History of Linguistics, Volume 3: Renaissance and Early Modern Linguistics [3] 0582094933, 9780582094932

TheHistory of Linguistics, to be published in five volumes, aims to provide the reader with an authoritative and compreh

133 63 8MB

English Pages 288 Year 1997

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

History of Linguistics, Volume 3: Renaissance and Early Modern Linguistics [3]
 0582094933, 9780582094932

Citation preview



R. H. ROBINS, University of London GEOFFREY HORROCKS, University o f Cambridge DAVID DENISON, University of Manchester For a com plete list of books in the series, see pages v and vi.

History of Linguistics Volume III: Renaissance and Early Modern Linguistics edited by Giulio Lepschy

O Routledge Taylor Si Francis G roup LO N D O N A N D NEW YORK

First published 1998 by Pearson Education Limited Published in 2014 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0 X 1 4 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint o f the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © by Societa Editrice II M ulino 1992 English Translation © Taylor and Francis 1998 All rights reserved. No part of this book m ay be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, m echanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, w ithout permission in writing from the publishers. Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research m ethods, professional practices, or medical treatm ent m ay become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experim ents described herein. In using such inform ation or m ethods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others,including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/ or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein ISBN 978-0-582-09493-2 (pbk)

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog entry for this title is available from the Library of Congress Set by 35 in 10/11 pt Times


R. H. Robins University o f London

Geoffrey Horrocks University o f Cambridge

David Denison University o f Manchester History of Linguistics Vol. I The Eastern Traditions of Linguistics Edited by GIULIO LEPSCHY History of Linguistics Vol. II Classical and M edieval Linguistics Edited by GIULIO LEPSCHY History of Linguistics Vol. IV Edited by GIULIO LEPSCHY N ineteenth-Century Linguistics ANN A MORPURGO DAVIES The N ew Comparative Syntax Edited by LILIANE HAEGEMAN Gram m ar and Grammarians in Early M iddle Ages VIVIEN LAW Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers GEOFFREY HORROCKS

A Linguistic H istory of Italian MARTIN M AIDEN Latin Am erican Spanish JOHN LIPSKI The Meaning of Syntax A Study in the A djectives of English CONNOR FERRIS English Historical Syntax DAVID DENISON Aspect in the English Verb Process and Result in Language YISHAI TOBIN Historical Linguistics Problems and Perspectives Edited by CHARLES JONES A History of Am erican English J. L. DILLARD Verb and Noun Num ber in English A Functional Explanation W ALLIS REID English in Africa JOSEF SCHMIED Linguistic Theory ROBERT DE BEAUGRANDE An Introduction to Bilingualism CHARLOTTE HOFFMANN

A Short History of Linguistics Volume IV R. H. ROBINS

Dialects of English Studies in Grammatical Variation Edited by PETER TRUDGILL

Causatives and Causation A Universal-typological Perspective JAE JUNG SONG

M odality and the English M odals F. R. PALMER

An Introduction to the Celtic Languages PAUL RUSSELL Frontiers of Phonology: Atom s, Structures and Derivations Edited by JACQUES DURAND and FRANCIS KATAMBA M odern Arabic Structures, Functions and Varieties CLIVE HOLES

Generative and Non-linear Phonology JACQUES DURAND A History of English Phonology CHARLES JONES General Linguistics An Introductory Survey R. H. ROBINS Pidgin and Creole Languages SUZANNE ROMAINE

The English Verb F. R. PALMER

Psycholinguistics Language, M ind and W orld DANNY D. STEINBERG

Generative Grammar GEOFFREY HORROCKS Principles of Pragmatics GEOFFREY LEECH

Introduction to Text Linguistics ROBERT DE BEAUGRANDE and WOLFGANG DRESSLER


Introduction Acknowledgements N otes on the contributors


x x viii xix

Renaissance Linguistics


1.1 1.2

I 2 2


Introduction M irko Tavoni W estern Europe M irko Tavoni 1.2.1 Latin grammar 1.2.2 T he emancipation o f the vernacular languages 1.2.3 The orthography o f the vernacular languages 1.2.4 The grammar o f the vernacular languages 1.2.5 Diachronic and com parative linguistics in the Rom ance world 1.2.6 D iachronic and com parative linguistics in the Germ anic world 1.2.7 Appendix: lexicography, translation, N ew W orld Notes B ibliographical references Rom an Slavdom M aria Delfina G andolfo 1.3.1 The ‘ language question’ and Western m odels 1.3.2 The em ergence o f the vernacular languages in the C zech , Polish, Slovak and Sorbian areas 1.3.3 The success o f the vernacular language in the Slovenian and Croat areas Notes Bibliographical references

14 18 29 44 59 66 69 83 108 108

no 118 119 120


v iii



Orthodox Slavdom Silvia Toscano 1.4.1 The beginnings o f linguistic reflection and the treatise ‘The eight parts o f speech’ (tenth to fourteenth century) 1.4.2 Hesychasm and the birth o f ‘p h ilo lo g y’ among the Balkan Slavs 1.4.3 Gram m atical studies in Russia (fifteenth to sixteenth century) 1.4.4 Printed grammars o f Church Slavonic (sixteenth to seventeenth century) N otes Bibliographical references

The Early Modern Period 2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2 .11 2.12 2.13 2 .14 2.15 2.16

Rajfaele Simone The reawakening o f a research interest Fields o f evidence, backgrounds, myths and paradigms 2.2.1 Language and theology 2.2.2 Language and know ledge 2.2.3 Language and education 2.2.4 Human language, animals and machines 2.2.5 The misuse o f language and its reform 2.2.6 The origin o f language 2.2.7 The unity o f language and the diversity o f languages 2.2.8 Language change, usage and society Bacon The description o f languages and the accum ulation o f linguistic data The ‘ original language’ and linguistic research The Port-Royal Grammaire and Logique Projects for ‘ universal’ and ‘ philosophical’ languages Hobbes and L ocke L eibniz Accum ulation o f linguistic data V ico C ondillac The ‘ genius’ and the specificity o f languages. The dispute on word order Anim als, m achines and language Origin, formation and function o f language The Encyclopedic and linguistic thought


123 127 131 138 141 145 149 149 151 151 152 152 153 153 154 154 155 156 160 163 165 170 176 183 188 189 194 197 203 205 210


2 .17 The ‘d isco very’ o f Sanskrit 2.18 E pilogue N otes Bibliographical references Index


212 214 215 228 237


This work originated in the discussions held by a group o f advisors for linguistics o f the Italian publishers il M ulino. Exam ining the areas in w hich new and useful initiatives could be encouraged, it was thought that a large-scale history o f linguistics w ould meet a w idely felt need, and I was asked to elaborate a plan for such a work. The preparation and the com pletion o f the project took about ten years, and the work, written by scholars from different countries, began appearing in Italian in 1990. This English edition has been reorganized into five volumes. In this introduction I shall say something about the nature and contents o f this work, and its place within the present panorama o f linguistic historiography. W hat I proposed was a history o f linguistic thought, rather than an account o f the developm ent o f linguistic science. In other words, for different societies and in different periods a presentation o f the prevail­ ing attitudes towards language was therefore required: its social, cu l­ tural, religious and liturgical functions, the prestige attached to different varieties, the cultivation o f a standard, the place o f language in educa­ tion, the elaboration o f lexical and grammatical descriptions, the know ­ ledge o f foreign idiom s, the status o f interpreters and translators, and so on. This im plies o f course a ‘ view from w ithin’ , that is, presenting the linguistic interests and assumptions o f individual cultures in their own terms, without trying to transpose and reshape them into the context o f our ideas o f what the scientific study o f language ought to be. The purpose is an understanding o f what certain societies thought about language rather than an assessment o f their ideas on a scale o f scientific progress. The content o f the five volum es o f the English edition is as follow s: V olum e I includes the ancient traditions, each o f which develops in a manner which is, from a view point both cultural and chronological, largely independent, apart from obvious connections, like those between



A rabic and Hebrew thought in the M iddle A g es. (The G raeco-Rom an tradition, w hich is the basis o f those reflections on language w hich w e present chronologically in V olum es I I -V , appears at the beginning o f the second volum e). Chapter i , by Goran M alm qvist, o f Stockholm U niversity, describes the developm ent o f Chinese linguistics, analysing the relevant lexicographical and gram m atical works, and throwing light on the particular shape im posed on phonological analysis by the logographic nature o f Chinese script. Chapter 2, b y G eorge Cardona, o f the U niversity o f Pennsylvania, presents the Indian gram m atical tradi­ tion, its cultural and religious im plications, and particularly the contri­ bution o f Panini, illustrating its system atic character and its attention to detail. Chapter 3, supervised b y Erica Reiner, o f the U niversity o f C hicago, presents and interprets the documents w hich bear witness to linguistic interests and know ledge in the civilizations o f the ancient near East; the chapter is divided into three sections, devoted to Ancient Egyptian (by Janet Johnson), Sumerian (by M iguel C ivil), and Akkadian (by Erica Reiner). Chapter 4, by Raphael L oew e, o f the U niversity o f London, exam ines the place o f language within the H ebrew tradition, from the B ib lical period, through the Talm udists, the m ystics, the en­ lightenment, down to the rebirth o f H ebrew as an everyday language, paying particular attention to the philosophical and cultural im plica­ tions o f these trends. Chapter 5, by the late Henri Fleisch, o f Saint Joseph U niversity in Beirut, probably the last essay to flow from the pen o f this eminent scholar, deals with the original system o f gram ­ matical analysis elaborated by the great A rabic civilization o f the M iddle A ges. The successive volum es present the main stages o f the European tradition, in their chronological order. In V olum e II, the first chapter, by Peter M atthews, o f Cam bridge U niversity, deals with classical linguis­ tics and offers a reading o f the main texts o f the Graeco-Rom an world w hich elaborate the gram m atical categories on which w e still base our analysis o f language. The second chapter, by Edoardo V ineis, o f B ologn a U niversity and (for the philosophy o f language) by A lfon so M aieru, o f Rom e U niversity, presents a detailed discussion o f lan­ guage study from the end o f the sixth to the end o f the fourteenth century, not lim ited to the late m edieval period w hich has received most attention in recent years (with particular reference to M odistic philosophy), but extending to the less frequently studied early M iddle A ges. In V olum e III, the first chapter, b y M irko Tavoni, o f Pisa U niversity, covers the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and is com pleted by two sections, one on Roman Slavdom , by M . D. G andolfo, and one on Orthodox Slavdom , by S. Toscano; the bibliography o f this chapter takes advantage o f the great Renaissance Linguistic A rch ive set up by



M . Tavoni at the Istituto di Studi Rinascim entali in Ferrara. The second chapter, by R affaele Sim one, o f Rom e U niversity, offers a detailed map o f the varied terrain constitued by seventeenth- and eighteenth-century culture, in which m any o f the roots are found from w hich the great plant o f later comparative linguistics derives its nourishment; R. Simone, w ho is a professional linguist, keeps in mind the philosophical perspec­ tive that is particularly relevant for this period. In V olum e IV Anna M orpurgo D avies, o f O xford U niversity, exam ­ ines the flow ering o f historical and com parative linguistics in the nine­ teenth century, stressing in particular some aspects which traditional presentations, focusing on the Neo-gram m arians, sometimes leave in the shadow, such as the interest in typological classifications, and the importance for com parative philology o f the new ly constituted German university system in the first three decades o f the century. V olum e V , by the editor o f this history, offers a synthesis o f the main developm ents in twentieth-century linguistics, extending from the progress o f com parative studies to linguistic theory, philosophy o f lan­ guage, and the investigation o f language use in different areas, from literature to social com m unication. (The Italian edition also includes a chapter on the history o f Italian linguistics and dialectology, by Paola Beninca, o f Padua U niversity, which is omitted from the English edition.) Let us briefly look at the present state o f linguistic historiography. O ver the last three decades, there has been a considerable revival o f interest in this field. In 1974 Konrad Koem er, a German scholar teaching in Canada, founded the journal Historiographia Linguistica, which has becom e a forum for international discussion on the history o f linguis­ tics; in 1978 he was the organizer o f the first international congress on the history o f linguistics (the meetings are held at three-yearly intervals). There are also several other associations devoted to the history o f lin­ guistics, like the Societe d ’histoire et d ’epistem ologie des sciences du langage, created in 1978, presided over by S. Auroux, which publishes a Bulletin, and the journal Histoire Epistem ologie Langage (19 7 9 -); the Henry Sw eet Society for the History o f Linguistic Ideas, founded in 1984 on the initiative o f V ivian Salm on, w hich organizes regular meetings and publishes a Newsletter,; the North Am erican Association for the History o f the Language Sciences, founded in 1987. Beitrage zur G eschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, edited by K . D utz and P. Schmitter, started to appear in Germ any in 1991. The interest in the history o f linguistics over this period is also indicated by the publica­ tion o f monographs and collections o f studies, such as H ym es (1974), the two tomes devoted to the historiography o f linguistics by Sebeok (1975), Parret (1976), Salm on (1979), Grotsch (1982), Schmitter (1982), C hevalier and Encreve (1984), Bynon and Palm er (1986), Formigari


x iii

and L o Piparo (1988), K oem er (19 8 9 ,19 9 5 ), K oem er and A sher (1995), Salm on (1996), Stein (1997). A separate study w ould be necessary to exam ine the main available histories o f linguistics, from the great works o f the nineteenth century devoted to C lassical linguistics by Steinthal (1863), to Oriental philo­ logy by B en fey (1869), and to Germ anic ph ilology by R. von Raum er (1870). Subsequent studies witness the triumph o f Neogram m arian com parative philology, from D elbriick (1880) to M eillet (1903) to Pedersen (1924). Since the 1960s numerous historical presentations have been published, from the large and w ell-inform ed w ork b y Tagliavini (1963), lacking how ever in historical perspective and theoretical in­ sight, to the tw o-volum e contribution by M ounin (19 6 7-72 ), the neat and w ell-balanced book by Robins (1967), the acute and com prehen­ sive syntesis by L aw (1990), the disappointing attempts by M alm berg (19 9 1) and Itkonen (1991). Large-scale w orks have also started appear­ ing in the last few years under the direction o f Schmitter (1987; 1991; [Ebbesen] 1995; 1996) and o f A uroux (1989; 1992); one is being edited by K oem er for D e G ruyter’ s Handbiicher. Stammerjohann (1996) is an important biographical dictionary. There is no space to mention in this context the great many studies devoted, since the 1960s, to individual periods and problems in the history o f linguistics, although they often provide the detailed groundwork that m akes possible over-all synthetic assessments (some titles w ill be quoted in the list o f references). W hat is the place o f our history o f linguistics against this b ack­ ground? T o me it seems to be in an advantageous position, in the middle ground between the concise, one-author profiles on the one hand, and the extended, multi-authored, m ulti-volum e series on the other. Com pared to the former, it has more richness o f detail, w hich is made possible by the greater space available, and the higher degree o f reliability that derives from the authority o f contributors w ho are spe­ cialists in the individual areas. Com pared to the latter, it is more com ­ pact and coherent in perspective and basic assumptions, and it can not only be consulted for single questions, or studied in individual sections, but also be read in its entirety. If I were asked to present a schem atic precis o f the main features which I see as inspiring this w ork and characterizing its realization, I w ould list the follow in g points: 1.

A perspective directed towards understanding the past, rather than dealing with present-day concerns. The aim is to reconstruct and illustrate different epochs and traditions within their ow n context and on the basis o f their ow n values, rather than o f their appeal to present-day preoccupations: to highlight their linguistic interests, rather than our own.

x iv






This is a history o f linguistic thought, o f interests and attitudes toward language. These m ay or m ay not find a place within the elaboration o f a ‘ scientific’ study o f language (how ever w e m ay want to define it), but in any case I feel that an account o f the preoccupations with linguistic matters in different societies proves to be an interesting and worthwhile object o f historical investigation. I have considered it essential, in m y choice o f authors for indi­ vidual chapters, that they should be specialists, able to analyse the relevant texts in the original languages, and to present them to a lay readership. I aimed at obtaining not an account o f what is known, derived from current literature, but a series o f original contribu­ tions based on first-hand study o f the primary sources. From what precedes it is clear that this work is prevalently con­ cerned with a historical and philological study o f ideas, with texts from the past, rather than with m ethodological and theoretical prob­ lems posed by historiography. It is an ‘ extroverted’ , rather than an ‘ introverted’ history, dealing with the facts it analyses, rather than with the theoretical and ideological assumptions which lie behind the work o f the historian. This obviously does not im ply that meth­ odological questions are not a legitim ate object o f study; but I believe that it is possible to offer useful contributions on the his­ tory o f linguistics, without dealing in the first instance with the theory o f historiography. One o f the main linguists o f our times, Y a k o v M alkiel, observed som e years ago (M alkiel and Langdon 1969) that to produce good work on the history o f linguistcs it is not enough to be a linguist: one has also to be a historian, and to fulfill the expectations nor­ m ally raised by a historical essay. Here o f course, one can only observe that the ability to set some episodes o f the history o f lin­ guistics within their social and cultural context, is the exception rather than the rule (exam ples that com e to mind are those o f Dionisotti (1967a, b, 1972) or Timpanaro ( 1 9 6 3 ,1 9 6 5 ,1 9 7 2 ,1 9 7 3 )). W hat I had in mind for this history o f linguistics was the more modest aim o f providing information about ideas on language, in different periods and societies, w hich are not easily (and in some cases not at all) accessible elsewhere.

