the record of an act of law” (1996: 110).

86 After all, chancery produces official documents and “their purpose is juridical” (1996: 114). Chancery, once more, is a tool designed to produce official documents “to create or to confirm an act of law” (1996: 114). This is the reason why format is so important in chancery because the enactment or confirmation of law is accomplished by the format itself as “format stresses office rather than incumbent, function rather than personality” (Wansbrough, 1996: 120). Format, or to be more precise, chancery format was the indispensible “display of authority” (Wansbrough, 1996: 114) and therefore it was so successfully used. That this was achieved for the most part in written language is due to the fact that “writing does convey register and format in a way that speech would not” (Wansbrough, 1996: 149). Chancery was explicitly formal, and even though it could be very elegant, it was for the most part short and explicit, “prosaic, indeed pedestrian, repetitive and above all, formulaic” (Wansbrough, 1996: 164), consisted of “arid and formulaic expressions” (Wansbrough, 1996: 164), its “procedure was explicitly documentary” (Wansbrough, 1996: 192) and was based on a “jussive or imperative syntax and a lexicon of juridical and commercial origin” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148). Chancery can really be described as juridical in every aspect. However, “its insertion into the process of exchange makes it also ´economic´” (Wansbrough, 1996: 192). The development of chancery and its importance had several effects; the establishment of a “nearly uniform code of international law” (Wansbrough, 1996: 140), which was used for centuries in the Mediterranean, and also the development of “the office of notary” (Wansbrough, 1996: 119), which became necessary due to the increased necessity for private transactions “to be registered and publicly validated” (Wansbrough, 1996: 119). Not surprisingly was the office of notary was most developed in Italy. Another effect, for chancery, was “an intelligible format and set of procedures” (Wansbrough, 1996: 139) which means that an internationally accepted use of written format developed which enabled communication on a high and most efficient level. The effect for diplomacy and commerce was an “internationally understood practice and increased productivity” (Wansbrough, 1996: 139)

Finally, the most important aspect about chancery can be discussed, i.e. language, its connection to the Lingua Franca and how it affected the Lingua Franca. Chancery language is a highly formalised language with many words from a juridical and commercial lexicon. What is important about chancery language is, ironically, “not

87 language but format” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166). In short, “chancery was devised for a specific purpose” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166) and that was a juridically validated document for diplomatic and commercial purposes. If chancery itself created this unitary language or if it was created due to “international relations” (Wansbrough, 1996: 45) is one of many “vexing sociological questions” (Wansbrough, 1996: 45). What can be said is that chancery started to evolve very early, around 1500 BCE, evolved over a long period of time but was at all times steadily employed and always enjoyed much prestige. Furthermore, there was always contact between the participants which additionally created a kind of unity in the employment of chancery format. The language that therefore developed is indeed best described as “Fachsprache” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166). Curiously, Wansbrough (1996) calls this Fachsprache a “koiné”, probably to convey the point of multiple input (1996: 185). However, this Fachsprache was determined by format and therefore consisted of a fixed arrangement of parts, following a fixed and predefined procedure. This Fachsprache was a code consisting of “certain structures, turns of phrase and vocabulary” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166). However, the most important aspect about this Fachsprache is that it was not a language but a style and it is very important not to confuse style and language. Style, in chancery, was the most important factor as it was used only in the field it was composed for. Chancery style was not used outside of the domain it was originally created for. This leads to the further conclusion that only those people whose profession required its use and other people that were directly connected with it regularly used this style. According to Wansbrough (1996), however small the percentage of the people who used this style might have been, due to the large population that the Mediterranean area had through all the centuries, this would yield a substantial number of users to sustain this style (1996: 193). Furthermore, as this style was used only in highly developed professions it can be stated that this style itself was highly developed and probably needed to be acquired first. As Wansbrough states: the “successful employment [of chancery style] requires training and adherence to rules” (1996: 166). Chancery style is very complex which “needs to be acquired for use” (1996: 166), as chancery style could not be understood “without the requisite expertise (experience)” (1996: 162). However, the reason why it is so important that chancery was a style and not a language is because chancery always was, and needed to be, bilingual. Chancery style meant that it “could be achieved by filling in the appropriate details on a chancery ´blank´”

88 (Wansbrough, 1996: 163). This could be achieved in any language that was required or necessary on a particular occasion. As chancery always operated as “bilingual, even polyglot” (Wansbrough, 1996: 141), it made style even more important. Style, especially chancery style, can be achieved in any language. If chancery were a language the problems of any translation from one language into another would arise and all participants, probably all speaking different languages, would have to learn a further language. Style, on the other hand, could easily be transferred into any language that was required. Wansbrough (1996) mentions that any style of any field, including of course chancery style, could be achieved in any language and this phenomenon con not only be observed in the modern world but it “is also attested for the ancient” (1996: 168). As Wansbrough states “the fact (and I think it is one) that this style can be achieved in any language must facilitate interlingual communication” (1996: 168).

