Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:47:28.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Theory in the Italian Renaissance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Robert A. Hall Jr.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

[The work of Renaissance scholars on language, especially in Italy, deserves more attention than it has usually received. Certain sixteenth-century writers (Tolomei, Castelvetro, Scaliger, and others) anticipated nineteenth-century developments: firstly, in regarding language as a social phenomenon; secondly, in recognizing change as an essential element of linguistic history; and thirdly, in a more scientific approach, particularly in regard to phonetic law.]

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 12 , Issue 2-Part1: April-June , June 1936, pp. 96 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © 1936 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Cf. Bloomfield, Language 9, 11ff. (New York, 1933).

2 E.g. Labande-Jeanroy, La question de la langue en Italie 5 (Strassburg, 1925); ‘La question de la langue ne mérite en aucune manière de retenir l'attention des érudits, des critiques littéraires, ou des linguistes; que les controverses qu'elle suscita ne furent que des querelles de pédants. . . .‘

3 For the detailed history of the linguistic discussions in sixteenth-century Italy, see chiefly Vivaldi, Storia delle controversie intorno alla questione della lingua (Catanzaro, 1925); also Belardinelli's La Questione della Lingua (Rome, 1904) and Trabalza's Storia della Grammatica Italiana (Milan, 1908).

4 See Zambaldi, Delle teorie ortografiche in Italia, in Atti del R. Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti (Serie VII, vol. III); and F. Sensi, M. Claudio Tolomei e le controversie sull'ortografia italiana nel secolo XVI, in Atti dell'Accademia dei Lincei (Serie IV, vol. VI).

5 De Causis Linguae Latinae 18 (Lyon, 1540).

6 Ercolano 203 (Quesito Secondo) (ed. Padua 1764, together with Machiavelli's Dialogo, Castelvetro's Correzione and Muzio's Varchina, page references to all of which will be to this edition). In this passage, lingue inarticolate means ‘quelle lingue, le quali scrivere non si possono, come ne sono molte tra le nazioni barbare. . . . .‘ 207 (Quesito Terzo).

7 See E. Teza, Un Maestro di Fonetica Italiana nel '500, in Studî di Filologia Romanza 6.449–463.

8 Ercolano 92 (Dubitazione Prima).

9 See Rotta, La Filosofia del Linguaggio nella Patristica e nella Scolastica 247 f. (Turin, 1909).

10 Paradiso XXVI 130–132.

11 E.g., St. Anselm, Monoloquium 10; and Dante, De vulgari Eloquentiâ I. iii. 2.

12 Cf. Scaliger, De Causis 114f.; the constantly recurring similes in Bembo, Varchi, Tolomei, etc., comparing language to a ‘clothing’ for thought and the like; or the phrase Tolomei uses in the Cesano, ‘sciogliendo quel nodo a’ pensieri che li sosteneva, così nella lingua scender gli fece', Cesano 16 (ed. Milan 1864, together with Trissino's Castellano).

13 Cf. the attitude of Belardinelli, op. cit., who, while approving the viewpoint of Muzio and the anti-Tuscans because of the broader ‘national’ viewpoint implied in their philosophy, laments the non-attainment of this ideal because of the general individualistic tendency of the period, and especially the devotion shown to their local dialect by the Tuscans, which he considers ‘individualism’ as representing the point of view of a small group as opposed to a national one.

14 See Rotta, op. cit. 246.

16 Trissino, Castellano 32 (ed. Milan 1864, vide supra).

16 Labande-Jeanroy, op. cit. 18.

17 Ercolano 203 (Quesito Primo).

18 Castellano 32.

19 Ercolano 234 (Quesito Quinto).

20 Ercolano 200 (Quesito Primo).

21 Ercolano 225 ff. (Quesito Quinto).

22 Gelli, Opere 309 f. (ed. Florence, 1855). This conception of ‘accrescimento, stato e dicrescimento’ is, of course, exactly the same as that applied by Humboldt and Bopp to the ‘growth’ (pre-IE period), ‘state of perfection’ (IE period) and ‘decay’ (post-IE period) of the Indo-European tongues. (Cf. Humboldt, Verschiedenheit §19 and Bopp Vokalismus 1, 2.)

23 Ruscelli, Tre Discorsi a M. Lodovico Dolce: Lettera Seconda 67 (Venice, 1553).

24 Speroni, Dialogo delle Lingue 72, 73 (ed. Lanciano, 1912).

25 Castellano 34.

26 Especially in the case of Bembo; see Trabalza, Storia della Grammatica Italiana 65, etc.

27 Dialogo 72.

28 Dialogo 74. It is perhaps worth noting that, although Speroni apparently favors Peretto's viewpoint in regard to language as an instrument of philosophic or scientific discussion, he seems on the other hand to give Bembo and his pro-Tuscan, archaistic doctrine the last word in so far as the literary use of language is concerned; Dialogo 83, 84.

29 Gelli, Opere 213.

30 Horace, Ars Poetica 60–62, 69–72, and similar passages do not seem to me to constitute an exception to this statement, since they refer only to the vocabulary and not to the phonetic and morphological aspects of language as well.

31 De vulgari Eloquentiâ I. ix. 6 (the text here, as in all other quotations from Dante, is cited from the Testo Critico della Soc. Dantesca Italiana, Florence, 1932).

32 Paradiso XXVI 124–132.

33 De vulgari Eloquentiâ I. ix. 11. Whether Dante thought the languages of oc, oïl and sì to have been developed out of the grammatica or vice versa depends on whether one interprets literally or figuratively the word inniti in the phrase by which he characterizes Italian: Magis videtur inniti grammaticae, quae comunis est (De vulgari Eloquentiâ I. x. 4).

34 Castelvetro, Correttione . . . et una Giunta al primo libro delle Prose di M. Pietro Bembo (with each section of the Prose printed before the corresponding section of the Giunta; references to the Prose will be made by page to this edition) 136, 147 (Basel, 1572).

35 Tolomei, Cesano 54, 55; Ruscelli, Lettera Seconda al Dolce 59; Castelvetro, Giunta 153, 154; Muzio, Battaglie, Lettera al Trivulzio f.9b (ed. Venice, 1582); Bembo, Prose 149, 150; etc.

36 E.g. the polemic between Varchi and Muzio; the interesting point is the common ground of belief in the precisability in minute detail of the time and place of these occurrences.

37 Tolomei, Cesano 69.

38 Varchi, Ercolano 264, 271.

39 Muzio, Battaglie, Lettera al Trivulzio f.9b.

40 Muzio, Battaglie, Diffesa della volgar Lingua f.157b.

41 Cesano 52.

42 Dialogo intorno alla Lingua 522.

43 Cesano 66, 67.

44 See F. Sensi, Per la Storia della Filologia Neo-latina in Italia—Claudio Tolomei e Celso Cittadini, in Arch. Glott. It. 12.441–60. Cittadini was for some time thought to have been the first to initiate scientific treatment of historical language study; but Sensi's article proves completely that this honor belongs to Tolomei, from whom Cittadini derived his method.

45 De Causis 37.