I know from direct experience that linguists feel the need for a work o f this kind, and I hope it m ay also appeal to readers w ho are interested to know how people, at different times and within different cultural traditions, have looked at one o f the most essential and challenging features o f our common humanity - that is, language. G. C. Lepschy



References (1982) From Locke to Saussure. Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. a m i r o v a , t . a . , o l ’ k h o v i k o v , b. a . and ROZDESTVENSK iJ, j u . v. (1975) Ocerki po istorii lingvistiki, Nauka, Moskva (German tr. Abriss der Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, Veb Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig, 1980). a u r o u x , s. (ed.) (1989) Histoire des idees linguistiques. Tome I: La naissance des metalangages. En Orient et en Occident, Mardaga, Liege-Bruxelles. a u r o u x , s. (ed.) (1992) Histoires des idees linguistiques. Tome 2: Le developpement de la grammaire occidentale, Mardaga, Liege. b e n f e y , t . (1869) Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philogie in Deutschland, seit dem Anfange des ig. Jahrunderts mit einem Riickblick auf die fruheren Zeiten, Cotta, Miinchen. b o r s t , a . (1957-63) Der Turmbau von Babel. Geschichte der Meinungen iiber Ursprung und Vielfalt der Sprachen und Volker, Hiersemann, Stuttgart. b r i n c a t , G. (1986) La linguistica prestrutturale, Zanichelli, Bologna. b y n o n , T. and p a l m e r , F. R. (eds) (1986) Studies in the History of Western Linguistics. In Honour o f R.H. Robins, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. c h e v a l i e r , j . - c . and e n c r e v e , p. (eds) (1984) Vers une histoire sociale de la linguistique (Langue Fran^aise, 63), Larousse, Paris. c h o m s k y , n . (1966) Cartesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the History o f Ration­ alist Thought, Harper and Row, New York. d e l b r u c k , b . (1880) Einleitung in das Sprachstudium. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte und Methodik der vergleichenden Sprachforschung, Breitkopf und Hartel, Leipzig. d i o n i s o t t i , c. (1967a) La lingua italiana da Venezia all’Europa. II Fortunio e la filologia umanistica. Niccold Libumio e la letteratura cortigiana, in Rinascimento europeo e Rinascimento veneziano, edited by V. Branca, Sansoni, Firenze, 1-46. d i o n i s o t t i , c. (1967b) Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana, Einaudi, Torino. d i o n i s o t t i , c. (1972) A Year s Work in the Seventies. The Presidential Address of the Modern Humanities Research Association delivered at University College, London, on 7 January 1972, reprinted from The Modern Language Review, Vol. 67, No. 4. e b b e s e n , s. (ed.) (1995) Sprachtheorien in Spatantike und Mittelalter (Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, edited by P. Schmitter, 3), Narr, Tubingen. f o r m i g a r i , l . and l o p i p a r o , f . (eds) (1988) Prospettive di storia della linguistica, Editori Riuniti, Roma. g r a f f i , g . (1991) La sintassi tra Ottocento e Novecento, il Mulino, Bologna. g r o t s c h , k . (1982) Sprachwissenschaftsgeschichtsschreibung. Ein Beitrag zur Kritik und zur historischen un methodologischen Selbstvergewisserung der Disziplin, Kiimmerle Verlag, Goppingen. h y m e s , d . (ed.) (1974) Studies in the History of Linguistics, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. i t k o n e n , e . (1991) Universal History o f Linguistics, Benjamins, Amsterdam. a a r s le ff, h.



(1978) Towards a Historiography o f Linguistics. Selected Essays, Benjamins, Amsterdam. k o e r n e r , k . (1989) Practicing Linguistic Historiography. Selected Essays, Benjamins, Amsterdam. koerner, k. (1995) Professing Linguistic Historiography, Benjamins, Amsterdam. k o e r n e r , k . and a s h e r , r . e . (eds) (1995) Concise History o f the Language Sciences. From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists, Pergamon, Elsevier Science, Oxford. l a w , v. (1990) Language and its Students: the History of Linguistics, in An Encyclopedia of Language, edited by N.E. Collinge, Routledge, London/ New York, 784-842. l e p s c h y , G. (ed.) (1990-94) Storia della linguistica, 3 vols, il Mulino, Bologna. m a l k i e l , y . and l a n g d o n , M. (1969) History and Histories of Linguistics, Romance Philology, 22, 530-74. m a l m b e r g , b. (1991) Histoire de la linguistique de Sumer a Saussure, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. m e ille t, a. (1903) Introduction a Vetude comparative des langues indoeuropeennes, Hachette, Paris (eighth edition, 1937). m o u n i n , g . (1967-72) Histoire de la linguistique, 2 vols, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris. o l ’ k h o v i k o v , b. a . (1985) Teorija jazyka i vid grammaticeskogo opisanija v istorii jazykoznanija. Stanovlenie i evolucija kanona grammaticeskogo opisanija v Evrope, Nauka, Moskva. p a r r e t , h . (ed.) (1976) History o f Linguistic Thought and Contemporary Lin­ guistics, De Gruyter, Berlin. p e d e r s e n , h . (1924) Sprogvidenskaben i det Nittende Aarhundrede. Metoder og Resultater, Gyldendalske Boghandel, K0benhavn (English tr. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1931; and with the new title The Discovery o f Language. Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1962). r a u m e r , r . v o n (1870) Geschichte der germanischen Philologie vorzugsweise in Deutschland, Oldenbourg, Munchen. r o b i n s , r . h . (1967) A Short History of Linguistics, Longman, London (fourth edition, 1997). s a l m o n , v . (1979) The Study o f Language in Seventeenth-Century England, Benjamins, Amsterdam (second edition, 1988). s a l m o n , v . (1996) Language and Society in Early Modern England. Selected Essays 1981-1994, Benjamins, Amsterdam. s c h m i t t e r , p. (1982) Untersuchungen zur Historiographie der Linguistik. Struktur - Methodik - Theoretische Fundierung, Narr, Tubingen. s c h m i t t e r , p. (ed.) (1987) Zur Theorie und Methode der Geschichtsschreibung der Linguistik. Analysen und Reflexionen (Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, 1), Narr, Tubingen. s c h m i t t e r , p. (ed.) (1991) Sprachtheorien der abendlandischen Antike (Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, 2), Narr, Tubingen. k o e r n e r , k.


x v ii

p. (ed.) (1996) Sprachtheorien der Neuzeit II. Von der Grammaire de Port-Royal (1660) zur Konstitution moderner linguistischer Disziplinen (Geschichte der Sprachtheorie, 5), Narr, Tubingen. s e b e o k , T. (ed.) (1975) Historiography o f Linguistics (Current Trends in Linguistics, 13), Mouton, The Hague. s t a m m e r j o h a n n , h . (ed.) (1996) Lexicon grammaticorum. Who's Who in the History o f Linguistics, Niemeyer, Tubingen. s t e i n , G. (1997) John Palsgrave as a Renaissance Linguist. A Pioneer in Ver­ nacular Language Description, Clarendon Press, Oxford. s t e i n t h a l , H. (1863) Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Romern mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Logik, Dummler, Berlin (second edition, 1890-91). t a g l i a v i n i , c. (1963) Panorama di storia della linguistica, Patron, Bologna. t i m p a n a r o , s. (1963) La genesi del metodo del Lachmann, Le Monnier, Firenze (new edition, Liviana, Padova, 1985). t i m p a n a r o , s. (1965) Classicismo e illuminismo nell' Ottocento italiano, Nistri Lischi, Pisa (second, enlarged edition, 1969). t i m p a n a r o , s. (1972) Friedrich Schlegel e gli inizi della linguistica indoeuropea in Germania, Critica Storica, 9, 72-105 (Eglish tr. Friedrich Schlegel and the Beginnings of Indo-European Linguistics in Germany, in F. Schlegel, Ueber die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier, edited by E.F.K. Koemer, Benjamins, Amsterdam, xi-lvii). t i m p a n a r o , s. (1973) II contrasto tra i fratelli Schlegel e Franz Bopp sulla struttura e la genesi delle lingue indoeuropee, Critica Storica, 10, 53-90. s c h m itte r ,


In the preparation o f the Italian edition I availed m yself o f the advice o f many friends and colleagues. For V olum e I, I should like to thank in particular Z y g Barariski, Verina Jones, Anna Morpurgo D avies, Joanna W einberg (Introduction); M ichael H alliday and M ichael L oew e (Chapter i); Anna M orpurgo D avies (Chapter 2); A m ald o M om igliano (Chapter 3); A d a Rapoport and Joanna W einberg (Chapter 4); Bernard L ew is (Chapter 5); for V olum e II, T u llio D e M auro (Chapter 2); for Volum e III: Giuseppe D e ll’ Agata (Chapter 1), Tullio D e Mauro (Chapter 2). I am grateful to Em m a Sansone, who sensitively performed the difficult job o f translating into English chapters originally in other languages (V olum e I, Chapter 5; V olum e II, Chapter 2; V olum e III, Chapters 1 and 2; V olum e V ). I should also like to thank the series’ editors for their comments during the preparation o f the English edition. This introduces some updatings and improvements on the previous Italian edition. In particular V olum e I, Chapter 4 includes a more detailed discussion o f Hebrew grammatical ideas, and Chapter 5 profited from the suggestions o f Edward U llendorff and o f the late A .F .L . Beeston. I am grateful to Chiara Cirillo, Rolando Ferri and Helena Sanson for their help with the proofs and the index o f V olum e III.

Notes on the contributors

George Cardona received a B A from N ew Y o rk U niversity and an M A and PhD in Indo-European Linguistics from Y a le U niversity. He has spent several years studying texts o f traditional sastras with panditas in India (Vadodra, Varanasi, Madras). Since i960 he has taught at the U niversity o f Pennsylvania, first in the Department o f South Asian Studies, then (since 1965) in the Department o f Linguistics. His m ajor fields o f interests and research are ancient Indian gram m atical thought, Indo-Aryan, and Indo-Iranian. A m ong his works are A Gujarati Refer­ ence Grammar (Philadelphia 1965), Panini, a Survey o f Research (The Hague 1976; reprinted D elhi 1980), and Panini s Grammar and its Traditions. Volume 1: Background and Introduction (Delhi 1988). Miguel Civil bom in Sabadell (Barcelona, Spain) studied A ssyriology in Paris (E cole Pratique des Hautes Etudes and C ollege de France). He worked with Professor S. N. Kram er in Philadelphia for several years and then joined the staff o f the Oriental Institute o f the U niversity o f C hicago. His speciality is Sumerian texts and grammar, with emphasis on lexicography. He is co-editor o f M aterials fo r the Sumerian Lexicon and m ember o f the editorial board o f the C hicago Assyrian Dictionary. Henri Fleisch (190 4-85) bom in Jonville (France); a Jesuit, he studied in the schools o f his Order and in Paris, E cole de Langues Orientales V ivantes (1934—36) and at the Sorbonne. In 1938 he was appointed Professor o f A rabic P hilology at the Institut de Lettres Orientales in Beirut, and then Director o f the Prehistory Museum , and Scriptor at the Saint-Joseph U niversity. A m ong his works: Introduction a Vetude des langues sem itiques (Paris 1947); U Arabe classique. Esquisse d ’ une structure linguistique (Beirut 1956); Traite de p hilologie arabe (Beirut, vol. 1, 196 1, vol. 2, 1979); Etudes d ’ arabe dialectal (Beirut 1974).



Maria Delfina Gandolfo, bom in Rom e, graduated in Genoa in R us­ sian Language and Literature, with a thesis on the history o f alphabets in the Slavic world. She took an M A and an M Phil at Y a le U niversity, and is preparing a PhD dissertation on the orthographic questions in the Slavic tradition. Janet H. Johnson, bom in Everett, W ashington, studied at the U niver­ sity o f C hicago and is now Professor o f E gyptology at the Oriental Institute at that U niversity. Her m ajor philological interests are in D em otic (Egyptian) and the synchronic and diachronic studies o f the ancient Egyptian language. She has written The D em otic Verbal System (C hicago 1976), Thus Wrote ‘Onchsheshonqy: An Introductory Gram ­ mar o f Dem otic (C hicago 1986), and numerous articles on the grammar o f various stages o f Egyptian, including the summary and overview in Crossroads: Chaos or the Beginning o f a New Paradigm , Papers from the Conference on Egyptain Grammar held in Helsingpr, 28-30 M ay 1986. Giulio Lepschy, bom in V enice, studied at the University o f Pisa (Scuola Normale Superiore) and Zurich, O xford, Paris and London. He is Pro­ fessor in the Department o f Italian Studies at the U niversity o f Reading, and a F ellow o f the British Academ y. His research work is m ainly on Italian linguistics and dialectology, and on the history o f linguistics. A m ong his publications are: A Sut'vey o f Structural Linguistics (Lon­ don 1970); (with Anna Laura L epschy) The Italian Language Today (London 1977); Saggi di linguistica italiana (B ologna 1978); Intorno a Saussure (Turin 1979); Sulla linguistica moderna (Bologna 1989); Nuovi saggi di linguistica italiana (Bologna 1989); La linguistica del Novecento (B ologna 1992). Raphael Loewe studied classics at Cam bridge before 1939 and semitics (also subsequently in O xford) after the W ar. He held teaching posts and fellow ships at Leeds, Cam bridge, Providence, Rhode Island, and at University C ollege, London, whence he retired from the G oldsm id Chair o f Hebrew in 1984. He has concerned him self m ainly with the impact o f Jewish biblical exegesis and legend on European scholasticism , and with Hebrew poetry in Spain. His publications include: The M edieval History o f the Latin V ulgate, in The Cam bridge History o f the B ib le, 2 (Cam bridge 1969); The Rylands Haggadah (London 1988); Ibn G abirol (London 1989). Alfonso Maieru studied at the U niversity o f Rom e La Sapienza, where he teaches History o f M edieval Philosophy. He has worked m ainly on medieval logic (Terminologia logica della tarda scolastica, Rome 1972),



dealing with som e o f its problem atic aspects (he has written several essays on Trinitarian theology and logic). Since 1978 he has also been w orking on scholastic institutions and teaching techniques, and on philosophical term inology in Dante. Goran Malmqvist, Professor o f Chinese at the U niversity o f Stock­ holm and a mem ber o f the Sw edish Academ y. He taught Chinese at the School o f Oriental and A frican Studies in London (19 5 3 -5); served as Cultural Attache to the Sw edish Em bassy in Peking (1956-8 ) and as reader and subsequently professor in Chinese at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1956-6 5. He has published in the fields o f Chinese dialectology, classical and m odem Chinese syntax, Chinese m etrics and textual criticism . He has also translated a number o f Chinese literary works into Sw edish. A m ong his publications are: The Syntax o f Bound Forms in S ich ’uanese, B M FEA {Bulletin o f the Museum o f F a r Eastern Antiquities), 33, 1961, 125-99; Studies in W estern Mandarin Phonology, B M F E A , 3 4 ,1 9 6 2 ,1 2 9 -9 2 ; Problem s and Methods in C hinese Linguistics (Canberra 1962); Han Phonology and Textual Criticism (Canberra 1963); Studies on the G ongyang and G uuliang Com m entaries, I, B M F E A , 43, 19 7 1, 67-222; II, B M F E A , 47, 1975, 19-69; III, B M F E A , 49, 1977, 3 3 -2 15 . Peter Hugoe Matthews, bom near O sw estry in England; graduated at the U niversity o f Cam bridge 1957; has taught general linguistics at Bangor, North W ales, at Reading, and, since 1980, at Cam bridge, where he is at present Professor o f Linguistics and F ellow o f St John’ s C o l­ lege. He is a F ellow o f the British Academ y. Principal research inter­ ests in syntax, m orphology and the history o f linguistics. His main publications are: Inflectional Morphology (Cam bridge 1972); M orpho­ logy (Cam bridge 1974); Generative Grammar and Linguistic C om pe­ tence (London 1979); Syntax (Cam bridge 1981); Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloom field to Chomsky (Cam bridge 1993). Anna Morpurgo Davies, bom in M ilan, graduated at the U niversity o f R om e before spending a year at a Foundation o f Harvard U niversity at W ashington D .C . She is Professor o f Com parative Philology at the U niversity o f O xford, and taught at Y a le, Pennsylvania, and other Am erican universities. She is a Fellow o f the British Academ y. She w orks on Indo-European com parative grammar (Particularly M ycenean, Ancient G reek, ancient Anatolian languages), and on the history o f nineteenth century linguistics. She has published M yceneae Graecitatis L exicon (Rom e 1963); she has edited with Y . Duhoux, Linear B: A 1984 Survey (Louvain 1985), and she has written articles in British, Italian, Germ an, French and Am erican journals.

