A Fresh Look at the Italian Questione Della Lingua
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE TWO BEMBOS: A FRESH LOOK AT THE ITALIAN QUESTIONE DELLA LINGUA In his dialogue Ercolano, that appeared posthumously in 1570, Benedetto Varchi introduces himself as one of the interlocutors, discussing matters of language with Count Cesare Ercolano and questioning the relative merits of Homer and Dante. In order to prove Dante's superiority and impress his opponent, Varchi not only seeks the opinion of two important contemporary men of letters who would be championing Dante's excellence, but also adds ... mi pare ricordarmi, che M. Sperone quando io era in Padoua, fusse nella medesima sentenza: ... questo sò io di certo, che egli non si poteua saziare di cerebrarlo, e d'ammirarlo. 1 I seem to recollect that M. Sperone, when I was in Padua, was of the same opinion ... this I know for sure, that he was never tired of praising and admiring him [Dante] (my translation). It is interesting to observe Varchi, the champion of those who held that the language spoken on the Italian peninsula was nothing but Florentine, seeking the testimony of Sperone Speroni, the one who, in the "questione della lingua" held a diametrically opposing view. Obviously Varchi, writing toward the end of his life, is reminiscing about his days in Padua, when he had been a member of the "Accademia degli Infiammati" 2 and remembers Sperone Speroni as his friend and as one of Dante's supporters, rather than considering him an intellectual iconoclast or, worse, a dangerous disbeliever accused of heresy by the Inquisition. Interest in Sperone Speroni throughout the years has been mercurial, his fortunes being mostly tied to literary criticism; scholars have, therefore, tended to scrutinize his theories of the theatre 3 rather than concentrating their attention on his contribution to the theory of language. The few who have given heed to the "Questione della lingua" have done so either by examining Speroni's attitude as opposing the Tuscans, or by seeing him as a precursor of Saussurian linguistics. 4 31 32 One cannot help to ponder over the words that one of the most respected linguists of our generation, Gianfranco Contini, wrote about the relationship between the appreciation of poetry and textual exegesis. 5 Not unlike Contini's observation that the alternative "o si legge ο si commenta" does not constitute an anguished and disturbing inevitability, the reinterpretation of Sperone Speroni as a modern linguist is not incompatible with a methodical historical search that tries to tie the thought of Speroni to that of his great predecessor. We will, therefore, seek out historical facts, unravel internal evidence, determine the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem of the works we study, scrutinize biographical elements, read correspondence, examine later works, all in order to unravel the knowledge that Speroni had of Dante and to determine the debt he owed the father of the Italian language. We wonder whether de Saussure's warning that there are two "routes qui conduisent l'une à la diachronie, l'autre à la synchronie," 6 shouldn't be tempered by his observation that "chaque langue forme pratiquement une unité d'étude, et l'on est amené par la force des choses à la considérer tour à tour statiquement et historiquement." 7 We should, hence, look at Sperone Speroni as one of the pre- cursors of modern linguistic theories, but also try to determine how he has adapted ideas and theories that have been bequeathed to him by Trissino. In doing so, we will discover that there is an uninterrupted line that, beginning with Dante's De vulgari eloquentia and passing through Trissino's translation and his dialogue Il Castellano, blossoms out in Speroni's Dialogo delle lingue and that each generation colors Dante's words in a different manner and interprets his linguistic views according to its own time. We shall finally try to discover why (in spite of the fact that each spokesman for each generation has, beneath the cloak of a similar outward appearance, often made substantial changes) Speroni's Dialogo did not contribute to the creation of a scientific language in Italy, as one would have normally expected. For the purpose of our search, it would be futile to enter the discussion on the date of composition of the De vulgari eloquentia 8. Suffice to say that scholars are fairly much in agreement with Mengaldo's assessment that this book was commenced not before 1303 and, up to I, XII, certainly not after February 1305 (the date of Marquis Giovanni di Monferrato's death, since he is mentioned in I, XII, 5 as still being alive); the 33 rest of the book was probably written not much later than 1306. The most important observation to be made is that it reflects the exile's non-parochial views on language and testifies to the extent of the pilgrim's journeys, prior to his fortieth birthday. Dante is so aware of his innovative qualities that the very first words of the De vulgari eloquentia are Cum neminem ante nos de vulgaris eloquentie doctrina quicquam inveniamus tractasse, (I, I, 1) Since I find that no one before me has treated systematically the doctrines of eloquence ... 