Chancery enabled communication through what Wansbrough (1996) calls “stylistic homogeneity” (1996: 168) which breaks down language barriers. This stylistic homogeneity was achieved via several linguistic techniques. For one this style had a fixed arrangement of linguistic parts such as certain structures and fixed turns of phrases which could be transferred to any language, and a shared vocabulary. However, for the other parts which were less fixed and required more flexibility or could not be represented in the same way in different languages ´such as titles, prepositions, finite verbs´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 183) and basically everything that did not have a similar sounding equivalent or an equivalent at all in another language, there were other very effective linguistic techniques that enabled communication. The most important techniques, four altogether even though there were others as well, were calque, transcription, transposition and, only if deemed necessary, (straightforward) translation. These techniques, all proposed by Wansbrough (1996), “enabled intelligible contact across natural language boundaries” (1996: 182-3). Transcription was a very important technique because of bilingualism. As chancery was always bilingual, transcription was very helpful especially with titles of offices. For instance the Italian office of “consolo” was not directly translated but transcribed into Arabic “qunsul”. Transcription was preferred over translation as “a creative translation could confuse, or deflect the aim of bureaucratic convention” (Wansbrough, 1996: 182). In fact, transcription became so much favoured that it “was deliberately selected despite awareness of a translational equivalent” (Wansbrough, 1996: 182).

89 Another very successful technique was calque, or loan translation. As chancery style consisted of fixed structures and especially fixed phrases, calque was almost the most important technique, as through calque phrases could easily be transferred into another language. Calque was used “in broader spans of expression” (Wansbrough, 1996: 182), in chancery at least. Transposition, the replacement or transfer of one expression with the equivalent of another expression of another language was rather a cultural than a linguistic aspect but can still be identified as a linguistic technique. The last technique that will be discussed, in short, is straightforward translation. Straightforward translation in chancery was used for “ordinary discourse” (Wansbrough, 1996: 183), i.e. the non-technical language that was indispensible for a written document such as “mostly prepositions, conjunctions, a few finite verbs, and even fewer substantives without special or technical referents” (Wansbrough, 1996: 183). These techniques enabled (written) contact to be maintained and made communication between two linguistically different participants a lot easier, quicker, and also a lot more efficient. Especially the techniques of calque and transcription were regularly utilized and these techniques were also the main ones used in the Lingua Franca. The outcome of this chancery style was that “chancery language does tend to crystallize in phrasal patterns and lexical collocation that would no doubt be unusual in other contexts” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148), and anyone who was not acquainted with it could not understand this language.

The question arises how this style looked like when it was effectively applied in language. Even though one could think of “unbound lexica and phraseology” (Wansbrough, 1996: 192), the whole (linguistic) situation was somewhat different. If Arabic-Italian chancery language is taken as an example, after all it was the most common discourse from the 7 th century onwards, it becomes clear that chancery language was “a mixture of vernacular with technical jargon” (Wansbrough, 1996: 78). Wansbrough states of the Arabic-Italian chancery language that it was in its origin a Venetian dialect with, as Wansbrough calls it, a rambling and pendant syntax in which was added a lot of lexical input from Middle Arabic and could not be understood by (Italian) merchants that had no experience in the Levant trade (1996: 78). The reason that it could not be understood by anyone outside this profession was that this language was “so closely calqued on Arabic phraseology as to be unintelligible to a monolingual

90 speaker of Italian [even Venetian]” (1996: 161). A speaker of Italian would regard this Arabic-Italian chancery language, at least the chancery language of “the lower administrative levels of Mediterranean chanceries” (1996: 78), as patchy, due to lengthy omissions, and ungrammatical as inconsistent verbal inflection was used (1996: 161). In short, chancery was a framework into which fixed phrases and vocabulary could be inserted very easily. Wansbrough states that “into that framework insertion of the regulatory material demanded little syntactic skill: it was largely a question of technical terminology in easily analysable sequence (parataxis)” (1996: 165).

5.1.1 The similarities of chancery and the Lingua Franca

Fascinating as it is, this chancery language, or to be more precise, the outcome or spoken variety of the chancery style already looks very similar to the Lingua Franca (which also uses calque and transcription as a major linguistic feature). In fact, the Lingua Franca and chancery language do share many similarities. Both languages are not anybody’s native language “for the language of diplomacy and commerce [was] anonymously composed and bound to no single culture” (Wansbrough, 1996: 184), just as the value of the Lingua Franca “lies in the absence of constraints and involves some sacrifice of specific identities” (Wansbrough, 1996: 180). Both languages were nobody’s language and constraints such as cultural aspects were therefore absent as well. No national connection was made to any of these two languages, as they were languages for everybody, created out of multiple input from several sources. Another major feature that these two languages shared was that both were used only within their own boundaries, which were in general commercial and diplomatic boundaries. Chancery language, used predominantly in diplomatic and commercial relations was “stringently utilitarian and essentially not transferable beyond the dedicated domain for which it was originally designed” (Wansbrough, 1996: 145). The same is also true for the Lingua Franca, which could only be used in commerce, as the use of the Lingua Franca was “limited to those whose professional duties required it” (Wansbrough, 1996: 192). One may think of merchants and sailors, or mariners in general, as the main users of the Lingua Franca. This leads to yet another similarity of chancery language and the Lingua Franca, both languages were directly connected with commerce. The Lingua Franca was used only