x x ii


Erica Reiner, bom in Budapest, studied Linguistics and A ssyriology at the E cole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris, and at the U niversity o f C hicago (PhD 1955). She is Professor at the U niversity o f C hicago and Editor-in-Charge o f the C hicago Assyrian D ictionary. Her m ajor inter­ ests are the language and literature o f ancient B abylonia and Assyria. Her main publications are: A Linguistic Analysis o f Accadian (The Hague 1966); The Elamite Language (Handbuch der Orientalistick, II-2, Leiden 1969); (with D. Pingree) Babylonian Planetary Om ens, 1 and 2 (M alibu 1975 and 1981); Your Thwarts in P ie c e s , Your Mooring Rope Cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (Ann A rbor 1985). Raffaele Simone, bom in L ecce, is Professor o f General Linguistics at the U niversity o f Rom e L a Sapienza. He w orks on the history o f linguistics, on Italian linguistics, on theory o f grammar and on textual linguistics. M ain publications: Introduction to and translation o f Grammatica e L ogica di Port-Royal (Rom e 1969); with R. Am acker, V erbi m odali in italiano (Italian Linguistics, 3, 1977); M aistock. II linguaggio spiegato da una bambina (Florence 1988); Fondamenti di linguistica (Bari/Rom e 1990); II sogno di Saussure (Bari/Rom e 1992). Mirko Tavoni, bom in Modena, studied at the Scuola Normale Superiore o f Pisa, taught at the U niversity o f Calabria, and is now Professor o f the History o f the Italian Language at the U niversity o f Pisa. He works m ainly on the history o f M edieval and Renaissance linguistic ideas. Principal publications: II discorso linguistico di Bartolomeo Benvoglienti (Pisa 1975); Latino, grammatica, volgare. Storia di una questione umanistica (Padua 1984); II Quattrocento, in the series «Storia della lingua italiana» (B ologna 1992). He is the coordinator o f the biblio­ graphical project Renaissance Linguistic Archive at the Istituto di Studi Rinascim entali in Ferrara. Silvia Toscano studied at the Universities o f Pisa and V . T m ovo; she is a researcher at the Istituto di Filologia Slava o f the U niversity o f Pisa. She works m ainly on Slavic linguistics. A m ong her recent works are: U «articolo» nel trattato slavo Sulle otto parti del discorso (Rome 1984); I «modi verbali» nel trattato slavo Sulle otto parti del discorso (Rom e 1988). Edoardo Vineis, bom at Broni (Pavia), he studied at the U niversity o f Pisa (Scuola Norm ale Superiore). He teaches Linguistics at the U niver­ sity o f Bologna. He works on Latin linguistics, history o f the Italian language, and history o f Linguistics. His main publications are: Studio sulla lingua delV «Itala» (Pisa 1974); (with P. Berrettoni) annotated edition o f A . M anzoni and G. I. A sco li, Scritti sulla questione della


x x iii

lingua (Turin 1974); G ram m atica e filosofia del linguaggio in A lcuino, Studi e Saggi Linguistici, 28, 1988, 403-29; Latino, in L e lingue indoeuropee, ed. by A . G iacalone Ram at and P. Ram at (B ologna 1993,

289- 348).

This page intentionally left blank


Renaissance Linguistics

1.1 Introduction Mirko Tavoni The division o f this chapter into three parts, corresponding to W estern Europe, Rom an Slavdom and Orthodox Slavdom , is justified by the dif­ ferent historical conditions in w hich linguistic thought developed, and by the different form s it took in the three areas. T he distinction between Rom an Slavdom (linked to the Rom an Church: Croats, Slovenians, Slovaks, C zechs and Poles) and Orthodox Slavdom (belonging to the spiritual jurisdiction o f the Orthodox Church: Bulgarians, Serbs, Ruthenians and Russians) must be made because o f the profound differences in the cultural tradition w hich characterize the tw o areas.1 First o f all, most o f the documents written b y Slavs belong­ ing to the C atholic faith, at least up to and including the Renaissance, are in Latin, w hile the official language o f Orthodox Slavdom until the eighteenth century was Church Slavonic. Therefore linguistic thought developed independently in the two S lavic areas: in Roman Slavdom it felt the effect o f the W estern tradition, w hile in Orthodox Slavdom it was strongly influenced by the B yzantine gram m atical tradition. The label ‘ R enaissance’ originates from and can be properly applied to that part o f Europe w hich is united by the shared use o f Latin as the language o f culture, religion and science, and this is also true as far as the developm ent o f linguistic thought is concerned; this means Western Europe, filled for the most part by m odem languages belonging to the Rom ance and Germ anic fam ilies, and the western, Roman, area o f the S lavic dominion, w hich maintains a fairly close cultural solidarity with the Latino-Germ anic area. From the second h alf o f the fifteenth century, the renewal in the study o f Latin brought about by Italian Humanism spread through all this vast area o f Europe, providing a renewed basis for its linguistic and cultural unity. In contrast to the Humanist, theoretical



and pedagogic consideration o f Latin in terms o f its use (from the v ie w ­ point o f rhetoric rather than grammar) from about the middle o f the sixteenth century one finds a new rationalistic and philosophical attitude com ing from France and Spain, to which Italy was to remain essentially an outsider, m arking the start o f its relegation to a marginal position. In the sixteenth century all this part o f Europe was crossed by parallel m ovem ents o f emancipation and standardization o f m odem languages, supported by pow erful factors such as the consolidation o f the nation states and their administrative m achinery, the Reform ation, printing. Italy, depressed in politics but illustrious in literature, still exported literary themes and m odels in support o f the vernacular, especially in the Rom ance area, w hile German becam e established on religious and national rather than literary grounds. During the same period, Eastern Slavdom , subject to the Orthodox Church, developed a w holly separate and different system, centred on the standardization o f Church Slavonic, the supra-national religious language used not only in the vast context o f the Slavic-O rthodox linguistic com m unity, but also by Lithuanians and Romanians for long periods; here the question o f national languages w ould arise tw o centuries later than in the rest o f Europe. Studies on linguistics in Western Europe at the time o f the R enais­ sance are particularly marked by the division into national linguistic tra­ ditions. That is w hy this chapter has been organized primarily by themes or genres, and only within these by country. This is meant to facilitate an em bryonic com parison between the different national experiences reacting to sim ilar stimuli, and to suggest the desirability o f com parat­ ive research, which is m issing at present. The tw o Slavic parts, especi­ ally the Orthodox one, to w hich the time period based on the category ‘R enaissance’ least applies, freely exceed the chronological limits o f the chapter in order to outline the long transition from the M iddle A g es to the m odem age.

Note i. The introduction of the terms ‘ Slavia Orthodoxa’ and ‘ Slavia Romana’ is due to Riccardo Picchio. Although in the past they have met with some reservations among scholars, today they are widely accepted, see Picchio (1972, 11—13). In this chapter the English designations ‘Roman Slavdom’ and ‘Orthodox Slavdom’ are used.

1.2 Western Europe* Mirko Tavoni 1.2.1 Latin grammar The Christian W est inherits from the preceding centuries the centrality o f Latin as the foundation o f its education system and as the language



that continues to guarantee the production and the spread o f a com m on culture.1 H ow ever crucial m ay have been the events that in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries began to break down this cultural m onolinguism , it is difficult to overestim ate the importance o f grammatica (i.e. o f both grammar and the Latin language itself, according to the revealing iden­ tification o f grammar and Latin w hich persisted from the vocabulary o f m iddle Latin w ell into the vernacular cultures o f the Renaissance) as the first and propaedeutic art o f the Trivium and therefore as the founda­ tion o f the edifice o f know ledge. The humanists attacked the traditional methods for the teaching o f grammar, and the scholastic dialectics which represented at the same time its organic continuation in the curriculum and its theoretical foundation at the level o f the philosophy o f language. B y doing this they were deliberately aim ing at the foundations o f a sys­ tem for which they w ished to offer a new basis. The historical signific­ ance o f their grammars, with the view s o f language they im ply and at times m ake manifest, cannot be assessed outside the educational field to w hich they clearly belong, and on the basis o f w hich their militant nature can be appreciated. There is some controversy about whether the earliest experiences o f educational and gram m atical reform brought about by the Humanists should be seen as developing or breaking from tradition. This tradition can be identified with D onatus’ Ars minor or Alexandre de V illed ie u ’ s D octrinale (the tw o textbooks w hich seem to have been most w idely used, in low er schools and in universities respectively), and with a more or less established corpus o f texts (such as the Auctores octo) and gram m atical w orks (such as Eberhard de B ethune’ s Graecism us), which together with the D octrinale and the m ajor m iddle Latin lexicons were to take the lead position in the ‘ canon o f nefarious gram m arians’ , which was attacked by the representatives o f mature Humanism from V alla onwards.2 The champion o f the generation before V alla, Guarino V eronese, certainly started an innovative teaching practice, character­ ized by the drastic reduction and sim plification o f the grammatical apparatus (an obvious characteristic o f his R egulae gram aticales, w rit­ ten shortly before 1418, is their brevity) and by the encouragem ent to m ove on quickly to reading the classical texts directly. The basic idea was that the more constantly, carefully and in depth a student read good texts, the better he w ould learn Latin. Gram m atical rules should not be set up as autonomous entities: they are not the true reality o f language, but m erely observations a posteriori on the w ay it functions, w hich are useful for taking the first steps and for allow ing access to texts. This trend, which later w ould be expressed as a theory in terms o f the greater value o f usus as opposed to ratio, has a material foundation in the great discoveries o f Latin manuscripts that characterize the first h alf o f the fifteenth century:3 the number o f new texts, and o f new manuscripts for



each text, increases and im proves know ledge o f ancient Latin, and cre­ ates the need for more sophisticated w orking aids, both in the field o f textual ph ilology and in the field o f grammar. If this innovative trend is clearly present in the method and organ­ ization o f G uarino’ s school, his grammar was described by Sabbadini (1896, 1902 and 1903) rather in terms o f continuity with tradition, resulting from the combination o f four components: the Italian gram ­ m atical tradition, exem plified by the texts by the Tuscan Francesco da Buti and by the Crem onese Folchino dei B orfoni (fourteenth century), the D octrinale, the Ianua (an anonymous com pilation from Donatus and Priscian on the eight parts o f speech, probably dating from the thirteenth century) and Priscian. In addition to the difficulty in reaching definite conclusions while no critical edition o f Guarino’ s Regulae exists, and the widespread contamination in the m edieval tradition, it should be mentioned that these sources (especially the real presence o f the Ianua) have been questioned in part by Percival (1972a, 1976b and 1982),4 who points out significant changes introduced by Guarino into the syntactic theory he inherited. The abandoning o f the terms suppositum (subject) and appositum (object); the abandoning o f ‘ explanatory concepts’ des­ ignating the kind o f influence a verb has over the noun it governs, and ju stifying the case in w hich this governing occurs (ex natura relations derived from Aristotelian thought); the abandoning o f terms and con­ cepts derived from M odist ideas (all o f them traits that did not belong to the grammar o f late antiquity, but that becam e part o f the tradition dur­ ing the M iddle A g es) show that a gram m atical apparatus that depended in various w ays on logic was being curtailed. But other characteristics remain: and among these the reference to a sort o f natural order o f con­ stituent parts (such as Ego accuso Petrum fu rti, I accuse Peter o f theft) has a particular air o f continuity. So Guarino appears as the representat­ ive o f a phase that was characterized by limited innovations but not by an explicit criticism o f the m edieval system o f gram m atical description. The basic text in w hich the Humanist attack against m edieval gram ­ mar takes place, and where in particular there is the awareness or the illusion o f know ing how to rebuild the study o f Latin on an entirely new basis, is undoubtedly the Elegantie by Lorenzo V alla, published in 1449 and printed for the first time in 14 7 1.5 T h ey are presented as an advanced manual for the purpose o f learning fu lly the wealth o f com ­ m unicative possibilities within classical and post-classical Latin, which m odem people can bring back to life and even perfect.6 The w ork takes its place in an intermediate area between grammar and rhetoric, in the sense that it presupposes elem entary notions and deals extensively with stylistic questions, and in the sense that in the ideal curriculum which V alla, drawing on Quintilian, has in mind, this manual belongs to the school o f the teacher o f rhetoric, w ho continues the work o f the teacher



o f grammar. The elegantia w hich provides the w ork ’ s title is not, h ow ­ ever, an extrinsic form al quality (according to a m isleading interpreta­ tion that was to becom e established from the end o f the fifteenth century): it is rather the m ost accurate selection o f the word or construction which expresses precisely the particular shade o f m eaning one is looking for. The Latin language as a w hole, b y com bining a functional lexical rich­ ness with a sim ilarly functional richness o f m orphological and syn­ tactical distinctions, has an unequalled semantic pow er (in particular: unequalled by G reek). V a lla ’ s keen interest in legal language is a good exam ple o f the w ay the restoration o f correct Latinity is o f fundamental importance, in his view , for the w orking o f c ivil society in Europe, as w ell as for the developm ent and even the existence o f all the sciences. Since the purpose o f the Elegantie is to bring to light again the exact, distinct semantic value o f a large number o f near-synonym s, o f morpho­ logical allotropes and o f apparently equivalent constructions, it is under­ standable that the w ork has seemed to be an accum ulation o f lexical, m orphological and syntactic observations, without any clear structure. In actual fact the structure is clear: B ook I analyses morphemes (desinences and suffixes) in the area o f nouns and verbs; B ook II analyses the other parts o f speech; B ook III deals with the semantic variations involved in the different gram m atical or syntactic behaviour o f word groups; B ooks IV and V distinguish supposed synonym s respectively among nouns and among verbs; B ook V I is a critical review o f wrong judgem ents repeated in the grammatical tradition. It is a clear, but w holly unusual, structure. If w e take as reference the distinction, derived from Quintilian, which V a lla takes as his banner, between grammatice loqui (i.e. the simple respect o f grammatical ratio) and latine loqui (i.e. the more mature abil­ ity to conform to the latinitas found in the w riters’ consuetudo), w e can say that the w ay the subject matter is organized in the Elegantie reflects the ambitious attempt to describe and teach latine loqui; to try to extract from a system atic (com parative, open and non-Ciceronian) exam ination o f prose writers the rationality inherent in usus. This rationality is w holly outside the patterns o f a grammar that depends on logic. From this point o f v iew the Elegantie must be interpreted in the light o f D ia lectica: the anti-scholastic and anti-Aristotelian polem ic is the coherent corre­ lation o f the antigrammatical polem ic.7 The influence V a lla had on the subsequent gram m atical tradition in the strict sense is probably less pervasive than his overall cultural and linguistic influence. His anti-scholastic opinions in the field o f dialec­ tics, his anti-Ciceronian opinions in the field o f stylistics, his courage­ ous battle in favour o f textual criticism which could also be applied to the B ible, had a resonance throughout Europe, and were received and relaunched by teachers as important as Erasmus and Luis V ives. His actual influence on written Latin in Europe in the follow in g hundred