9 Of the many revolutionary statements contained in this short treatise, none was to impress Renaissance readers more than the definition of the difference between static and dynamic languages and the glorification of the vernacular: dicimus ... quod vulgarem locutionem appellamus eam qua infantes assuefiunt ab assistentibus, cum primitus distinguere voces incipiunt: vel, quod brevius dici potest, vulgarem locutionem asserimus, quam sine omni regula nutricem imitantes accipimus. Est et inde alia locutio secundaria nobis, quam Romani gramaticam vocaverunt. ... Harum quoque duarum nobilior est vulgaris: tum quia prima fuit humano generi usitata: tum quia totus orbis ipsa perfruitur, ... tum quia naturalis est nobis, cum illa potius artificialis existat. (I, I, 2-4) ... that which I call "vernacular speech" is that which babies be- come accustomed to from those around them when they first begin to articulate speech; or, as it could be put more succinctly, I would claim as vernacular speech that which we learn without any rules in imitating our nurse. We can also acquire another speech, which is dependent on this one called by the Romans "grammar" ... Of these two [kinds of speech] the vernacular is the nobler both because it is enjoyed by the whole world ... and because it is natural to us, while the other is more of an artificial product. It is not my purpose here to explain the difference between this passage and the statements contained in Convivio I,V and I,X, the analyses of Mengaldo 1 0 and Giustiniani 1 1 being sufficient. The difference doesn't seem to have been noticed by (or to have impressed) any of the Renaissance participants to the "Questione della lingua." The medieval duality between "natura" and 'ars" 34 that Pézard adduced as being the major cause for the greater nobility of the vernacular 1 2 will become, especially in Speroni, the duality between "verba" and "res." Of equal importance to the Renaissance men who read and either accepted or rejected the De vulgari eloquentia is the declaration of the continuous changeability of human languages, which is expressed by Dante thus, ... si vetustissimi Papienses nunc resurgerent, sermone vario vel diverso cum modernis Papiensibus loquerentur. (I, IX, 7) ... if the most ancient Pavese were to come back now, they would speak to the modern Pavese in a different or variant language. and his further enumeration of the various vernaculars used in the different regions of Italy (I,X). Dante's rejection of all dialects is significant, but much more so in his downgrading of all Tuscan dialects, Florentine included, a fact that will be used later on by his detractors to attempt to prove the spuriousness of the treatise. Hence, according to Dante, since none of the vernaculars of Italy is acceptable, one must track down the elusive panther for which he has been searching, and describing it as illustre, cardinale, aulicum et curiale vulgare in Latio, quod omnis latie civitatis est et nullius esse videtur, et quo municipalia vulgaria omnia Latinorum mensurantur et ponderantur et comparantur. (I,XVI,6). the illustrious, cardinal, courtly, and curial vernacular of Latium is that which belongs to all of the Latian cities and seems to belong to none, against which all the Latin municipal vernaculars are measured, and compared. Dante further argues that, just as it is possible to discover a vernacular peculiar to one city, so it is possible to find one that is particular to a whole region, or to half of Italy, or to the whole of it (Ι,ΧΙΧ,1). What the Renaissance writers didn't see, or didn't want to see, was the fact that Dante's attention was focused on verse, rather than on prose, and that he chose only those poets who he thought were worthy of using the illustrious vernacular, only the most excellent ones, namely those who wrote canzoni on the great subjects of arms, love, and rectitude (ΙΙ,Ι,1, ΙΙ,ΙΙ,1, II,II,9). 35 Dante's treatise remained practically unknown during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries; a copy known as the "Codice Trivulziano" seems to have been acquired at the beginning of the sixteenth century by Giangiorgio Trissino, who made it first known among his friends in Florence, then in Rome. Cardinal Bembo had a copy of the Trivulziano manuscript made and used some of its material in the Prose della volgar lingua, while Trissino translated it and interpreted it to suit his own theory in 1529, in a dialogue, known as Il Castellano.