91 on ships and in ports and chancery regulated commerce. The historical possibility that chancery and commerce always have been closely linked since the earliest times in the history of Mediterranean (commercial) contact is given. According to Wansbrough it is “chancery activity that corresponds nicely with maritime technology” (1996: 64), and as commerce was possible since 1500 BCE, it can be concluded that both the necessary nautical and organizational technology was available early on in the Mediterranean. In any case, chancery as well as the Lingua Franca was closely linked to commerce and both languages could not be used outside this specific field. Another feature that chancery language and Lingua Franca shared was bilingualism, even multilingualism, because the evolution of both languages required “input from several sources” (Wansbrough, 1996: 147). Chancery, for instance, as has been noted, was “bilingual, even polyglot” (Wansbrough, 1996: 141) and concerning the Lingua Franca this also emerged from several sources. More importantly, because of this bilingualism both languages were stabilized in their use. Schuchardt (1979) states that it is bilingualism that stabilizes a language and it is also bilingualism (and multilingualism) that allows a language to be steadily used without a great amount of change (1979: 27-28). Another shared feature of chancery language and the Lingua Franca is that both languages use the same linguistic techniques, especially calque and transcription, as linguistic strategies for intelligibility due to the prevailing multicultural and multilingual situation in the fields in which these languages operated. As Schuchardt (1979) and Selbach (2008) state, transposition and calque were highly favoured in the Lingua Franca just as is the case with chancery language. In fact, Wansbrough (1996) even assumes “calque from other languages […] to be the very origins of chancery” (1996: 188). These linguistic strategies were in any case essential for both chancery and the Lingua Franca.

5.1.2 Differences between chancery and the Lingua Franca

Despite all these similarities, if a closer look is taken, some crucial differences between chancery language and the Lingua Franca can be identified. While both languages pursue “communicative clarity” (Wansbrough, 1996: 158), the Lingua Franca goes further in using syntactic simplicity than chancery in achieving this goal. Whereas

92 chancery consists of a fixed arrangement of fixed parts in a fixed sequence and only used certain structures and turns of phrases with the effect of less syntactic flexibility and the perception of being ungrammatical due to incorrect inflexion, the Lingua Franca’s aim is “to facilitate (aural/visual) perception” (Wansbrough, 1996: 158) and aims for syntactic simplicity and communicative effectiveness through easily learned intelligibility. This is achieved by the Lingua Franca by going as far as being free of idiosyncrasy such as “inflexion and other bound morphemes, polysemy, and clause subordination requiring complex rules for word order” (Wansbrough, 1996: 158). So, while chancery language does have inflections and fixed phrases and a fixed word order, it follows orthographical rules, the Lingua Franca reduces syntactic rules to an absolute minimum and is therefore almost completely free of almost any regular syntax.

What can be said is that, after all, the Lingua Franca does follow rules, but less and other rules than chancery. The syntactic rules followed by the Lingua Franca were so few that Schuchardt (1979) even complained about the lack of grammar in the Lingua Franca (1979: 35). The Lingua Franca, it seems, tries to eliminate any unnecessary syntax to achieve a maximum of possible communication and perceptibility through a minimum of syntactic effort. Chancery, on the other hand, was far more fixed and, even though there was a maximum of perceptibility, this could only be achieved if both speakers knew the rules and sequence of chancery language. Chancery was less flexible but also more complex, on a syntactic level, than the Lingua Franca. Chancery was also hardly acquired in a very short time, but the Lingua Franca was much easier to learn. Wansbrough states that the Lingua Franca consisted of “a small number of basic shapes, provided with multiple values by a tidy system of pointing, and in an easily learned sequence” (1996: 180). The Lingua Franca could easily be acquired by anyone and no special knowledge for acquiring the Lingua Franca was necessary. Furthermore, due to its simplicity, the Lingua Franca was also very quickly acquired, while chancery was a style that had to be carefully learned first.

Even though chancery language and the Lingua Franca do have many similarities there are differences. While one language, it may be argued, was likely to have enabled large scale commerce, the other language was the direct product of this commercial relation. One may state, at least Wansbrough (1996) does, that the Lingua Franca could be “read as product not as agent of the contact” (1996: 12). Furthermore, even though chancery

93 language was a universally intelligible language, just like the Lingua Franca, and also shares many other features with the Lingua Franca, it is not a language “that would deserve the conventional description of lingua franca” (Wansbrough, 1996: 145). If chancery can not be described as a lingua franca than it can hardly be the Lingua Franca. Chancery language, in short, is not the Lingua Franca.

5.2 The connection of chancery language and the Lingua Franca

How, then, is chancery connected to the evolution of the Lingua Franca, one may ask? A few things need to be clarified first, even though chancery could take forms that are most elegant and flowery, especially Arabian chancery language, this was only for chancery relations among the highest ranks. In the lower ranks of administration, the day-to-day communication that regulated commerce and issued decrees, contracts, treaties etc., where only lower representatives of administration were employed, chancery language was also less elegant and, basically (only) a sequence of fixed phrases. At the lowest levels of administration chancery language was still formulaic and could easily be filled into a so-called chancery blank. It is also the lower administrative levels of chancery that most resemble the Lingua Franca. Therefore it is those lower levels of administration that need to be looked at for connections to the Lingua Franca.