years is still to be ascertained. Research has started on the spread o f the Elegantie in schools, in Italy and abroad: there is even evidence o f cases when the text was adapted for use in elementary teaching, and its presence in the battles for the reform o f university teaching in Germ any and in N ebrija’ s Spain is know n.8 But it m ay be presumed that the novelty o f the structure, the objective difficulty, and the unwieldiness o f the text prevented it from spreading w idely in schools even during the period when V a lla ’ s star shone brightest, i.e. within the first four decades o f the sixteenth century. Here it is only possible to list the best-known Italian Humanist gram ­ mars from the second h alf o f the fifteenth century. A conspicuous and early group o f them com es from the Roman school, and in this, too, there seems to be some dependence on V a lla ’ s teaching; although recog­ nized in general, this dependence has yet to be substantiated by analyt­ ical studies. In chronological order w e have the grammars by Gasparo V eronese (written before 1455), by Pom ponio Leto (before 1467), by N iccolo Perotti (1468, first edn Rom e 1473), and by G iovanni Sulpicio Verulano (about 1470, first edn V en ice 1490).9 It is generally thought that these and other Humanist grammars are linked, passing over m edi­ eval grammar, to Donatus and Priscian and other gram m atical sources rediscovered in those years. Outside Rom e I w ill mention only the Institutiones or the Rudimenta by Aldus Manutius (first edn V en ice 1493), because o f the importance o f the author, a grammarian by training (he him self cam e from the Roman school). If in the fifteenth century the Italian initiative was dominant, from the last decades o f the century and throughout the sixteenth century the other European countries produced the m ost significant texts. In such a vast field - the object o f contemporary studies guided by disparate interests - it is difficult even to choose the most relevant information, let alone order it according to historically significant lines. The fullest recent summary available (Padley 1976), in the parts in which it carries out an internal reconstruction o f developm ents in theory, describes the Humanist grammars as characterized by the presence o f both formal and semantic criteria in defining the parts o f speech: i.e. these are defined individually according to their behaviour in syntax or according to alleged ‘ lo g ica l’ or ‘ on tological’ characteristics (the noun denotes a substance, the verb an action, the adjective an accidental quality, etc.). A s Humanist grammar develops, this mixture o f criteria, inherited from ancient grammar, becom es increasingly weighted in favour o f the second type o f criteria - the type least appreciated by a historiographer with P ad ley’ s outlook. The importance o f this historical interpretative line is made clear at least by an event from current affairs: as the movem ents gathered under the banner o f ‘ language education’ have pointed out, tra­ ditional teaching o f grammar in Italian schools in the twentieth century



is still based on the same incongruous m ixture.10 It is clear, how ever, that this historiographic line has been privileged am ong other possible approaches because, am ong other things, P ad ley’ s reconstruction takes as its goal Port-R oyal, the place where parts o f speech are m ost celeb ­ rated as the reflection o f categories o f thought; and I w ould also say because it is influenced by a structuralist trend, in the w ider sense, w hich tends to recognize and stress the links between a ‘ linguistic’ and an ‘ extra-linguistic’ approach. A m ong the first exporters o f Humanist reform , Antonio de N ebrija, whose Introductiones latinae was printed for the first time in Salam anca in 1481, has a leading position. If Spanish national history has traditionally celebrated N ebrija as the author o f the first grammar o f Castilian (first edn Salamanca 1492), R ic o ’ s studies have decidedly em phasized that the Latin grammar is his historically most significant work. Indeed, while the writing o f a vernacular grammar, even at such an early date, is not surprising in the particular Spanish situation (cf. here Sections 2.2 and 2.4 below ), N ebrija entrusts to the Intro­ ductiones (a ponderous w ork, collected and assem bled from the ancient grammarians) the task o f activating a radical reform within a university system w hich was very backw ard even with regard to its elementary know ledge o f L atin .11 There are no doubts, for this enthusiastic pupil o f V alla, that the strengthening o f the education system required by the new Spain must be founded on a kind o f Latin Spain does not yet know; while his w ork in prom oting and regulating Castilian is the other aspect o f a collaboration in the general reform o f State structures within w hich N ebrija aimed to promote what he held dearest in the sector o f higher education. The Introduciones latinas translated into the vernacu­ lar probably saw the light o f day in 1488, by order o f the Sovereign ( ‘ ipsius R eginae im perio’ ), a clear sign o f this organic integration o f the Humanist project into a State plan that at the same time em phasized the national language. On the Germ an situation there is a general essay (T. Heath 1971) w hich exam ines the developm ent o f the Humanist influence on the teaching o f grammar in the universities o f Freiburg i.B ., Ingoldstadt and Tubingen and in other centres in southern Germ any. It provides us with a chronologically ordered outline, from w hich em erges a fact that is probably valid in general, and not just for the area being considered. T he history o f the struggles between universities described in the essay highlights the institutional importance o f the juxtaposition between the old and the new gram m atical models: the objection to the philosophic­ ally based m odel o f the D octrin ale, the attack against the modi significandi, the suggestion that literary Latin should be studied, all seriously challenge a curriculum w hich earlier was characterized by the linear transition from grammar to dialectics. The new forms o f grammar, and a phenomenon as general as the em phasis on rhetoric to the detriment



o f dialectics, becom e more tangible if one realizes clearly that the stu­ dents trained by the Humanists w ere not prepared any longer for logic and the daily practice o f scholastic disputations. A ll this made people aware o f the need to m odify also other areas o f teaching. A m ong the principal stages o f this process w e must mention the adaptation o f Perotti’ s Rudimenta grammatices for the use o f northern students (which, how ever, w as also available elsewhere) undertaken by Bernard Perger from the University o f Vienna (published Vienna c. 1479, Salzburg 1482); the Invectiva contra modos significandi (written i486) by A lexander H egius;12 the tendentious com m entary on the D octrinale written b y Hegius in collaboration with Joannes Synthen in 1484 (evid­ ence o f a problem atic com prom ise with tradition, like the sim ilar com ­ mentaries by Hermann Torrentinus, published in 1504, and by others); the Isidoneus germanicus b y Jacob W im pfeling (published 1497); the Commentaria epistolarum conficiendarum by Heinrich Bebel (published 1503), a collection o f treatises w hich fo llo w the pattern o f the Elegantie even in their unsystematic form; the Grammaticae institutiones by Jacob Heinrichmann (Pforzheim 1506) and the Institutiones grammaticae by Johannes Brassicanus (Strassburg 1508); the Grammatica by Johannes Turm air (Aventinus) 1512: enlarged edn 1 5 1 7 under the title Rudi­ menta grammaticae;13 the Grammatica latina by Philipp M elanchthon (Schwarzerd), o f w hich Orthographia and Etymologia appeared in 1525, Syntaxis and Prosodia in 1526 - a shortened version o f B rassicanus’ Institutiones which was destined to be pre-eminent in Protestant Germany until the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.14 The w ork on grammar by the Flem ish Iohannes van Pauteren (Despauterius), w hose acknow ledged sources are the grammars by Perotti, Sulpicio Verulano, A ldus Manutius and Nebrija, is a product o f the U niversity o f Louvain; the first three parts o f the work were pub­ lished in 1510 and 15 11 and were intended to take the place o f Alexandre de V illed ieu ’ s D octrinale; a fourth part follow ed in 15 14 and, after some resistance from the clergy, the w hole w ork was published in 1537 by Robert Estienne under the title Commentarii grammatici, and it had a dominant influence in France throughout the sixteenth century and beyond.15 Even before that, the same Robert Estienne had published an adaptation o f it written by Jean Pellisson and entitled Contextus universae grammaticae Despauterianae (1530). Still in the Flem ish environment, the Restauratio linguae latinae by the aristocrat G eorges d ’Halluin (Antwerpen 1533), w hich takes the Humanist idea o f Latin as a living language to its furthest consequences, is very interesting. Halluin takes his starting point from the Italian Humanists (mainly Biondo Flavio, P oggio Bracciolini, Guarino Veronese and Francesco Filelfo) who in the years between 1435 and 1480 had definitively proved that Latin had been the mother tongue o f the ancient



R om ans;16 he then projects this acquired certainty onto V arro ’ s dis­ cussion o f analogy and anom aly, dram atizing it as if it em phasized a juxtaposition o f irreconcilable principles;17 and he finally deduces, going back to Q uintilian’ s fam ous opposition between latine and grammatice loqui, which V alla had already brought into vogue, a drastic choice: ‘ Si latine igitur loqui velim us, gram m aticam dimittere ac fugere necesse est, quia aliud est, teste Quintiliano, sed ex priscorum Latinorum libris usum et consuetudinem ac etiam diversitatem eorum loquendi observare opus erit; quam consuetudinem gram m atica docere non potest: contraria enim non nisi contraria docent’ .18 So his teaching method resolutely excludes the use o f any grammar and relies w h olly on a selected list o f authors to be read. The fact that V a lla ’ s exam ple lies behind this is made clear by, am ong other things, the use o f the term elegantia linguae latinae to indicate the final aim w hich the teaching must achieve, and b y the use o f the term sermo quotidianus to indicate the intermediate stage o f fam iliarization with ‘ everyday L atin ’ w hich was to character­ ize the learning o f the pupil around the age o f 10 or n . It is equally evident that in this short circuit between the ascertained nature o f Latin in antiquity and the contem porary situation there is also a good deal o f historical blunder. H ow ever, there is not only that. O ne is reminded o f M ontaigne’ s claim (w e do not know how paradoxical it was) that he spent the first years o f his life im mersed in an artificial, exclu s­ ive ly Latin-speaking environment. And if, precisely during the years o f M ontaigne’ s and Henri Estienne’ s childhood, N icolas Berault was com ­ posing a dialogue on how to speak Latin fluently (1534), there must have existed in France some m ilieux for which such a work w ould prove suitable.19 There is also evidence o f other manuals o f Latin conversa­ tion from the last decades o f the fifteenth century onwards.20 H ow ever, unlike V alla and Erasm us,21 G eorges d ’ Halluin con­ sidered the use o f the vernacular, and even its teaching, as the first stage in schools, from about 6 to 10 years old. The instrumental use o f the vernaculars in the primary teaching o f grammar is an unavoidable phe­ nomenon, and as such widespread everyw here; ju stifying it theoretic­ ally is another thing. System atic research on this theme w ould be very interesting. It seems one could provisionally put forward the hypothesis that the different attitudes on this matter on the part o f grammarians who at the same time share a sim ilar fundamental view , m ay be related to the respective national linguistic traditions. The exclu sively Latin universe contem plated by V alla seems to be the m irage o f an extrem ­ ist avant-garde which was deliberately closed to a vernacular literary tradition which was excellent but had no political support. Erasm us’ sim ilar attitude seems to be connected to the relative w eakness o f the Netherlandish language as a language o f culture. N ebrija’ s and V iv e s ’ different attitude is conditioned by the greater weakness o f the Latin



strand and by the political strength o f the national language (and Georges d ’Halluin, according to this hypothesis, seems to react more as a member o f the French-speaking com m unity o f his little court than as the lord o f a Flem ish territory). The beginnings o f Humanist grammar in England, which include prints o f Donatus, Perotti and Sulpicio Verulano, and works by local authors such as the Compendium totius grammaticae (1483) by John A n w y k y ll and the Introductorium linguae latinae (1495) by W ynkyn de W orde, are linked to O xford.22 The work o f three Humanists, Thom as Linacre, John C olet and W illiam L ily , w ho were instrumental in the founding o f Latin grammar, is also connected to Oxford. Thomas Linacre, who had been in contact with Poliziano, Chalcondylas and Aldus Manutius, from 1512 com posed a couple o f school grammars in E ng­ lish and French, but his principal w ork is the D e emendata structura latini serm onis, posthumously published in London in 1524, a large work, m ainly on syntax, based on the ancient grammarians and the Italian Humanists.23 W illiam L ily, w ho had been Sulpicio V eru lan o’ s pupil in Rom e, com posed a brief work on syntax at C o le t’ s request, the Absolutissim us de octo orationis partium constructione libellus (ed. 1 5 x3)^ which was corrected by Erasmus and popularly attributed to him, and which was very widespread throughout Europe. A com bina­ tion o f a syntax by L ily in Latin and a m orphology by C olet in English, which started to spread in the late 1520s, in 1540 becam e the official Latin grammar o f the Kingdom o f England, and remained so for more than two centuries. The royal injunction that made it com pulsory praised the advantages o f a single grammar, and underlined the appropriateness o f keeping to excellence, once it had been attained. This has been seen as a sign o f the closing o f a historical period, the time o f the reform o f Latin grammar on the basis o f usage and the ancients’ precepts.24 In 1540, the same year in which L ily ’s grammar is made official in this w ay, Julius Caesar Scaliger, a doctor o f Italian descent, published a rational and explicative grammar in Lyons - or rather a work o f philosophical reflection on grammar, and often against grammarians that shows from the title itself (D e causis linguae latinae) how com ­ pletely it fits within an Aristotelian context, that returns to traits that are typical o f M odist grammar, and that opens up an alternative line to the Humanist one we have been exam ining up to this point.23 One o f the traits which is openly inherited from the recent tradition (other debts towards it are often concealed by Scaliger) is the statement that grammar is founded on usage, derived from Quintilian’ s ideas. But, with an undeniably m odem m ove, Scaliger means spoken usage, since writ­ ing was a secondary accident o f language (an idea that was not part o f the Hum anists’ culture); grammatical science (not art) must provide the rational explanation (not m erely a description) o f this usage, aiming



towards recte loqui (speaking correctly) - givin g increased value once more to the aspect w hich the Humanists had devalued in favour o f latine loqui. One finds here, therefore, a criticism o f V a lla ’ s elegantia and o f all the others w ho had confused grammar with rhetoric, a criticism that in actual fact omits the explanatory aspects w hich are present in V a lla ’ s acute analyses o f the differences in usage. The idea o f the arbitrariness o f the sign, pointed out as fundamental in the D e causis as w ell as in the general grammar to w hich this opens the w ay,26 is the Aristotelian idea which, in order to avoid am biguity, w e should call conventional­ ity o f the sign: i.e. the concepts are the same for all mankind, and the only arbitrary or conventional thing is the relation between this prede­ termined semantic universe and the semi-random set o f signifiers which designates it in the various historical and natural languages. In this there is undoubtedly a loss o f insight com pared with the Humanist (and in particular V a lla ’ s) reflection on the different expression o f experi­ ence conditioned by the different structures o f tw o languages such as Latin and Greek. This reflection had developed from the work o f co l­ lating and translating texts in the tw o languages; but any activity in interpreting texts, which traditionally was within the gram m arian’ s prov­ ince, is excluded from the field o f grammar by Scaliger. The causae mentioned in the title recall the four Aristotelian causes underlying all things. Phonetic substance must be considered the causa m aterialis, in the formation o f words, and the m eaning that is linked with it must be considered the causa form alis (in accordance with the m edieval d oc­ trine which applied the terms materialiter m d fo rm aliter to the signifier and the signified respectively); the action o f w hoever imposes the names is considered the causa efficiens and the purpose o f this imposition is considered the causa finalis. Sim ilar quadripartite explanations are given for other linguistic data.27 W e are within a fundam entally synchronic ‘ cau sality’ . Scaliger in particular, recovering from the M odistae the distinction between significare and consigniflcare (respectively the lexical meaning and the grammatical m eaning), attributes to each part o f speech its ow n w ay o f form ulating aspects o f reality (the noun is nota rei permanentis, the verb nota rei sub tempore, etc.). It seems that one can say that this reproduces a concept o f language as the reflection o f a mental structure, which in turn is the reflection o f a structure o f reality.28 The prevalence (o f Aristotelian tradition) o f the semantic aspect (indicated by the adjective form alis) over what w e call the formal criterion has also been noticed: hence, for exam ple, one has three identical adjectives fe lix , one m asculine, one fem inine, one neuter, and a quantity o f categor­ ies and subcategories o f the noun on a purely notional basis. On the other hand, the unexpected formal approach has been emphas­ ized which characterizes Pierre de la R am ee’ s (Petrus R am us’ ) gram ­ matical work: the Scholae in liherales artes (a work on theory), the



Grammatica and the Rudimenta grammaticae latinae, all published in 1559.29 The influence o f Ramus on the history o f culture and education is linked m ainly with his attempts to redefine logic and rhetoric, which aim to m ake a clear distinction between the two disciplines and redefine logic in radically anti-Aristotelian terms (at least in the declaration o f intent). The kind o f logic to which he dedicated most o f his work (which partially displaced rhetoric in the school curricula influenced by his reform), is a more em pirical and simpler logic, linked to the prac­ tical needs o f preachers, law yers and orators in general, and destined to becom e very widespread in seventeenth-century Protestant Europe. W here grammar is concerned, he agrees that it should be excluded from the traditional component o f interpretation o f literary texts. The basis o f this discipline is usage, as in Quintilian, but it is m ainly spoken usage (even if in practice literary m odels play a greater role than that allow ed in theory). M oreover, the purpose o f grammar is seen, with an emphasis that is lacking in Quintilian, in identifying a ratio w hich is inductively obtained by observing usage. In grammar, too, the proclaim ed antiAristotelianism does not prevent the adoption o f Aristotelian elements, starting from the fundamental division o f parts o f speech into noun, verb and sync ategoremata. H ow ever, it is precisely the characterization o f these elements that presents important examples o f distancing from the semantic criteria used by Aristotle in favour o f form al criteria. So the dichotomy between noun and verb on the one hand, and syncategoremata on the other, is expressed as the dichotom y between voces numeri and voces sine numero (instead o f between sem antically self-sufficient parts o f speech and parts o f speech that are sem antically dependent on them); and the opposition between noun and verb is expressed as the opposition between vox numeri cum genere et casu and vox numeri cum tempore et persona (and not as the opposition between presumed different aspects o f reality, or between presumed different modes o f signifying reality). The abandonment o f the idea o f ‘ verbal m ood’ (as a ‘p sych ologistic’ category, whose relation to the system o f m orphological differences is too elusive) is also evidence o f the same tendency, which in this case is pursued even at the cost o f leaving unexplained a number o f existing m orphological differences. There are exceptions to the m oves towards form al criteria but the general direction is certainly clear enough to earn Ramus a special place among his contemporaries. His influence as a grammarian was less than his influence as a reformer o f dialectics, and (apart from the influence exerted on Sanctius) it remained limited to Britain, where Paul G reaves’ Grammatica anglicana (1594) and later Ben Jonson’ s English Grammar (1640)30 were to strictly follow his method. The hypothesis o f a Renaissance ‘ structuralism’ follow ing R am us’ ideas remains, therefore, one o f the many possibilities which history has not realized in practice.



