Dear Steven,
Thank you for explaining, and see me moving sides: I not only agree that
'Lombard' is an acceptable translation of the passage question, but I also
admit that, in view of the modern reader, it is preferable to 'Italian' and
carries less risk of anachronistic misunderstanding.
Yet I think that it is only slightly preferable, because I am still
somewhat reluctant to accept your description of how medievals felt (or
felt not) about the unity of Italian language. While it is true that Dante
meant to forge for mostly literary purposes a new "vulgare illustre"
consisting of the "best" elements of all the variants of the "vulgare
latium" or "lingua si" spoken between, roughly, Genova and Sicily, this
nevertheless should not mean that he and his contemporaries did not regard
this "vulgare latium" as a language distinct from other Romance or
non-Romance languages: the presence of such a "vulgare latium" was
obviously felt, and you yourself in your translation of Dante's text
translate it with "Italian vernacular".
As a matter of fact, I had not served you (and the whole list) very well
when I supplied what you regard as decisive evidence for the absence of the
notion of an 'Italian' language, that is, when I stated that the pre-1375
texts of the electronic Opera del Vocabolario Italiano seem to contain no
occurrence of "italian-" in metalinguistic sense. I had done my search of
the database somewhat hurriedly and without much thinking, searching only
for "italian-" but not for "italic-", but now that your response prompted
me to search also for the latter form", I find that already as early as in
1268 Andrea da Grosseto in his volgarizzamento of Albertano da Brescia uses
"volgare italico" when explaining linguistic differences between Italian on
the one hand and Greek or Latin on the other ("et e\ a. ddire _cinos_ in
lingua greca quanto che in volgare italico e\ a. ddire cane", "_arcendo_,
che vale in latino quanto _constringo_ in volgare italico"), and that no
less than Dante himself uses "volgare italico" to distinguish Italian
vernacular from other vernaculars or from Latin (even in the passage to
which I had referred from memory without quoting it in the original, i.e.
Conv. I, vi, 8: "che\ uno abituato di latino non distingue, s'elli e\
d'Italia, lo volgare [inghilese] dallo tedesco; ne\ lo tedesco, lo volgare
italico dal provinciale", cf. I, ix, 2: "li litterati fuori di lingua
italica"; I, x, 14: "la italica loquela" as opposed to Latin; I, xi, 14:
"fanno vile lo parlare italico e prezioso quello di Proenza"). Come to
think of it, I suppose that also my earlier claim was wrong that, with the
exception of Dante's somewhat unusual "vulgare latium", there was no
current Latin equivalent to 'Italian': it would probably not be impossible
to find "loquela italica", "sermo italicus", or "vulgare italicus" also in
Latin. Btw, at times even the term "volgare latino" was used for 'Italian',
as in one of the Italian volgarizzamenti of Boethius, where the author
disginguishes between "franc,ois" and "volgar latino" (apparently
translating from the French of the Italian Bonaventura de Demena, who in
turn distinguishes between "latin", "vulgar franc,ois" and "vulgar latin",
cf. Anna Maria Babbi, _"Consolatio Philosophiae_: Una versione veneta_,
Milano: FrancoAngeli, 1995, p.29; the text is not yet part of the OVI
database).
Now if there actually existed words (other than the generic term "volgare")
for referring to Italian vernacular(s) without specifying a regional
variant and without using the name of such a regional variant 'pars pro
toto' for Italian vernaculars in general, this could of course be a reason
for concluding that Charles IV was referring to Lombard specifically and
not to Italian in general when he used "Lombardicum" instead of "Italicum".
However it seems to me that, if not for Italians, at least for their
neighbours or other foreigners it was pretty common to use 'Lombardy' and
'Lombard' in a wider sense as a pars pro toto synonym of 'Italy' and
'Italian', as for instance in Chrestien's _Erec_ 5344-5346: "Comant Eneas
puis conquist | Laurente et tote Lonbardie, | Dont il fu rois tote sa vie"
(ed. Foerster). If I had time to dig, I could probably come up also with
examples of this kind where 'Lombard' has metalinguistic sense.
So after all I concede and agree with you that 'Lombard' is the better
translation of the passage in question, but unlike you I would not exclude
a wider meaning where 'Lombard' is used 'pars pro toto' for Italian in
general.
Yours,
Otfried
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Otfried Lieberknecht, Schoeneberger Str. 11, D-12163 Berlin
phone & fax: ++49 30 8516675, E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Homepage for Dante Studies:
http://members.aol.com/lieberk/welcome.html
Listowner of Italian-Studies:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/italian-studies/
Listowner of Medieval-Religion:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|