Chancery was regularly used in daily communication primarily for commercial purposes and the outcome of this was that chancery was intertwined into daily informal communication (which can also be described as gossip or daily talk). So, the formal and fixed expressions and formulae of chancery were used in informal and ad hoc daily communication (used for commerce). As commerce was regulated through chancery, many elements of chancery style entered this daily communication which was, of course, informal. In fact, chancery expressions and formulae were the very basis of this (commercial) communication and thus provided the basis for the establishment of a language that was in equal parts dominated by “report and rumour” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49). On the one hand there was the use of chancery style of the lower administrative level for commercial purposes and on the other hand contact was most often “ad hoc and informal” (Wansbrough, 1996: 77), even though formal chancery expressions were

94 used. The only fixed forms were the predetermined formulae of chancery, everything else was informal. Wansbrough describes this daily communication as “a combination of informal gossip and formal registration” (1996: 49). As it is known, the informal and ad hoc encounters of people from several different linguistic backgrounds is the ideal starting point for the creation of any lingua franca. The necessity to communicate on a very limited basis and only in a rather short amount of time are the perfect conditions to facilitate a lingua franca, especially if this kind of contact is maintained over a long period. The question that therefore arises in the case of the Lingua Franca is who these “communities whose initial encounter is casual and informal” (Wansbrough, 1996: 186) were. Wansbrough summarizes what kinds of people were most likely to come in contact with the Lingua Franca (and through this summarization the kind and length of contact can also be interpreted) as “merchants on the quayside, garrison troops outside working hours, tourists [called travellers at that time], even border populations whose contact may be constant or ad hoc” (1996: 186). The main users of the Lingua Franca were of course merchants, their customers and also mariners. What can further be noted is that the main point of encounter of these people was the harbour. Wansbrough states that this situation further furnished the diffusion of the Lingua Franca once it was established, as “with time contact either lapses or is regularised to a point enabling serious acquisition and diffusion of one or more of the participant languages” (1996: 187). (Chancery was firmly established and enabled regularized and even daily commercial contact in the Mediterranean). The people involved came from all different linguistic backgrounds, even though since the 7th century these people were predominately Italian and Arabian, and thus generated a multiple linguistic input. This “multiple input was bound to generate a hybrid, but one of which every participant had some advantage” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166). What can be said is that the Lingua Franca was, and always has been, a trade language which was used for daily commerce ever since commerce, and chancery to regulate commerce, were established. Through the daily and ad hoc contact of the Mediterranean people of all different linguistic backgrounds with the lower levels of chancery administration which it dealt with exactly this type of commercial contact the Lingua Franca was bound to emerge. As Wansbrough states, “it was the substance and style of negotiation itself that generated the medieval lingua franca” (1996: 137). Chancery enabled steady contact, the people also had to interact with each other and through this

95 kind of communication which is best described as informal speech mixed with formalized phrases due to chancery contact the Lingua Franca evolved. It is therefore possible to state that the Lingua Franca “was a consequence of chancery practice” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166).

What is really fascinating is that the product of this contact, the Lingua Franca, was not regarded with “contempt or disregard” (Wansbrough, 1996: 168) but instead as “quite the opposite” (Wansbrough, 1996: 166). The Lingua Franca was seen as necessary and quite useful due to its “distinct element of practicality” (Wansbrough, 1996: 168). The Lingua Franca was the unofficial language used for commerce which was “anonymously composed and bound to no culture” (Wansbrough, 1996: 184) (just like chancery itself), which greatly favoured its use. There was no nationality or other identities attached to the Lingua Franca, as “the value of a lingua franca lies in the absence of constraints and involves some sacrifice of specific identities” (Wansbrough, 1996: 180). The Lingua Franca could be used freely by all people of the Mediterranean of all different linguistic backgrounds, even though only a small number of people were directly linked to commerce and (who) used the Lingua Franca.

5.2.1 The date of origin

It was the circumstances created by (the use of) chancery that led to the creation of the Lingua Franca, and thus the final question that arises is when did this happen. Of course, there is no final answer to this question as there is no final evidence that falsifies all the other theories, but it may be enough to consider the historical possibility of chancery as the origin of the Lingua Franca in order to re-think some of the theories that have prevailed for so long. Indeed perhaps even further theories may be developed or at least theories may be considered that may not have received the attention that they might have deserved. Some relevant theories will be thus discussed and viewed from the historical perspective. It will also be considered when the possible origin of the Lingua Franca could be established. The question when the Lingua Franca originated has been answered quite many times by many theories. However, if a historical and more detailed look is taken, most of these theories seem rather unlikely - for instance, the theory that the Lingua Franca was

96 created rather late, in the 16 th century (cf. Zago, 2005: 29). This seems quite unlikely, especially as by the 15 th century, according to Wansbrough, “it is unlikely that any transaction, commercial or diplomatic, foundered for want of a common idiom” (1996: 194). By the 15 th century not only was chancery highly established but the Lingua Franca as well. Another quite popular theory places the origin of the Lingua Franca at the time of the Crusades (cf. Wansbrough, 1996: 148 and Zago, 2005: 29). This theory does not seem to be unlikely due to the argumentation that negotiations between Christians and Muslims persisted for centuries in a “particular mode of discourse (Arabic: Latin/French/Italian)” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148) which then, in turn, supposedly “produced the Lingua Franca” (Wansbrough, 1996: 148). This theory is indeed very promising, as discourse, interaction and communication, in one form or another, existed between Christians and Muslims. This communication, however, was for the most part accomplished by chancery. The Crusades made chancery most necessary for commerce and communication, and this kind of discourse, in slight variation concerning the languages involved, has persisted in chancery since the earliest times. As Wansbrough states of the time of the Crusades “polyglot chancery was by then hardly an innovation” (1996: 186). Chancery always employed several languages and furthermore “throughout the medieval period, both the employment of one or more languages and the issue of multiple versions are attested” (1996: 79). There is no reason why there should have been any great difference in polyglot chancery during the Crusades. Chancery had existed a long time before the Crusades and polyglot contact also persisted centuries earlier, and so if the Lingua Franca should have evolved through this kind of contact it would seem rather unusual that this had not happened a long time before the Crusades. While it is quite likely that the Lingua Franca could have easily evolved out of such a mode of discourse, on the other hand it seems in fact rather unlikely that this should have happened at the times of the Crusades, as this kind of discourse had been an attested standard centuries earlier. As Wansbrough states concerning the employment of several languages in chancery: “by 1500 that was, and had been for some three millennia standard practice for international diplomacy” (1996: 79). The same is also true for another theory proposed by Castellanos (2010), who claims that the Lingua Franca originated around the 8 th to 10 th century (2010: 4). Again this theory does not seem unlikely as by the 8 th century the Arabs were the “new rulers of the Mediterranean” (Wansbrough, 1996: 26). The Arab invasion in the 8th century is