T he Minerva seu de causis linguae latinae b y Francisco Sanchez de las B rozas (Franciscus Sanctius), published in its definitive form in Salam anca in 1587, has been the subject o f several studies which it is im possible to list here.31 Starting from C h om sk y’ s Cartesian L in ­ guistics, and especially from the reactions to this book, interest in the Minerva has centred on the section on syntax, especially on the theory o f ellipsis as a possible anticipation o f the transformational processes typical o f generative grammar. B efore this w ave, Sanctius had been celebrated and studied as a Spanish national glory; in the monograph by G arcia that is the summit o f this tradition, ellipsis is dism issed in a few lines, among the other figurae constructions, because o f the ‘ poco valor que tiene su consideration para la linguistica actual’ (because ‘ it is considered o f little value for contemporary linguistics’ ) (155) - a remark that makes one think about the relativity o f points o f view , in the history o f linguistics as in m any other areas.32 For m y part I w ill also dismiss Sanctius’ m or­ ph ology in a few lines, because o f lack o f space. His m orphology can generally be ascribed to the same ‘rationalistic’ and explanatory tendency w hich was started by Scaliger (who, significantly, is quoted in the sub­ title) and continued by Ram us (who probably was not quoted only out o f prudence in the intellectual clim ate o f the Counter-Reform ation). The amount o f space which Sanctius devotes to syntax is historically import­ ant in itself, as it is com parable only with the space dedicated to syntax in Thom as L in acre’ s D e emendata structura latini serm onis, which in fact has been recognized as one o f its principal sources, against the back­ ground o f a sixteenth-century grammar which was m ainly interested in m orphology.33 A m ong the many historiographical sins attributed to Noam C hom sky is that o f not having noticed that Sanctius, in the process o f searching for the ‘ cau ses’ w hich underlie syntactic phenomena, in dealing with ellipsis had developed an idea o f ‘ deep structure’ avant la lettre, in which all logically necessary elements are explicit, w hile the elliptical form ulation which is found in the actual language results from a series o f cancellations governed by rules (o f a transformational type) which say which elements one m ay, or may not, cancel.34 It has been pointed out, how ever (Percival 1976a), that the figurae constructions w ere known from antiquity, and that placing elliptical sentences beside the corresponding ‘ w h o le’ phrases is found even in a grammarian such as V alla, who is from a quite different period and has quite different ideas, as w ell as in Linacre (w ho is believed to be the real originator o f the theory w hich Sanchez adopts). The distinction between deep and surface structure, as far as it is prefigured in the doctrine o f ‘ understood’ elements, m ay then be as ancient as grammar; all the more so because other notions w hich m ay equally remind one o f the idea o f ‘deep struc­ ture’ , such as the notions o f ‘ agent’ and ‘patient’ , were to last from the late M iddle A g es to the sixteenth century and beyond.



Although it is debatable whether we m ay correctly characterize the M inerva's position vis-a-vis tradition as a ‘generativist’ reaction to an earlier ‘descriptivist’ tendency, it seems clear that the opposition between the two is strong and historically significant. It has been rightly said that V alla teaches elision, Sanctius reintegration: that is, that the former aims to indicate the most elegant form, the latter aims to identify that form ’ s logical matrix. Q uintilian’ s sentence ‘ aliud est latine, aliud grammatice loqui’ ( ‘ it is one thing to speak Latin [i.e. ‘ good L atin ’ , ‘ real L atin ’ ], and another to speak according to gram m ar’ ) resurfaces throughout the Renaissance, taking on different values. If in V alla it synthesized the demand for a new Latinity founded on usage, and in G eorges d ’ Halluin the resulting radical banishment o f grammar, in Sanctius it means, on the contrary, that the purpose o f science is to make explicit the gramm aticality which underlies the facts o f speech. The attention paid to the more innovative grammars must not make us forget that they have not necessarily been the ones to exert the greatest influence in schools. The m ost w idely adopted grammars in sixteenthcentury Europe are the ones by N ebrija in Spain, by Despauterius espe­ cially in France and B elgium , by M elanchthon in Protestant Germ any, by L ily in Britain. One must add to these, from the first edition in Lisbon in 1572, the Latin grammar by the Portuguese Jesuit Emmanuel A lvarez, which was com m issioned for the precise purpose o f being used as the single text for all the S o ciety ’ s colleges. It is a descriptive grammar o f classical Latin, which can be counted among the ‘ m inor’ texts o f this genre if one exam ines its theoretical quality; but it is worthy o f much greater attention if one looks at its didactic efficacy, aiming ‘ at reaching practical mastery o f Latin translation and com position, both written and spoken’ (Springhetti 19 6 1-2 , 288). B y being adopted, either directly or through various adaptations, in all the Jesuit Provinces through three centuries, it had an unequalled influence for the preservation o f Latin as a distinctive element in the education o f the ruling classes in Europe and in the rest o f the w orld.35 1.2.2 The emancipation of the vernacular languages The sixteenth century saw the unfolding, together with the developm ent o f European national literatures, o f m ovements for the defence o f the vernacular languages, whose dignity, com m unicative and expressive capabilities, and literary and scientific value were reaffirmed, in com ­ petition with the classical languages, particularly Latin.36 These m ove­ ments operated in national situations which were very different from the point o f view o f political, social and cultural conditions, and o f the respective literary traditions. The ‘ questione della lingua’ which developed in Italy some decades earlier than in other European coun­ tries (and which acted as a m odel at least for the situations which arose



in France and Spain) was characterized by a fourteenth-century literary tradition which can be summed up by the names o f Dante, Petrarch and B occaccio, w hich Italian men o f letters already recognized as ‘ classical’ (and which men o f letters outside Italy recognized as lacking any equi­ valent in their national histories). On the other hand, Italy had neither unity nor political independence. B em b o’ s solution, which in 1525 virtu­ ally settled the ‘question’ w hich arose at the same time in other European countries, was a classicist and m etapolitical solution, w hich appealed to what Italy believed to be unquestionably valid in its past, and sim ply took note o f the fact that in the situation at the time there were no real forces, outside literary society, w hich m ight act in favour o f linguistic unification. In France, Spain and Britain, how ever, the success o f the national language as the language o f culture, and its consequent standard­ ization, em erged in the presence o f an objective centripetal force repres­ ented by the capital and the court, in the presence o f various promotional attitudes on the part o f the m onarchy, and in the absence o f literary traditions o f exceptional authority. P olitically divided Germ any found an effective factor for regularizing and unifying language in the supramunicipal practice o f regional chanceries, and in the interchange between these and the Imperial chancery, w hile the confluence o f High Germ an varieties in the colonization in the territories east o f the Elbe gave rise to a kind o f highly m ixed central-eastern Germ an, w hose potential for expansion was reinforced by the political prestige o f the chancery o f Saxony. The adoption o f this chan cery’ s language by Luther, w ho men­ tions it explicitly as the com m on language o f the w hole o f Germ any, had enormous importance for its capillary diffusion throughout the country. Through preaching and religious instruction, elem entary education and the custom o f the fam ily reading o f the B ible in the mother language, this ‘Protestant lan guage’ unified Germ an society within the linguistic boundary that divided it to the north-west from the Netherlandish variet­ ies and the religious boundary that divided it to the south from C alvinist Switzerland and C atholic Austria and Bavaria. H ow these radically different manners o f linguistic and cultural uni­ fication marked these countries’ social history for centuries is w ell known. The publication, at approxim ately the same time, o f Luther’ s translation o f the N ew Testam ent (1522) and o f B em b o’ s Prose (1525) gives an indication o f the different destinies about to be fulfilled. A s far as our theme is concerned, this explains various basic differences w hich characterized the history o f linguistic ideas in these countries. First o f all, the enormous w eight acquired by the ‘ language question’ in Italy. The fact that the direction the Italian literary language was actually going to fo llo w had been pointed out at the right moment did not prevent the supporters o f different solutions (a com m on ‘ cou rtly’ or ‘ Italian’ lan­ guage resulting from a synthesis o f cultured usage in different regions;



and the living Florentine or Tuscan language) from continuing the debate indefinitely, attempting to fill with their profusion o f subjectivity the unfillable objective gap created by the absence o f a political centre and by the absence within society o f a pervasive cultural exchange. T he ‘ language question’ in France and Spain, apart from producing more moderate quantities o f written and printed paper, were understand­ ably less focused on the problem o f w hich regional or inter-regional norm to adopt, and were more concerned with legitim izing the vernacu­ lar language vis-a-vis Latin (and G reek) on the one hand (especially in France), and vis-a-vis Italian on the other. In fact in the course o f the century Italian consolidated its position o f international prestige as the language o f literature, particularly Petrarchist poetry, and as the language o f elegant conversation. The texts by Pietro Bem bo, Sperone Speroni and Baldassar Castiglione entered into the French and Spanish debates with authority, even if by being introduced into these different contexts their theories are at times distorted. The reference to a different m od­ em literary language, w hose exem plariness is discussed (and norm ally challenged) is therefore a com plication o f the ‘ language question’ as it arose in France and Spain. The relation, and therefore the polem ic com ­ parison, between the m odem language and Latin is noticeably different in the three countries. In Italy the controversy over the use o f Latin and o f the vernacular essentially took place in the fifteen years between B em b o’ s Prose and the Lettera in difesa della lingua volgare (1540) by Alessandro Citolini. The excellence o f the fourteenth-century tradition, together with the humanist authority o f the theoretician w ho sanctions its imitation, guaranteed full acceptance, w hich was never again to be questioned, for the vernacular. This does not mean that the vernacular triumphed over Latin - which was to continue to be the vehicle for most cultural com m unication for at least tw o more centuries37 - but only that the vernacular had conquered its own literary ground. The writings o f Erasmus (who accused the Italian humanists o f not being able to speak Latin), o f Thom as M ore, o f the great Reform ers and o f K epler illustrate the vitality o f the intellectual debate in Latin, in which Italy plays only a marginal role. This should lead one not to give a one-sided, overenthusiastic evaluation o f the early success o f the vernacular in Italy as being an entirely positive phenomenon. A similar process o f literary emancipation o f the vernacular took place in France about ten years later with the Pleiade m ovem ent, which aimed at the Humanist ennobling o f the vernacular - and almost at its refounding, to the detriment o f what the French tradition had expressed until then. In the absence o f accepted French m odels, the proposed models are Latin and Greek. This H ellenizing elem ent (which also sur­ faced in the rich vein w hich identified the G reek language as the origin o f French: cf. here Section 2.5) marks another difference compared



with the debate in Italy, where the confrontation had been and still was between Latin and the vernacular, with other interferences being reduced to a minimum; i.e. it was a confrontation between the ancient language and the m odem language, mother language and daughter language. In the different slant taken by the discussion w e can see on the one hand the Italians’ continuing identification with their Latin past (so m uch so that some people - though obviously only the supporters o f Latin even doubted that the vernacular language could be considered as being really distinct from the Latin language); on the other hand, the national distancing o f the French from the Latin matrix, w hich led them to com ­ pare them selves, both in terms o f literary m odels and o f genetic rela­ tions, with both classical languages. The situation was quite different in Spain, where for centuries the Arab occupation and the strong presence o f Jewish settlements had form ed a plurilingual society w hich had not developed the exclusive deference towards Latin which was reserved for it in other countries, both Rom ance and G erm anic, o f W estern Europe. W hile in these coun­ tries a fundamental diglossia had crystallized in the M iddle A g es, and had been culturally re-established by the Humanist m ovem ent, in Spain, ever since the time o f A lfon so the W ise, a cultural plurilinguism had developed within which Romance had benefited from an advantage relat­ ing to its function: having been accepted as the com m on language by Arabs and Jews (who were reluctant to use Latin for religious reasons), and promoted by initiative o f the court, Castilian had been reinforced at an early date above all as the language o f prose - in the areas o f the law , o f science, o f culture.38 On the other hand, because Latin had not taken deep root in the universities, and because a Humanist movem ent arose quite late, it cam e about that w hile in the rest o f W estern Europe the offensive in favour o f the vernacular languages was in full sw ing, in the first four or five decades o f the sixteenth century in Spain a battle was still raging to determine the acceptance o f Humanist Latin.39 The m ovem ent for the literary ennoblement o f Castilian was a phe­ nomenon that continued into the second half o f the century. It shared some very general traits with the corresponding French movement, which it follow ed with noticeable delay. In both cases they were movem ents inside the literary m ilieu, paralleling a process o f linguistic and cultural unification which, anyw ay, had already started on other, more concrete bases; and in both cases they were attempts to ‘ ennoble’ the language, in the sense o f m aking it conform to rules deduced from classical Latin (and from Greek, in the case o f French); therefore im plying some greater or lesser degree o f rejection o f the existing Rom ance traditions, and putting forward proposals which did not necessarily harmonize with the trends follow ed by the tw o languages as their use in administration, in the law courts and in public life in general becam e established.



1.2.3 The orthography of the vernacular languages The processes o f standardization o f the vernacular languages, which took place in such different w ays in the various countries during the sixteenth century, first o f all cam e up against the irregularities in ortho­ graphy common in the various traditions, inherited from the age in which the circulation o f vernacular writings o f a practical nature was gener­ ally more lim ited to local areas, and the overw helm ing prestige o f Latin had left the vernaculars, even in their literary manifestations, in a state o f semi-spontaneity or experim entalism which did not giv e them the strength to go beyond the dimension o f the regional koinai. The typical psychological attitude o f m edieval copyists, w ho did not consider them­ selves obliged to respect the graphic and phonetic format o f the ver­ nacular texts they were transcribing, and inadvertently covered them with a new patina corresponding to their own habits, is the product o f a hierarchical cultural system in which uniform ity was characteristic o f grammatica (i.e. Latin) alone, and vernacular writings were produced and reproduced in an endemic state o f formal variability. This did not prevent the spread o f texts and written com m unication in the vernacular in general, even at a great distance: with an inter-regional circulation characterized by spontaneous adaptations, and also with exam ples o f ‘ international’ circulation, for exam ple within the Rom ance area, char­ acterized by a great freedom on the part o f those involved without sig­ nificant obstacles to mutual understanding. The consolidation o f the national States, the spread o f m ovements for the literary emancipation o f the vernacular languages, and everyw here the radical transformation caused by the invention o f printing with m ov­ able type, created conditions which inevitably made this arrangement obsolete. These new factors made it necessary to require grammatical regularization on a national scale, which had to be implemented first o f all on the more obviously uneven ground o f orthographic practice. And in fact there is a large number o f discussions on the problem o f ortho­ graphy from the first decades o f the century.40 One must note first o f all that these discussions affect languages in which the discrepancy between pronunciation and writing was greater (French and English) and languages in which this discrepancy was smaller (Italian and Spanish) almost in equal measure. This fact, in my opinion, reveals what were the true underlying historical needs. In fact, in discussions on orthography o f the time, two fundamental types o f subjective requirements em erge in turn, or are confused, which it is important to disentangle: on the one hand, the need to make the lan­ guage uniform (as opposed to the existence o f regional, socio-cultural and even individual varieties), on the other hand, a need for rationaliza­ tion (in favour o f the phonetic principle as opposed to the etym ological principle). Both needs are very understandable and significant: for the



men o f letters who wanted to em ancipate the vernacular languages - a desire w hich was alw ays supported by an explicit or im plicit tension with the Latin m odel - they were the two faces o f the same, necessary process o f perfecting them. It is also understandable that the second o f these requirements, the ‘ stronger’ , more ambitious one, was the one to which the greatest cultural significance was attributed. The Italian Humanist Guarino V eronese, in the m iddle o f the fifteenth century, considers the vernacular to be illitteralis - a term which includes the m eanings ‘ not w ritable’ , ‘ not articulate’ , and, in short, ‘ not rational’ .41 In 1533 Charles de B ovelles still shows the deepest scepticism for the theoretical possibility that vernacular languages m ight be capable o f being fixed into a rational graphic representation.42 In contrast, about tw elve years later, Louis M eigret in his orthographic reform sacrifices practicability on the altar o f tireless and sterile rigour. On the opposite side from M eigret, G uillaum e des A u tels’ judgem ent that it w ould be better to regulate pronunciation according to spelling43 has its own para­ doxical logic, in agreement with Guarino and B ovelles. These are only a few examples: the history o f the implications which are latent in ortho­ graphical controversies deserves to be written. But we are naturally dealing m ostly with a history o f ideas, which accom panied a real process and interpreted it with more or less con ­ siderable subjective distortions. T o ju d ge from the state o f advanced standardization w hich European languages showed they had acquired at the end o f the sixteenth century, and from the (largely etym ological) form s in w hich this standardization settled, those languages do not seem as incurable as their detractors claim ed, nor do they seem to have such radical need o f being rationalized as their reformers thought. The true historical need imposed by reality was the need for unification on a national basis - any kind o f unification, one is almost tempted to say. Criteria o f econom y in the written rendition o f sounds played only a small part in determining the standard finally adopted - and one should analyse to what extent the fall into disuse o f certain particularly uneconom ic spelling habits can be attributed to their being uneconom ic, and how far, on the other hand, to some possible local connotation or to the specific effect, in certain circumstances, o f some theoretician’s con­ demnation. T o a much larger extent, the standards adopted for the indi­ vidual languages were determined by the opposite criterion o f respect for the m ost w ell-established and prestigious habits to the detriment o f the more local habits and to the detriment o f innovations - a criterion which the typographical industry, conditioned by the logic o f the market­ place, generally follow ed. In this w ay the industry had the effect on the history o f languages o f stabilizing and generalizing the m ajor traditions. Recent studies have brought back to light the figure o f the printers’ proof­ reader, and have begun to recognize how much influence his actions



had.44 The great and not so great theoreticians w ho debated proposals o f orthographic reform at times showed much evidence o f linguistic awareness, and fulfilled a task which w ould later develop into phonetic research; m eanw hile this more obscure group, at times using fragments o f those theories, and often applying them in a blind spirit o f general­ ization, was contributing to deciding the course o f events. In the field o f orthography, too, Italy claim ed a clear chronological first place, thanks to the Grammatica della lingua toscana (c. 1 4 3 7 -4 1 ) by Leon Battista Alberti, which already shows a reformed alphabet with separate letters for open or closed e or 0, u and v, palatal and velar c and g, voiced and unvoiced z. This early and isolated attempt was follow ed after some time by the orthographic observations by N iklas von W yle against the ‘ abuses’ o f chancery writings (found in a letter from 1478) and by N ebrija’ s Gramatica castellana (1492). In the sixteenth century the flow o f discussions on orthography began at the same time in Italy and Spain, respectively with Fortunio’ s Regole grammaticali della volgar lingua (1516 ) and N ebrija’ s Reglas de orthographia en la lengua castellana (15 17 ). Germ any follow ed with the Schryfftspiegel o f 1527 and France with G eoffroy T o ry ’ s Champ F le w y (1529), then Portugal with Joao de Barros’ Ortografia (1540) and Hungary with M atyas D evai B iro ’s Orthographia ungarica (1549: cf. B arczi 1964). Britain appeared late on the scene: the first attempt at orthographical reform is found in the unpublished work by John Hart, The Opening o f the Unreasonable Writing o f our Inglish Toung (15 5 1), and the first printed work is the D e recta et emendata linguae anglicae scriptione dialogus by Sir Thomas Smith (1568). Fortunio’s Regole show how the need to regularize the orthography o f the vernacular arose with the need to assert the autonomy o f the vernacular from Latin - and how this assertion was first expressed in the field o f orthography, follow ed in later decades by the widening o f the conflict on a larger scale.45 In the background w e find the Latininfluenced spelling habits, derived from the Humanists, which were w ide­ spread in the late fifteenth century in Tuscany itself (to the detriment o f traditional fourteenth-century written forms) and very widespread in northern Italy. This practice was paralleled by a courtly theory which believed that the vernacular was ennobled by adhering most strictly to etym ological forms, and which saw in a written convention based on Latin the ideal means for conveying an inter-regional written language, a medium which was neutral relative to the differences in pronunciation which one wanted to disregard, a medium which was not indifferent to the Tuscan pronunciation whose authority was not admitted. Fortunio, reacting in his preface against forms such as ‘ /o dixi, epso scripse, un saxo, molte parte e molte morte, e I’ equate e sancto, prompto, con infiniti altri simili che piu tosto giudicar si possano voci latine che vo lg a ri’ C io



dixi [I said], epso scripse [he wrote], un saxo [a stone], molte parte [many parts] and molte morte [many deaths], and /’ equale [the same] and sancto [holy], prompto [ready], with infinite others o f the same kind that m ay rather be considered Latin words than vernacular’ ), underlines that i a latina lingua . . . per le varie incursioni dei barbari fu in questa che noi volgar chiam iam o trasfusa, et cost divenne assai diversa lingua da quel la ’ (‘ the Latin la n g u a g e . . . because o f the various barbarian invasions was transfused into this one w e call vernacular, and in this way became a very different language from that one') (my italics): a statement that anticipates a greater debate, typical o f the 1530s, in support o f the autonom y from the Latin matrix which the vernacular had achieved. The vernacular’ s orthographic em ancipation, how ever, is not based on pronunciation in Fortunio; remaining within an approach m ediated by Humanist ph ilology, he sets the Tuscan fourteenth-century written tra­ dition against the Latin written tradition,46 with only sporadic reference to the reality o f the spoken language and with a conciliatory attitude towards the various etym ological spellings. The Epistola de le lettere nucovamente aggiunte ne la lingua italiana by Gian G iorgio Trissino, from V icen za,47 where in the title itself w e find two o f the most noticeable innovations, introduced in order to represent the open e and o , is the first o f a number o f attempts at reform w hich were intended to m ake the alphabet conform to the distinctions which existed in the phonetics o f the vernacular. The use o f the new letters naturally involved decisions o f an orthoepic nature in the area o f open and closed vow els, where Tuscan differed from the other regional systems. The fact that a non-Tuscan should have claim ed to regulate this subject by referring to a notion o f an ‘ Italian’ language whose valid­ ity was in doubt, could not have pleased the Tuscans, who, m oreover, found it easy to be sarcastic about this show o f Greek letters. There were immediate reactions from Firenzuola and M artelli (the latter’ s reaction also addressing the question o f the D e vulgari eloquentia, w hich had been rediscovered by Trissino and adduced as a fundamental authority in favour o f the Italianist theory).48 But reactions were also unfavour­ able outside Tuscany, like L ib u m io’ s: the reform er’ s Hellenism , which found concrete expression in the introduction o f elements which were felt to be harshly alien, was disliked by many, perhaps also in the con­ text o f a widespread b elief in the superiority o f the Latins compared with the G reeks.49 The P olito by Claudio Tolom ei, from Siena, which was published in 1525, shows greater perception in phonetic analysis, and a greater awareness o f the real conditions within which a reform o f orthography m ight take root. T olom ei was in a better position to undertake a pho­ netic analysis o f Tuscan, not only because he was a native speaker o f Tuscan, but also because he was a Tuscanist (as he was to show in his



C esa no: that is, he was also aided by a conscious awareness o f the historical basis underlying the literary language, an awareness which fully justified his reliance on his personal phonetic com petence).50 In the P olito Tolom ei points out that it w ould be opportune to eliminate the useless letters (y, x, k, q , h) and to add some new ones for the new sounds which did not exist in Latin ‘ but he never suggests what graphic forms should be used, so giving his writing a purely theoretical character’ (Sensi 1890, 319). This theoretical character is made more evident by an analysis o f his unpublished writings on grammar, which develop phonetic analysis in the direction o f an incipient but already considerable historical study o f language.51 M oreover, Tolom ei did not deceive him self - and this increases his stature as a linguist - about the possibility that a reform in orthography m ight not prevail if it were not promoted and spread by a political authority. H ow ever, he designed two distinct alphabets: the first one was radically phonetic and was intended for his private use as a scholar, and nothing remains o f it; the second confined itself to distinguishing between open and closed vow els, between w, v and sem ivocalic u, between / and sem ivocalic /, between voiced and unvoiced 5 and z, and to introducing a specially shaped g in clusters used for palatal n and /, which he allow ed to be em ployed in the publication o f his letters. The rest o f the debate on orthography and phonetics is w holly Florentine and Florentinist, to confirm what has already been pointed out. From the m ilieu o f the Florentine A cadem y cam e the Osservazioni per la pronunzia fiorentina, printed by the elusive Neri Dortelata in 1544, and Pierfrancesco G iam bullari’ s treatise D e la lingua che si parla et si scrive in Firenze published with this title >2 by Lorenzo Torrentino in 1552, whose first book is w holly dependent on the Osservazioni. It is extrem ely probable that Neri Dortelata (anagram: ordinalettera, letter orderer) was a pseudonym for Giam bullari him self.53 The two texts ow e much to the P o lito ; Giam bullari also shared with Tolom ei an awareness o f the practical difficulties which w ould hinder the spread o f a reform ed orthography, and in fact he did not impose anything on his typogra­ phers except the ‘ almost com plete abandoning o f etym ological spell­ ings using h and x, using t instead o f z, using unpronounceable [for a Tuscan] groups o f consonants’ (Fiorelli 1956, 199); which, if it does not make him perhaps ‘ the initiator o f m odem Italian orthography’ (ibid., 210), certainly puts him in line with the tendencies for sim pli­ fication which were occurring in typographical practice. From the same academ ic environment cam e the D eg li elementi del parlar toscano by G iorgio Bartoli, published posthum ously (Giunti, Florence) in 1584: the most systematic attempt to develop an articulatory and auditory analysis o f Tuscan, in support o f an orthographic reform o f a radically phonetic kind.54 In particular, Bartoli sets out a classification



o f consonants on the basis o f four categories w hich act as distinctive features (sem ivocalic/m ute, intense/remiss, aspirate/non-aspirate, broad/ non-broad). The other treatise on Italian phonetics o f the time, the D e italica pronunciatione et orthographia libellus by the W elsh doctor Sion D afydd R hys (1596),55 cam e from a different environment and is organized differently. N ot being m otivated by reform ing ambitions, nor, apparently, by theoretical interest, but only by the didactic aim o f making it easier for foreigners to learn Italian pronunciation and orthography as they were, Rhys showed unequalled phonetic finesse in describing indi­ vidual sounds, although he did not attempt to connect them in a system , and a wealth o f com parisons with other dialects and other languages. A s Dionisotti points out (1968, 37) ‘ the sine qua non condition o f his achievem ent was his open-mindedness, typical o f a foreigner w ho pays attention to sounds and their written representation, not to the rhetorical effects o f lan guage’ . This does not preclude the fact that during the years o f his stay in Siena he m ay have felt the effect o f the linguistic studies w hich were flourishing in T o lo m ei’ s school - w hich within the Italian scene stood out precisely because o f their peculiarly em pirical character.56 The degree o f phonetic transformation o f Castilian com pared with Latin was roughly com parable with that o f Tuscan, and the problems o f writing it were as a consequence o f approxim ately equal seriousness in both languages. W hat differentiates the course o f orthographical discussion in Spain is first o f all the existence o f a fairly precise system o f orthographical rules, based on phonetics, from the time o f A lfon so the W ise; secondly, the greater weakness o f the fashion for Latin in the fifteenth century; and finally the absence from the scene, in the six­ teenth century, o f regional or inter-regional m odels with claim s to rival Castilian. These factors restricted the object o f contention to the choice between phonetic and etym ological principles, and this alternative pre­ sented itself in sim pler and w eaker terms than in Italy because the phonetic trend was in some w ay predetermined by tradition, because there was only one phonetic reference type, and because etym ological spellings did not have on their side either the strength o f a vigorous Humanist fashion, or the strength o f subjects that m ight affect them as a sign o f resistance to the dominant linguistic type. N ebrija’ s adoption o f the principle derived from Quintilian ‘ hay que escribir com o se pronuncia’ (‘one must write as one pronounces’ ) as a dogm a o f ortho­ graphy, and the almost ritual repetition o f this m axim by all those who wrote about orthography in the course o f the century (even by those w ho, to a greater or lesser extent, actually distanced them selves from the phonetic principle), are facts which w ell characterize the dominant tone o f the debate. A s for the founder Nebrija, one should not be sur­ prised that he opted for a solution that was so independent from the



Latin m odel on the subject o f orthography, and on the other hand that he described the grammatical structure o f Castilian in terms w hich were strictly dependent on the categories o f Latin grammar. The contrast is only on the surface, because in the first instance it was a matter o f set­ ting out a norm (and Nebrija did so in line with the vernacular tradi­ tion, therefore also in ideal agreement with the Crow n, w hich intended to promote that tradition), in the second instance it was a matter o f producing an analysis (and here Nebrija was alone in his attempt to draw from his Humanist culture, all the instruments to apply to a task which had no precedent ).57 The main stages that follow ed were the Tractado de orthographia by A le jo V anegas (Toledo, 153 1), influenced by Latin, the D ialogo de la lengua by Juan de V aldes, eclectic; the Gramatica castellana by Cristobal de V illalon, (Louvain, 1558), influ­ enced by Latin; the Anotaciones a la Obra de Garcilaso by Fernando de Herrera (1580), decidedly phonetic, whose ideas were widespread (among other things, they were repeated and organized in the chapter on orthography o f the Principios de la gramatica latina, Sevilla, 1586, by Juan Sanchez de Cordoba).58 In this context one can also understand w hy in Spain there were no successful attempts to introduce new characters into the alphabet to represent particular sounds. In fact we have one attempt only, in the Libro subtilissimo intitulado honra de escribanos by the Basque Pedro de M adariaga (1565), with three new characters for g and palatal / and n. Com parison with the situation in Italy shows how alternative pro­ posals o f this kind (whose objective urgency was equally lacking in both languages) were the result, in the case o f Trissino, o f the attempt to fix in an evidently H ellenizing graphic fa cie s an ‘ Italian’ phonetic representation, i.e. one which would fix onto the page some em blem atic discordances from Tuscan pronunciation; and, in the case o f the Tuscans, o f a precise study o f their own spoken language which might not have taken place if it had not been provoked by others. The same reasons explain w hy a study o f phonetics arose in Italy and not in Spain. The century o f the most ardent orthographical controversies in Spain was going to be the seventeenth, when the strong evolution o f consonantism (the neutralization o f the differences between g and z, ss and s, x and y, b and v, the loss o f aspirate h) was to sharpen the opposition between traditionalism and innovation. In France the problem o f orthography was posed in much more serious terms, as far as the gap between spoken and written language went, because o f the more marked phonetic evolution compared with Latin, the abundant introduction o f Latinism s in writing, the use o f ‘ superfluous’ letters for the purpose o f distinguishing the many hom o­ graphs. In the absence o f the regional com plications that existed, in Spain, but given the existence o f a strongly etym ological spelling (which



w as not the case in Spain), the controversy becam e polarized between clearly reform ist positions on the one hand and defensive positions, or positions based on perfecting the status quo, on the other. The ques­ tion, raised in 1529 by G eo fffo y T ory (on whom see Catach 1968, 3 1 50 and passim ), was tackled in an organic w ay for the first time by Jacques D ubois (Jacobus Sylvius) in his In linguam gallicam isagwge (R. Estienne, Paris, 1531). D ubois is guided only in part by the aim o f freeing writing from the elements which do not correspond to pronuncia­ tion (abolition o f ys introduced as a calligraphic affectation, o f gs after a nasal, etc.). H ow ever, his attachment to the grounds o f etym ology is clearly shown by his proposal for a writing on two lines, w hich w ould be phonetic along the principal line, and etym ological, where needed, along the upper line (lisons with a g written above the 5 to echo legimus).59 The Humanist Louis M eigret, from L yons, was the one w ho inter­ preted in the most coherent w ay the need to give a new foundation to French orthography, on a rigorously phonetic basis. He asserted his ideas, which had been incubating ever since the early 1530s, in the Traite touchant le commun usage de Y escriture frangoise (J. de M am ef, Paris, 1542), in the Trette de la grammere frangoese (Paris, 1550), and in a couple o f intermediate w orks in reply to the criticism by Jacques Peletier du Mans and by G laum alis du V ezelet (i.e. G uillaum e des Autels), as Well as using his ow n reform ed orthography in L e M enteur, translated from Lucian.60 O n ly the first o f these works was really read, and indeed reprinted, because it was written in current orthography. From the conviction that the true reality o f language is the spoken word, M eigret deduces the rational necessity for writing to be its faith­ ful representation. There is no room in his concept for an awareness o f the specificity o f the written level, or at least for recognizing the relative inertia o f writing. Graphic representations w hich diverge from pronunciation are superstitions: eradicating them is an im perative for the present and for the future, with the prospect o f a continuous adap­ tation o f writing to the phonetic evolution o f language. It has been pointed out that this is C alvinist severity: M eigret applies to ortho­ graphy the same austere frame o f mind w hich holds true for him in theology and, struggling against the printers, finally manages to sacri­ fice success to principle (Hausmann 1980b, 344), i.e. he finally manages to stop people reading him. His opponents do not seem particularly superstitious when they point out that current orthography had some advantages o f a type w hich w e w ould describe as synchronic, such as the distinction o f a large number o f hom ophones, and the signalling o f intralinguistic relations (between words o f the same fam ily) and interlinguistic relations (between the corresponding words in Latin and other languages, not just Rom ance languages). The shocked reply that these are matters to be dealt with in w orks on grammar, and not to be