97 also the time of contact of the Arabs with the Italians. The possibility that the Lingua Franca was created at that time is given. However, from the historical perspective it seems rather likely that the Lingua Franca was re-shaped from the 8 th to the 10 th century, due to the presence of Arabic and the increasing importance of the Italian empire. At about that time the Lingua Franca most likely must have received the shape that it retained until the 19 th century, which is predominantly Italian and Arabic. From the point of view of the historical developments of the 8 th to 10 th century this theory itself seems plausible due to the Arab invasion of the Mediterranean, which included the whole southern Mediterranean and also the southern littoral. As a consequence an enormous presence and influence of Arabic cuold be felt in the Mediterranean. At that time ´Arabic was employed in the whole Mediterranean in language and script (which required acceptance of Arabic itself)´ (Wansbrough, 1996: 35). However, even before the 7 th century, Arabic could be regarded as “a literary standard” (Wansbrough, 1996: 153). By the 8 th century Arabic was well established, due to its political and military presence in the Mediterranean, but this was not a new linguistic development. For quite some time, Arabic had been a very important language employed by chancery and had been introduced into the Mediterranean through “the machinery of Roman imperialism developed during the Period from Pompey (64 BCE) to Trajan (106 CE)” (Wansbrough, 1996: 37). Arabic had been inserted into (Roman) chancery far earlier than the 8 th century and therefore contact between Arabs and people of the Central and Western Mediterranean was nothing new by the 8 th century. Furthermore, it could be argued - why the 8 th to 10 th century? From the 7 th to the 12 th century contact and communication between Muslims and Christians was reduced to a minimum, while ´before the 7 th century contact and communication flourished´ (Chaunu, 1979: 57). Therefore this theory seems to be set at the wrong time, concerning the origin of the Lingua Franca at least, not its re-shaping. There certainly was contact between these two powers but this contact was predominantly “contractual” (Wansbrough, 1996: 139), which means that communication was carried out predominantly in writing. Communication itself was set at a minimum and most likely it was also neither favoured nor encouraged. For one thing, these conditions do not support the establishment of a lingua franca, but they rather seem to support the situation that a language was used that already was established. Chancery seems to make the theory that the Lingua Franca developed earlier than the 8 th century very likely, as chancery was the primary mode of contact and communication between

98 Muslims and Christians in these centuries. (Arabic was established in the earlier centuries and the Lingua Franca was already established by the 8 th century.) Once more, the Arabic-European languages discourse had proliferated from the first half of the first century BCE until the 7 th century, so the theories that state that the Lingua Franca was established through exactly such discourse at a later age seem, from this point of view, rather unlikely. It does not seem that the Lingua Franca originated at that time and under these conditions.

The Lingua Franca as a language must have developed earlier, so the theory that places the origin of the Lingua Franca back to the earliest times of Mediterranean contact seems to be the most accurate (cf. Hancock, 1977: 283). Wansbrough further supports the theory that the Lingua Franca must have originated quite early in time as he states that even during the dominant time of the Greeks, chancery language “was already in place and had been for five centuries” (1996: 73). What has been established about the Lingua Franca so far seems to indicate that the Lingua Franca must have originated as early as diplomacy and commerce itself. Furthermore, if the Lingua Franca was created as a consequence of contact initiated by chancery and diplomacy then, consequently, the Lingua Franca must also have originated at a place where these conditions met. As chancery developed in the Levant and spread from there across the Mediterranean it seems only logical that the Lingua Franca must have originated in the Levant as well. According to Wansbrough “for that time and place, contact was largely maritime” (1996: 54), and therefore, as the Levant around 1500 BCE was in close maritime contact, the origin of the Lingua Franca must also be connected to the maritime domain. Maritime activity at that time was almost exclusively commercial, so the origin of the Lingua Franca must also be connected to maritime commerce. One further fact that supports the maritime connection of the Lingua Franca is, as Wansbrough states, that chancery was always connected to maritime commerce (1996: 64). What is also known about the Lingua Franca is that it is a language of commerce which is one further fact that supports this (circumstance). What can be inferred is that the Lingua Franca originated due to chancery and was connected to maritime commerce in the Levant as both chancery and commerce were closely connected with each other. Chancery was connected to commerce and the Lingua Franca was a commercial language used in precisely this field. The circumstance here is that both chancery and commerce met at the Mediterranean Sea