represented in writing, certainly has a crystal-clear logic, and also it may already feel the effects o f what was to becom e the Protestant impulse towards widening the social boundaries o f literacy. However, one cannot say that it had a clear vision o f the real terms in which the problem o f orthography was put, on the basis o f what was, and was to continue to be for years, the actual/effective control o f the written language in French society. M eigret’ s proposals lacked the support o f the literary men o f the Pleiade, apart from some favourable statements by Ronsard, which were not follow ed up. Printers obviously let these difficult innovations fall into disuse, and in particular, the printers w orking for Robert and later Henri Estienne (Robertus and Henricus Stephanus), who played a vital role in the creation o f French lexicography, kept constantly to an ety­ m ologist line. The position in favour o f phonetics held and practised by Pierre de la Ram ee in his Gramere (A. W echel, Paris, 1562) confirms the impression o f a connection between radicalism in orthography and religion, while the reformed alphabet o f Honorat Rambaud (J. de Toum es, Lyon, 1578), allegedly based on teaching requirements, is no more than a curiosity. A reply to the reformers was written in England by Claude de Sainliens, called Holyband (D e pronuntiatione linguae gallicae libri duo).61 In Portugal two principal works, the Gramatica da lingua portuguesa by Joao de Barros (L. Rodrigues, Lisboa, 1540), only one chapter o f which is dedicated to orthography, and the Orthographia da lingoa portuguesa by Duarte Nunes do Leao (J. de Barreira, Lisboa, 1576), mark the passage from a trend towards phonetics to a trend towards etym ology, which was to prevail in the Baroque period.62 W e should also point out, for its clear perception in the articulatory description and for the ‘ structural’ outlook, the Gramatica da lingua portuguesa (G. Galharde, Lisboa, 1536) by Fem ao de O liveira.63 On the situation in Germ any, while w e wait for the new research presented in Bergmann (1984), the general study by Jellinek ( 1 9 1 3 - 1 4 , 38-59) remains unsurpassed.64 It distinguishes a rather early indigen­ ous first phase o f suggestions for the regularization o f writing, from a second phase which was consciously reformist and influenced by the attempts made in the Rom ance countries. T o the first phase belong the follow ing, which all com e from the writing environments o f the chancery: the Schryfftspiegel (an anonymous com pilation written in Braunschweig and published in C ologne in 1527), largely dependent on N iklas von W yle, and consisting o f an unsystematic record o f dis­ crepancies and ‘ abuses’ between written and spoken language in vari­ ous regional usages; the Orthographia, published in 153 1, by Fabian Frangk (who was active between Silesia and Brandenburg), and the Handbiichlin gruntlichs berichts, recht und wolschrybens, published



in 1538, by Johan Helias MeichBner, from Wiirttemberg. T he most significant work, F rangk’s Orthographia, is characterized by the strong theorization (which prefigures reality) o f the unity o f the written High Germ an language, exem plified in the writings o f Luther and o f the imperial chancery. From the educational field com e, on the other hand, the two works by Valentin Ickelsamer, D ie rechte weis auffs kiirtzist lesen zu lernen (printed in Erfurt in 1527), and the Teutsche Grammatica (Augsburg?, 1534?); the Enchiridion (published in Basel in 1530) by the Sw iss Johannes KolroB; Eyn nutzlich buchlein ettlicher gleich stymender worther A ber ungleichs verstandes (Erfurt 1532) by Johann Fabritius, dependent on Ickelsamer; the Leefikonst (Ingolstadt, 1542) by Ortholph Fuchsperger; the Teutsches Syllabierbuchlein (Freiburg im Uchtland, r 593 ) by Sebastian Helber. In Valentin Ickelsam er religious ideals in­ spire the promotion o f reading and writing - an educational-religiousnationalistic reason which was typical o f the German situation, as pointed out by Padley (1985, 85-99); this in turn changes into an im pulse for the reform o f orthography on a phonetic basis, similar to what has been shown regarding A . M eigret. The E nchiridion, in opposition to the contem porary Orthographia by Frangk, reflects and respects the different regional customs in writing, and aims only to heal the contra­ diction between the individual graphic system s and their respective phonetic systems. The Teutsches Syllabierbuchlein identifies the typo­ graphical varieties into which written High German is divided: mitterteiitsche (Central German), Donawische (Bavarian-Swabian), and Hochst Reinische (Sw iss). Attem pts at learned reform include the Introductio in linguam germanicam by the Latinist Paul Schede (M elissus), com posed between 1568 and 1572 and lost, and the D e orthographia germ anica, ac potius suevica nostrate (1578), by the student o f Greek Hieronymus W olf, a work which was influenced by the Introductio. W o lf theorizes German linguistic unity, as Frangk had done, and does so by resorting to the comparison with the Greek situation (like the Italian Trissino) and therefore conceiving o f the com m on language as a selection o f the best features from all the dialects. In the area o f the Netherlands we find the D e orthographia linguae belgicae by the law yer Antonius Sexagius (on which see Goem ans 1899-1900), which had a decisive influence on the Nederduitse orthographie (158 1) by Pontus de Heuiter (on w hich see Dibbets 1968), an attempt to regularize and unify the Netherlandish language on a phonetic basis, and to defend it against the intrusiveness o f French and German; also the orthographic survey o f 1583 (Dibbets 1975) on which the Twespraack vande Nederduitsche letterkunst o f the follow ing year was based (published in Dibbets 1985). The orthographic aporias o f English had becom e as serious as those o f French, especially because o f the difficulties in adapting the spelling



habits imported by the Norman copyists to the local conditions, and then because o f the introduction o f etym ological spellings and o f later, inap­ propriate analogical extensions (such as gh in delight, tight on the basis o f light, night). If it is probable that the idea o f an orthographic reform o f the vernacular had also been suggested to Trissino by the Humanist discussions on the pronunciation o f classical languages (Richardson 1984, X V - X V I ) , it is certain that the history o f sim ilar attempts in England started from the controversy over the restoration o f the ancient pronun­ ciation o f G reek, which in Cam bridge saw the follow ers o f Erasmus, John C heke and Thom as Smith, opposed to the traditionalist Chancellor o f the U niversity Stephen Gardiner.65 The 1542 epistles in which the two reformers set out their reasons contain, as illustration, references to English pronunciation. This marked the start o f a long phase o f reflection, which was to be publicly expressed only in 1568 with the D e recta et emendata linguae anglicanae scriptione by Thom as Smith (printed in Paris together with the D e recta et emendata linguae graecae pronuntiatione), w hich suggests a pragmatic and limited modification o f orthography in order to bring it closer to pronunciation.66 Greater ambition, and greater acumen and rigour in phonetic analysis are shown in the works o f John Hart: An Orthographie and A M ethode or C om ­ fortable Beginning fo r A ll U nlearned, published in 1569 and 1570 respectively; preceded by The Opening o f the Unreasonable Writing o f Our Inglish Toung (unpublished: British Library, Ms. Reg. 17 C vii), dated 155 1, and therefore proof that Hart was also chronologically first.67 In the name o f reason, Hart wanted to restore the one-to-one relation which should naturally exist between sounds and letters, and which in English, as in other languages, had becom e corrupted to the point that usual writing was actually in cypher. Therefore it was necessary to eliminate superfluous letters and introduce the new letters that were needed; in this w ay learning to read and write, as well as learning the correct pronunciation, would becom e easier for natives and foreigners, and one w ould save paper and ink. These arguments, together with the refutation o f the traditionalists’ arguments (according to which current spelling had the advantages o f indicating vow el quantity, o f showing the derivation o f words and o f distinguishing homophones), show an evident, precise correspondence with the reasoning o f Louis M eigret’ s Traite. Although Hart declared his debt to this text (precisely to the 1543 edition: cf. D obson 1968, 66), it seems to me that the absolutely essential role played by the source has not been recognized. The most curious fact in this matter is that there had been as yet no traditionalist reaction in Britain: it seems clear that Hart, in arguing against such an alleged tradition, was actually answering the arguments o f des Autels and Peletier du Mans, probably without know ing them directly, and sim ply follow ing M eigret’ s counter-arguments.



The system developed by W illiam B ullokar in A Short Introduction or Guiding to Print, Write, and Reade Inglish Speech (1580), in The B ook at Large (1580) and in the B r e f Grammar (E. B ollifant, London, 1586) is more burdensome and less functional.68 The contrary position held by Richard M ulcaster in The First Part o f the Elementarie (1582) is much more instructive, and is the result o f his experience as a school­ teacher in London:69 ‘ Om nia consuetudini tamquam tyranno permittenda sunt’ ( ‘Everything must be allow ed to habit, as to a tyrant’). From this principle derives the m ost obvious justification o f what is in existence. There is no need to suppress obsolete letters or to create new ones because the gifts o f G od, once given, are given for ever. One should not be surprised that som ebody who was using arguments o f this kind did not have the faintest inkling o f that phonological principle w hich more or less obscurely underlay every radical idea o f reform. M ulcaster in fact objects that, no matter how m any new letters were introduced, one w ould never be able to convey all the different nuances w hich charac­ terize the pronunciation o f different speakers in different contexts. But the fact that his orthography is the nearest to that o f m odem English confirms that real needs were interpreted precisely by the theories with the most modest profile. W ith his indifference to the rationalization o f writing, and with his interest in its standardization (which was effect­ ively realized by a list o f about 7000 words in com m on use with their recom m ended spellings), M ulcaster becam e the interpreter o f the needs o f printers and schoolteachers, follow ed current tendencies, and prob­ ably contributed to defining their results to some extent. 1.2.4 The grammar of the vernacular languages70 The Grammatica della lingua toscana by Leon Battista A lberti,71 prob­ ably written between 1437 and 1441, and the Gramatica de la lengua castellana by Antonio de Nebrija, published in Salam anca in 1492,72 are the only tw o exam ples o f grammars o f vernacular languages written in Europe in the fifteenth century. W hile the conditions in which they were produced make them very different, they share the fact that they had little or no influence. The exceptional nature o f A lb erti’ s attempt is m agnified by the contrast with the general trend o f the Humanist m ovem ent, which was in its ascendancy in those years, and by being so far ahead o f the em ergence o f the vernacular ‘ questione della lingua’ in Italy. The fact that the text remained buried in a single manuscript co p y 73 is the proof, in this case, o f its isolation because o f too much far-sightedness; in consequence, the Italian gram m atical tradition was to begin eighty years later, com pletely ignoring this first episode. In contrast, N ebrija’ s Gram atica, which cam e h alf a century later, is an organic part o f the situation in Spanish high culture o f the time, for the reasons m entioned above in Section 1.2.2, although it had a subordinate



function. Therefore it was promptly published; but it was later forgotten and there was no second edition o f it until the eighteenth century (Quilis 1980, 83-6), so that the author o f the second Castilian grammar, Cristobal de V illalon (1558), does not quote it and seems to know only the part on orthography (Sola-Sole 1974-5). The isolation o f A lb erti’ s gram ­ mar, which was absolute if one looks at it in the European or even just in the Italian context, was less drastic if one considers the Florentine m ilieu, the particular type o f Humanism w hich in those years only in Florence dealt with vernacular literature - a m ilieu, how ever, which was created to a great extent by Alberti him self. His Grammatica becom es understandable, without ceasing to be extraordinary because o f it, as a reaction to the idea that, in contrast with Latin, which is grammatical by definition, the vernacular was agrammatical by definition (an idea from m edieval times which had been brought back into the lim elight by the Humanist discussion on what language was spoken by the ancient Romans, which took place in Florence in 1435);74 and more generally against the background o f the initiative put forward by Alberti in favour o f a new Humanist foundation o f vernacular literature, culm inating in the failed Certame coronario o f 1441. The basic idea follow ed by Alberti through all these initiatives is that o f adopting the spoken language dir­ ectly (in the name o f the civic usefulness o f this operation), dignifying it by grafting onto it Latin vocabulary and syntax, and com pletely leaving aside the vernacular literary tradition. This idea is also reflected in the form o f the Grammatica, which is above all a grammar o f Tuscan usage, the setting down o f rules found in the w orking o f the living language, and which is not only closely m odelled (as was inevitable after all) on the categories o f the Latin grammarians and o f Priscian in particular (V ineis 1974), but, what is more revealing, also proposes rules for the deduction o f the vernacular form from the Latin one (e.g. the form o f the noun is taken from that o f the Latin ablative, and verbal paradigms are constructed from the form o f the Latin gerund). There is therefore, in the boldest theorizer on the vernacular’ s emancipation, a clear tend­ ency to consider it as adhering strictly to Latin. A s for adopting the spoken usage, this shows a preference for the more urban variety, but is not opposed to registering popular forms (Bongrani 1982a); as for adherence to Latin, what Alberti shows is the ‘ clear formal h om o lo gy’ (Vineis 1974, 292-5) between the two languages (useful for legitim izing the m odem language), not the derivation o f one from the other in terms o f historical grammar (Tavoni 1984a, 52-3). This singular connection between the spoken language and the Humanist influence, peculiar to the place and the historical circum stances, survived in some w ay in Florence in the course o f the fifteenth century, was obviously alien to the non-Tuscan founders o f sixteenth-century Italian grammar, and was not revived even among the Tuscans who, over a century after Alberti, made another attempt at a grammar o f living usage.



It has been pointed out (e.g. in Senior [M errill], 1959, 85) that N ebrija’ s was the first grammar o f a national language. T he various Provengal and Catalan predecessors (the Razos de trobar, the Donatz proensals, the Myrayll de trobar and the like: a survey in T ollis 19 7 1, 5 3 -6 0 ) were actually arts o f poetry and, as far as they dealt with gram ­ mar, they did so for a language w hich for them was identified with a literary genre. The treatises on French written in Britain in the four­ teenth century, up to the D onait francois by Jean Barton (1409), were aimed at an aristocracy which did not want to forget its language, and consequently they have a contrastive rather than a system atic character. On the other hand, A lb erti’ s grammar, for all its brevity, was consciously aimed at the entire language o f a civic com m unity. Not, how ever, o f a national com m unity. On the contrary, the state dimension as such is important for Nebrija, w ho co-ordinates his educational strategy with the reforms required by the Crow n. The form ula o f the ie n g u a companera del Im perio’ (‘ language companion o f the E m pire’ ), which sums up this aspect, has been repeated and misinterpreted too often (Asensio 1970). A s R ico (n.d., 6 1-7 0 ) has justly rectified, it does not make sense to think that N ebrija was predicting the discovery o f Am erica; he was certainly averse to transferring to Castilian the link between Latin and Empire, which V alla had established (in very different terms), and the essential point o f his m ission remained the spread o f Latin - and the fact that the Gramatica was forgotten, w hile the Introduciones latinas had great suc­ cess, is the objective proof o f this hierarchy o f values. Despite all this, he is the first to conceive a vernacular grammar in political terms not w holly dissim ilar from those that were to recur in the cultural history o f Spain itself, o f Portugal and o f France during the sixteenth century. The traditional elements o f this grammar, which are obvious in any case, have been pointed out by scholars. So, alongside the statement that Castilian has no declensions, w e find the statement that it does have cases, five to be precise, and that it differs from Latin only because it expresses them through prepositions instead o f endings (Senior M errill 1962, from whom it appears, how ever, that all the Spanish grammars o f the sixteenth century continue to argue in these terms). A ccordin g to Percival (1975a, 249), the system o f verbal government is entirely derived from Guarino. A s for the parts o f speech, their individuation rests on each o n e’ s specific ‘manera de significar’ (‘ mode o f sig n ifyin g’ , an expres­ sion which clearly derives from the M iddle A ges); and a mixture o f semantic and functional criteria aids this individuation (but it w ould be surprising only if it were otherwise). On the other hand, N ebrija adds the gerund and the ‘ nombre participial infinito’ ( ‘ infinitive participial noun’ , the invariable past participle o f the tenses form ed with haber) to the eight traditional parts o f speech, in an undoubted attempt at speci­ fyin g the structure o f the vernacular language (Senior [Merrill] 1959; T ollis 1984; Q uilis 1980, 20 -4 2).