99 and consequently the circumstance of the combination of chancery and commerce created the Lingua Franca. It is therefore not surprising that the place of origin can only be a place where both maritime commerce and chancery were carried out in the Levant. The place of origin could only be, of course, the “marketplace” (Wansbrough, 1996: 48). The marketplace is the ideal place where all these conditions could be met as the marketplace “largely stimulated development of all procedures helpful to efficient contact, exchange and planning” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49). At the marketplace the Lingua Franca could have easily evolved as commerce was conducted at there. Chancery was the propelling factor of commerce (and communication) and chancery language was most likely also employed at the marketplace. Furthermore, the marketplace was also multilingual, as people from several different linguistic backgrounds met at these. What further strengthens this theory is that for the time of 1500 BCE “evidence of a marketplace points, not surprisingly, to the harbour” (Wansbrough, 1996: 51). The marketplace, in fact, was the harbour. It was called “káru (quay)” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49). A further support for the importance of the káru (harbour) as the marketplace is the extension of this term which first meant “quay” (Wansbrough, 1996: 48), but it then also came to mean “market” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49) including the extended meaning of “mooring place, harbour, trading station, merchant community, and commodity price” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49). The káru (harbour) was very important as it was a highly complex system that “could fix dates, keep accounts, and control the movement of commodities” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49). According to Wansbrough, the káru was a “commercial system already sophisticated” and also very flexible (1996: 49). The “Levantine káru must reflect transfer or adaption of established procedures” (1996: 50). The káru (harbour) was a very important place and, most importantly, it ideally fulfils the conditions necessary to produce not only A lingua franca but THE Lingua Franca. The káru was not only a market at the harbour but it was a central place where people from all different (linguistic) backgrounds met, traded and communicated. This communication at the market also included the practice and application of chancery formulae, to a certain degree at least, and therefore this communication was indeed “a combination of informal gossip and formal registration” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49), which created the Lingua Franca. The Lingua Franca evolved at the marketplace because the marketplace, or káru, combined all these conditions that leads to the creation of a lingua

100 franca such as continuous contact, multiple linguistic input and the mixture of informal talk with formal contracts or formulae. The marketplace could thus also be regarded as a central authority as it played a major role in establishing and maintaining linguistic contact. Furthermore the marketplace was at that time not only located at the harbour, but the harbour itself was the marketplace which further strengthens the plausibility of this theory as the Lingua Franca was a maritime trade language, always was and always had been. The káru, the market in the harbour, was the place of the creation of the Lingua Franca, and the only question left is when the Lingua Franca originated. This question can be answered but it requires the exact date of the establishment of the marketplace, chancery and commerce. “The marketplace is attested at least two millennia before the onset of imperial Rome” (Wansbrough, 1996: 49), which dates it quite far back in time. The evolution of chancery, however, can be placed with the beginnings of evolved maritime commerce. Even though commerce must have been conducted since the beginnings of humanity itself, maritime commerce that made chancery possible and necessary, i.e. the travel across the whole Mediterranean, can be dated around 1500 BCE. As Wansbrough states, it is most likely “to speculate that traverse of the entire Mediterranean was achieved in approximately that period, almost certainly not earlier than 1500 BCE” (1996: 65). As chancery was firmly established in the 12 th century BCE and the marketplace had existed even longer before, it can be stated that the origins of the Lingua Franca can be set at roughly 1500 BCE, as at that time all the necessary conditions were met for the Lingua Franca to emerge - which were steady and regular commerce, the use of chancery by merchants and the informal input from people of different linguistic backgrounds that needed to communicate (only) in the field of their profession. One may argue, assuming that this theory is true, that the Lingua Franca must have had a completely different appearance more than three millennia back in time and probably also changed its appearance more than once in such a very long period of time. In fact, from the historical point of view the Lingua Franca could not have had the same appearance during all its time of existence. For instance, the Lingua Franca could not have had the Italian shape (which it acquired around the 10 th to 13 th century) before the 8th century simply because Italian did not even exist yet. Not even did Latin exist at the time of the supposed origins of the Lingua Franca. What did exist was Arabic, in its earliest forms at least, but this might not be enough to resemble even the Lingua Franca of the Middle Ages.

101 Whinnom (1984) perfectly describes this situation: “what is remarkable and significant is that none of these documents [containing samples of the earliest forms of the Lingua Franca] employs anything remotely resembling Lingua Franca” (1984: 303-4). So the Lingua Franca was constant in its structures but not in its form and appearance due to the change of languages themselves. At this point, the theory of Castellanos (2010) stating that the Lingua Franca originated around the 8 th to 10 th century, viewed in this light might suggest that the Lingua Franca was beginning to take the shape that it retained over the next centuries until the 19 th century at exactly that period. Since the 8 th to 10 th century Arabic gained importance even in the Western Mediterranean and also Italian started to develop, quite slowly but nonetheless, the Lingua Franca may not have actually originated at that date but it might have been the starting point of its final shape, or might be regarded as a point of re-shaping the form, character and appearance of the Lingua Franca from a probably more Arabic character to a more Italian form.

The question of how or why the Lingua Franca changed can, most astonishingly, also be answered through chancery as well. Chancery was a style that could be achieved in any language and according to what languages were employed the appearance of chancery would change accordingly. The same can be observed with the Lingua Franca as it was created out of chancery. The basic structures of the Lingua Franca were maintained and only the language components, mainly vocabulary in case of the Lingua Franca, could be changed accordingly. Wansbrough summarizes the changing of the Lingua Franca very well as “earlier modes show different ingredients in the same configuration” (1996: 167). The Lingua Franca which was itself very flexible and could easily adapt to different language situations changed over time, but kept its basic structures which defined it over all these centuries. It is, most surprisingly, Whinnom who, unaware of the chancery theory, supports and even promotes this view as he himself states that the Lingua Franca was “simply a set of structures into which could be inserted roots deriving from different languages” (1965: 525). What can be said about the Lingua Franca as a concluding remark is that its origin and development still remains ultimately unresolved. However, through yet another theory the puzzle may be solved a little further as some parts may have been assembled and less parts remain. In any case, the historical possibility and plausibility of the Lingua Franca originating at the earliest times in the Mediterranean from chancery and commerce is given, and this should be considered in any further and future theories.

102 Chapter 6: Conclusion

In the course of the historical reconstruction of the origin of the Lingua Franca many uncertainties have arisen due to a lack of documentation, due to the need to resort to other unspecific documents and also due to a lack of interest at various stages in history concerning the Lingua Franca. In short, in tracing the origin of the Lingua Franca one seeks a “resolution of an historical problem, that is altogether unsatisfactory” (Wansbrough, 1996: 25), as many questions still remain unanswered. Reconstructing the origin and development of the Lingua Franca through history is a complicated task as many details, unfortunately, remain unclear due to historical gaps created through limited sources or limited documentation itself. Therefore, historical reconstruction of the Lingua Franca is frustrating as “evidence is often meagre or indeed unavailable” (Wansbrough, 1996: 77). The gaps in history are “so frequent and so exasperating” (Wansbrough, 1996: 77) that “the very fact of recurrence might be thought to entail some regularity” (Wansbrough, 1996: 77). The safest conclusion that can be drawn from this recurrence of the Lingua Franca in the course of history is that what is unattested can be regarded as “gaps in a continuum” (Wansbrough, 1996: 77).

What is known about the Lingua Franca can rather be regarded as limited compared to what is unknown due to the historical gaps that permeate the centuries of the Lingua Franca historicity, and according to Wansbrough the reconstruction of the Lingua Franca is therefore quite often carried out “within these admittedly stringent but ineluctable limits” (1996: 7). However, there is still the possibility of resorting to other documents which are quite often unrevealing or even ambivalent, but due to the historical gaps the reconstruction of the Lingua Franca also needs to rely “upon these ambivalent materials” (Wansbrough, 1996: 40). Chaunu (1979) states that “one of the greatest problems is the question of the sources available to us” (1979: 308). In most cases the most necessary documents are missing, either because a document may have been lost in history or is simply not available. Furthermore, even though some sources are available there is still the possibility that these documents do not deal with the matter in question in a satisfactory manner or that what is relevant is not expressed clearly. Therefore, within all these limitations, it is important to “extrapolate beyond what is in the documents” (Chaunu, 1979: 283) and dare to make “bold interpretations” (Chaunu, 1979: 248).

103 In many cases interpretations are the only possibility of solving a problem, especially the problem of the origin of the Lingua Franca. Not all documents by far that are relevant to the origin of the Lingua Franca are available. This is where searching for revealing sources needs to be extended to history itself as history allows further and, probably, more accurate interpretations. By looking not only at the available (relevant) sources, but at the same time also at the historical events that accompanied these developments it is possible to make logical interpretations and gain further insights. To make such logical interpretations, “circumstantial evidence” (de Granda, 1976: 13) needs to be consulted. Only by demonstrating the historical plausibility of certain developments is it possible to prove “that the postulated causal series actually could take place” (de Granda, 1976: 17). It is through “historical analysis” (de Granda, 1976: 17) that the obstacles of limited availability and limitation of these documents itself can be overcome. After all, most developments of important historical events, in this case the origin and development of the Lingua Franca, are not a coincidence. The formation of the Lingua Franca was not unintended or merely an accident. The Lingua Franca was the logical consequence of a sequence of events and technical innovations such as writing, the alphabet, the marketplace, nautical and organizational practices etc., which themselves created the necessity of the Lingua Franca itself. The Lingua Franca, then, was only one further event in a chain of many other historical developments. What is most essential, and most difficult, is to not confuse the “real conditioning factors with the monetary situation” (Chaunu, 1979: 291). Often clarity about an event is lost in the fog of history due to insufficient documentation, and therefore it is necessary to combine all the available existing sources and affirm their historical plausibility. Only if an event, or a set of events, could really have happened in the course of history can interpretation begin. This is a quite often forgotten problem concerning history.

Wansbrough clearly states that “as nearly always, the real problem is in depicting not the product but the process” (1996: 77). In the case of the Lingua Franca it is not difficult to state its existence, but the long and continuous duration and continuity of its existence and, most of all, an exact statement of the origin of the Lingua Franca or the events or processes that led to its creation is hardly possible. Even a statement about the events in history that influenced the Lingua Franca or its course in history is very difficult. What events changed the Lingua Franca and why it was construed as

104 secondary is a very complex question that can not simply be answered without resorting to history, historical analysis and historical plausibility itself. From the available documents alone it is only possible to state that the Lingua Franca reappears time and time again for centuries, as there are references to the existence of the Lingua Franca in all kinds of documents. However, a clear statement from such documents alone can not be deduced because most of these references are merely side notes or not long enough to give detailed information about origin, development or diffusion of the Lingua Franca. Through documents alone the view of the Lingua Franca is limited and very little can be stated about its existence and even less about its origin. This is why history is such an important aspect in the reconstruction of the origin of the Lingua Franca, because if these small bits and pieces of information that are available about the Lingua Franca are viewed in a historical context and also match with (supposed) historical events and even confirm historical plausibility, then our knowledge about the Lingua Franca is extended and further conclusions can be drawn. To explain, analyse and verify the relevance of historical events to the Lingua Franca is what is so difficult about unravelling the origins and development of the Lingua Franca.

The attempt has been to solve “unavoidable historical questions” (de Granda, 1976: 13). Such historical questions simply arise during the study of the Lingua Franca and it is most important to attempt to answer such historical questions as they are inseparable from history and, of course, the Lingua Franca itself. Even though many questions about the Lingua Franca remain unanswered, this does not mean that they will or have to remain unanswered. Questions usually evoke answers and, in the end, it is answers that we seek, especially the answer about the origin and development of the Lingua Franca.

105 Bibliography

Alleyne, M. C. 1998. Roots of Jamaican Culture . Worcester: Pluto Press.

Ardener, E. 1971. “Social Anthropology and the Historicity of Historical Linguistics.” In: E. Ardener (ed.). A.S.A. Monographs 10 – Social Anthropology and Language . London: Tavistock Publications Limited, 209-242.

Arends, J. 2002. “The Historical Study of Creoles and the Future of Creole Studies.” In: G. Gilbert (ed.). Studies in Ethnolinguistics 9 - Pidgin and Creole Linguistics in the Twenty-First Century . New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc., 49-68.

Arends, J. 2003. “Reduplication in Lingua Franca.” In: S. Kouwenberg (ed.). Twice as Meaningful: Reduplication in Pidgins, Creoles and other Contact Languages . London: Battlebridge Publishers, 227-231.

Castellanos, C. 2010. [2006]. La Lingua Franca. Consideracions critiques . (Trans. Alan D. Corré) https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/corre/www/franca/edition3/Castellanos.html (accessed 13 November 2010)

Chaunu, Pierre. 1979. [1969] European Expansion in the Later Middle Ages. (Trans. Katharine Bertram ). In: R. Vaughan (ed.). Europe in the Middle Ages – Selected Studies 10. Amsterdam/NewYork/Oxford: North Holland Publishing Company.

Collier, B. 1977. “On the Origin of Lingua Franca.” Journal of Creole Studies 1/2, 281- 298.

De Granda, G. 1976. “A Socio-Historical Approach to the Problem of Portuguese Creole in West Africa.” Linguistics 173, 11-22.

Folty, C. 1984. “Die Belege der Lingua Franca.” Neue Romania 1, 1-37.

Hall, R. A. 1966. Pidgin and Creole Languages . New York: Cornell University Press.

Hancock, I. F. 1977. “Recovering Pidgin Genesis: Approaches and Problems.” In: A. Valdman (ed.). Pidgin and Creole Linguistics . Bloomington & London: Indiana University Press, 277-294.

106 Kahane, H. & R. 1958. The Lingua Franca in the Levant – Turkish Nautical Terms of Italian and Greek Origin . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Lang, G. 1992. “The Literary Settings of Lingua Franca (1300-1830).” Neophilologus 76, 64-76.

Le Page, R. B. 1961. “Conference on Creole Language Studies.” In: R. B. Le Page (ed.). Creole Language Studies II – Proceedings of the Conference on Creole Language Studies . London: Macmillan &Co Ltd, 123-128.

Rossetti, R. 2005. An Introduction to Lingua Franca . https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/corre/www/franca/edition3/lingua5.html (accessed 13 November 2010)

Schuchardt, Hugo. 1909. “Die Lingua Franca.” Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 33, 441-461.

Schuchardt, Hugo. 1979. [1909] On Lingua Franca. (Trans. Thomas L. Markey). In: Markey, T. L. (ed.). The ethnography of variation: Selected writings on pidgeons and creoles . Ann Arbor: Karoma, 26-47.

Selbach, R. 2008. “The Superstrate is not always the Lexifier: Lingua Franca in the Barbary Coast 1530-1830.“ In: S. Michaelis (ed.). Roots of Creole Structures - Weighing the Contribution of Substrates and Superstrates . Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 29-58.

Thompson, R. W. 1961. “A Note on some Possible Affinities between the Creole Dialects of the Old World and those of the New.” In: R. B. Le Page (ed.). Creole Language Studies II – Proceedings of the Conference on Creole Language Studies . London: Macmillan &Co Ltd, 107-113.

Voorhoeve, J. 1961. “A Project for the Study of Creole Language History in Surinam.” In: R. B. Le Page (ed.). Creole Language Studies II – Proceedings of the Conference on Creole Language Studies . London: Macmillan &Co Ltd, 99-106.

Wansbrough, J. E. 1996. Lingua Franca in the Mediterranean . Surrey: Curzon Press.

Whinnom, K. 1965. “The Origin of the European-based Creoles and Pidgins.” Orbis 15, 509-527.

107 Whinnom, K. 1971 “Linguistic Hybridization and the ´Special Case´ of Pidgins and Creoles.” In: D. Hymes (ed.). Pidginization and Creolization of Languages – Proceedings of a Conference Held at the University of the West Indies. London: Cambridge University Press, 91-116.

Whinnom, K. 1984. “Lingua Franca: Historical Problems.” In: A. Valdman (ed.). Pidgin and Creole Linguistics . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 295-310.

Wiener, N. 1948. Cybernetics . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1961 (2nd. ed.)

Zago, R. 2005. A Dissertation on Lingua Franca . https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/corre/www/franca/edition3/lingua6.html (accessed 14 November 2010)

108