The Italian gram m atical tradition was bom at the beginning o f the sixteenth century through the efforts o f non-Tuscan men o f letters w ho prepared the instruments, for them selves first o f all, to be able to master the language o f the great Tuscan writers o f the fourteenth century. A s Trissino says, ‘di Lombardia, o per dir m eglio della Marca T revig ia n a . . . vennero nella nostra eta le prime osservazioni e le prime regole della lingua di lui [Petrarch]’75 (‘from Lom bardy, or rather from the M arches o f Treviso . . . cam e in our age the first observations and the first rules o f his [Petrarch’ s] language’ ). That is, the first Italian grammar was bom under the sign o f a particular literary problem: the problem o f giving a definite norm to a class o f writers from different regions w ho had in effect already taken the initiative from the Tuscans in the matter o f producing literature, but for whom the language o f that literature was not their native tongue. The search for such a norm continued for about thirty years, with the hypothesis o f an eclectic regularization based on selected usage in the courts (the often temporary ports o f call for often itinerant men o f letters) and the opposite hypothesis o f taking the living Tuscan language as a m odel, com peting against each other; with para­ digm atic value being variously attributed now to Latin writings and now to ‘ classical’ vernacular works. G iovan Francesco Fortunio, author o f the Regole grammaticali della volgar lingua (Bernardino V ercellese, Ancona, 1516) belongs to this phase. It has been pointed out how deeply rooted in Humanist philo­ logy is this first grammar o f the literary vernacular: ‘ both o f the books still in existence . . . are full o f what the Humanists called castigationes, i.e. passages from authors, here Dante or Petrarch, which had been corrupted by the printed tradition, or misinterpreted by the com m ent­ ators. These castigationes are hardly required or justified by the m or­ phological or orthographical subject matter considered in Fortunio’ s two books’ .76 This is fully consistent with ‘ the particular, pressing interest o f the author’ , and o f the class o f men o f letters whose demands he was the first to try to satisfy publicly. Their interest for the vernacular lan­ guage was in fact determined by the interest for vernacular literature, which was to be read (in the best version) and to be imitated (in the most exact form). In order to fulfil these requirements what was needed was a manual to clear up controversial points, based on a linguistic indexing o f authors: one did not need a system atic grammatical treat­ ment. Fortunio openly passes over those rules which ‘coincide with Latin rules or are known through practice’ , producing ‘ a kind o f outline o f the most notable characteristics o f fourteenth century usage’ (Trabalza 1908, 68-70). This is a deliberate absence o f method which, in contrast to the systematic approach o f A lb erti’ s grammar, illustrates the original character o f Italian grammar. Its future extraneousness to philosophical reflections on the w ay language functions, which were to spread across



Europe, is already im plied in the fact that it took as its subject a sem i­ dead language, although one w hich partially coincided with the native com petence o f the students, w hich was considered unworthy o f interest in itself. M oreover, the non-phonetic character o f Fortunio’ s orthography (on which see Section 1.2.3 above) is consistent with the general lack o f interest for the spoken language. B em b o ’ s grammar is even less m ethodical, at least in the expositive form. The architecture o f the P rose della volgar lingua (1525), which assigns the third book to the gram m atical tradition (after a first book which was dedicated to legitim izing the use o f the vernacular and trac­ ing its literary history, and a second book dedicated to constructing a rhetoric for it); the dialogic form, in which the gram m atical ‘ treasures’ are ‘ quasimente affogati’ (‘ almost drowned’ , according to a late sixteenth century definition quoted by Trabalza 1908, 82); finally B em b o’ s prose itself, which is presented as a stylistic model, are all aspects which reveal the direction o f the operation, the level o f the public it was aimed at, the nature o f a taste w hich shunned schem atization. A s a consequence, despite a vast bibliography on the role o f Bem bo in the ‘ questione della lingua’ , properly technical linguistic studies are scarce; and these address the treatment o f particular linguistic facts (clues to the com plex play between rival forms w hich took place in those decades),77 w hile there is no direct attempt to define the gram m atical pattern underlying the most influential gram m atical treatise in Italian history. La grammatica volgar by the Neapolitan M arco Antonio Ateneo Carlino (G. Sultzbach, N apoli, 1533, on w hich see Corti 1955) was subjected to a more system atic analyis. Follow ing T rissino’ s Italianist ideas, he chooses an updated triad (alongside Petrarch, Sannazaro author o f Arcadia and Bem bo author o f the Asolani) instead o f the ‘Three C ro w n s’ (Dante, Petrarch, B occaccio) o f the fourteenth century. W hile he is indifferent to the stylistic and rhetorical requirements, and to the need to release vernacular writing from Latin, themes which by that time dominated the more advanced debate, he writes a classifying gram ­ mar o f the ‘ tersa lingua com une’ (‘ clear com m on language’ ), in close and verifiable adherence to the Latin grammatical tradition, accepting its technical term inology without disguising it. The salient event o f the 1 5 4 0 S -5 0 S occurred when the Tuscans took back the initiative, as they tried to react after twenty or thirty years o f other people’ s hegem ony. This resumption was also marked by a failure, the failure o f the attempt promoted b y C osim o d e’ M edici to m ake the Florentine A cad em y produce an official Tuscan grammar. The reasons for this failure are very interesting, because they involve the problem o f whether it was possible to fix a livin g language in a norm ative w ay - a problem w hich B em b o’ s follow ers and the non-Tuscans in general did not need to consider. This marks a point o f contact with what was



happening in France, for exam ple, where Charles de B ovelles had defended a similar renunciation in his Liber de differentia vulgarium linguarum et gallici sermonis varietate in 1533. The fact that among the Florentine academ icians this renunciation was cloaked in pride, because their language was in the process o f grow ing and still had to reach its peak, did not eliminate their inability to guide the process o f the lan­ gu age’ s appropriation by Italian men o f letters, w hich was already tak­ ing shape. W hat the academ icians did not do was done, as ‘persona privata et particulare’ (‘private and particular person’ ), by Pier Francesco Giambullari with his Regole della lingua fiorentina (Torrentino, Firenze, 1552).78 The model he draws is founded on the living use o f cultured Florentines, but also refers to exam ples from ancient writers: the con­ sistent Florentinist boldness which had been typical o f M achiaveili in 152479 clearly was no longer possible in its pristine state. Giam bullari initiates, from this point o f view , that main line, partly inspired by Bem bo and partly based on Florentine, which, through elaboration by V archi, was to lead to Borghini, Salviati and the A ccadem ia della Crusca. An important aspect o f these Regole is the unusually large amount o f space dedicated to syntax, and the fact that it is approached follow ing the exam ple o f a foreign m odel, the D e emendata structura latini sermonis (1524) by Thom as Linacre - a link w hich still awaits study. One should note therefore a greater open-mindedness in Giambullari, compared with the non-Tuscans, towards developm ents from beyond the A lp s, both in matters o f grammar and in matters o f the origin o f the vernacular (on which see Section 1.2.5 below: even if in the latter case it is an openmindedness towards second-rate writings). C laudio Tolom ei, from Sienna, deserves a special place among the Tuscans. His limitation was his insecurity or perfectionism , which pre­ vented him from releasing his works, but he had the merit o f develop­ ing in-depth analyses o f grammar and the history o f Tuscan in the thirty years between the 1520s and the 1550s.80 On the other hand, Ludovico Castelvetro, from M odena, the greatest historical grammarian in Italy in the sixteenth century was not afraid to publish (despite being perse­ cuted for heresy). It is em blem atic that his penetrating reconstructions should be expressed in the form o f polem ical Giunte to B em b o’ s P ro se: on the one hand w e find the winning rhetorical approach which answers the literary needs o f the time and tends to subordinate the enquiry on historical reality to them; on the other hand, channelled into a line o f enquiry, and even into a subordinate typology and editorial form, w e find research concentrating on the facts, on gathering and understand­ ing the data offered by Italian dialects and other languages, inspired by an abiding interest in gaining know ledge o f reality. If the Giunte to book I, published in 1572, m ainly involve the origin o f the vernacular (on which see Section 1.2.5), the Giunta fatta al ragionamento degli



articoli et de verbi (Gadaldini, M odena, 1563) presents a detailed m orphological treatment, w hich constantly justifies the vernacular form b y its derivation, which connects it to the Latin form, and lays down respect for phonetics as a condition for analysis. A s Trabalza points out (1908, 188), the recognition o f the function o f analogy in determining forms w hich w ould not be phonetically justified is o f special grammat­ ical interest.81 A particular trend is represented by the grammars for foreigners, which giv e evidence o f the literary prestige and o f the spread o f Italian abroad (on w hich see M igliorini 1978, 5th edn, 378 -8 1). In France, Jean Pierre de M esm es published a Grammaire italienne com posee en frangois (E. G rolleau, Paris) in 1548, which makes use o f the treatises by Bem bo, Fortunio and A ccarisio, and was used in turn in the French adaptation o f A ccarisio ’ s grammar published in Louvain by B. de G rave in 1555 (Bingen, 1984). In G en eva (156 7, 1580, 1600) the Italicae grammatices praecepta ac ratio, in eorum gratiam qui eius linguae elegantiam addiscere cupiunt b y the Neapolitan Scipione Lentulo were printed again and again; they were later to be translated by H. Grantham {An Italian Grammer, London, 1575). Eufrosino L ap in i’ s Institutionum florentinae linguae libri duo (Florence, 1568, 2nd edn 1574) were aimed at German students. W e are especially w ell-inform ed on the teaching o f Italian in Britain (Gamberini 1970, Yates 1983): the schem atic P rin­ cipal Rules o f the Italian Grammer, with a D ictionarie fo r the Better Understandyng o f B occace, Petrarcha, and Dante by W illiam Thom as (London, 1550), drawn from A ccarisio and Alunno, was follow ed by the more extensive R egole de la lingua thoscana (unpublished, 1533) by M ichelangelo Florio, derived from B em bo (Pellegrini 1954); then by the Grammatica de la lingua italiana, also unpublished, by Alessandro Citolini, dedicated in the 1570s to an English gentlem an, but com posed in Italy before 156082 (and plagiarized in John F lorio’ s F irst Fruits, 1578: Bellorini 1965, 28 9 -9 2). The letters written in Italian by Citolini to Queen Elizabeth (Fessia 1939-40 , 230 -4) giv e a glim pse o f the language’ s popularity at court. The first important printed manuals for teaching French in Britain (preceded by minor w orks by B arclay and V alence from 1521 and 1528) date respectively from 1530 (J. Palsgrave, U esclarcissem ent de la langue frangoyse, J. H aukyns, London) and 1532 (G. de W ez, An Introductorie fo r to Lerne to Rede, to Pronounce and to Speke F ren ch , T. G odfray, London). T hey were the result o f a centuries-old tradition, a consequence o f the Norman conquest,83 and preceded, even if only by a small margin, the first grammar o f French produced in France for the use o f the French, the In linguam gallicam Isagwge, una cum eiusdem grammatica latino-gallica, ex H ebraeis, G raecis, et Latinis authoribus, R. Estienne, Paris, 15 3 1, by Jacques Dubois (Jacobus Sylvius Ambianus). Therefore, if the birth o f vernacular



grammar in France occurred little later than the (re)birth o f vernacular grammar in Italy, this specific type o f French grammar for the British was m arkedly precocious, and destined to continue in the second half o f the century through the work o f various grammarians, the best known o f whom is the religious refugee Claude Sainliens, known as Holyband.84 The Institutio gallicae linguae in usum iuventutis germanicae by Jean G am ier (47, 49, 74 n.73, n.77, 76 n.i 13 Benesovsky, M., 113 Benfey, T., 228 n.137, 229 Benvoglienti, B., 46, 48-50 Berault, N., 9, 70 n.19 Bercic, B., 120 Berezin, F. M., 145 Bergin, T. G., 224 n.89 Bergmann, R., 26, 72 n.40, 75 n.94, 85 Berlin Academy, 152, 207, 226 n.122 Bermudez de Pedraza, F., 80 n.147 Bernik, Z., 118 Bemolak, A., 117 Berosus, 50, 79 n.131 Berretta, M., 70 n.io, 85 Bertelli, S., 77 n.i 14, 85 Bertocchi, D., 66 Bertonio, L., 161 Berynda, P., 136, 145 Besch, W., 102 Beseda o ucenii gramote, 133 Besomi, O., 69 n.5, 85, 98 Bible, 5, 59, 181 plurilingual, 162 translation, 68, 109, m - 1 2 , 118 -19, 125, 132, 134 Biblia sacra polyglotta, by B. Walton, 163 Bibliander, T., 62-3, 81 nn. 157-8, n o biblical criticism, 152 biblictina, 117 Bihliotheca hispanica, by R. Percivale, 41 Biedermann, J., 145

239 Bielorussia, 138 Bierling, Z., see Bernik, Z. Bijoux indiscrets, by D. Diderot, 213 Billanovich, G., 69 n.2, 85 Bingen, N., 85 Binotti, L., 79 n .i39, 85 Biondi, A., 77 n.i 16, 79 n.131, 85 Biondo Flavio, 8, 48 Biro, M. Devai, 20 Bisceglia Bonomi, I., 74 n.78, 85-6 Blago jezyka slovimskogo, by G. Micaglia, 119 Blahoslav, J., 112 Blasset (fl. circa 1550), 52 Bluteau, R., 199 Boccaccio, G., 15, 33 Bochicchio, F., 219 n.39, 229 Bohme, J., 154, 171, 185, 219 n.47 Bohemarius maior, 111 Bohoric, A., n o , 118 Bohoricica, 118 Bolelli, T., 77 nn. n 8-19, 85 Bolgar, R. R., 106 Bomer, A., 71 n.20, 85 Bonerba, G., 220 n.50, 229 Bonfante, G., 81 n .i52, 85 Bongrani, P., 30, 74 n.77, 86 Book at Large, by W. Bullokar, 29, 74 n.68 Bora, P., 226 n. 118 Borchardt, F. L., 81 n.153, 86 Borges, J. L., 174, 220 n.51 Borghini, V., 34, 66 Bomstein, D., 74 n.68 Borst, A., 81 n .i57, 86, 217 n .i2, 229 Bosnian, 130 botany, 175 Bougeant, G. H., 204-5, 225 n.i 14 Bouhours, D., 194, 202-3, 225 n .i08 Bourbon, N., 77 n.122, 78 n .i25 Bourgoing, J., 54, 79 n .i36 Bousquet, R. E., 73 n.61, 86 Bouwsma, W. J., 78 n .i26, 86 Bovelles, C. de, 19, 34, 37, 49, 54, 72 n.42, 77 n.119, 78 n.125, 79 n.135 Bovillus, see Bovelles Boxhom, M., 164-5 Boyle, R., 174 Branca, V., 91, 93-4 Brassicanus, J., 8 Brauner, H., 121 Bref Grammar, by W. Bullokar, 29, 44, 74 n.68 Brekle, H. E., 216 n .i, 217 n .io, 218 n.38, 228 n.128, 229 Bretschneider, C. G., 70 n.14 Breva-Claramonte, M., 71 n.25, n.29, n.31, 86



‘brevitas’ of Greek, 52 Breznik, A., 121 Britain, 41, 215 Brizzi, G. P., 102 Brtan, R., 120 n.25, 121 Bruckner, A., 116, 121 Bruni, Leonardo, 48 Brunot, F., 38, 70 n.19, 72 n.40, n.43, 73 nn.60-1, 75 n.86, n.89, 86 Brusciotto, G., 161 Buceta, E., 79 n.142, 86 Buchmann, see Bibliander, T. Buck, A., 95 Bude, Guillaume, 51-2, 77 n.122, 78 n.125 Buffa, J. L., 68, 86 Bukojna-Buchwald dialect, Sorbian, 117 Bukowcowa, Z., 121 Bulgaria, 125, 131, 140 Bulgarian, 130 Bulgarians, 1 Bulic, S. K., 145 Bullokar, William, 29, 44 Burgundians, 77 n.122 Burkhardt, H., 222 n.68, 229 Busbecq, A. G. de, 81 n.152 Bustamante [Garcia], J., 68, 86, 91 Buti, F. da, 4, 70 n.9 Butler, R. J., 100 Butler, T., 147 Buzzetti, D., 229 Bynon, T., 217 n.io, 229 Bywater, I., 73 n.65, 86 Byzantine, grammatical tradition, 1, 135,

138 grammars, 126, 140 missionaries, 110 monasticism, 127 Greek, 50 Byzantium, 127 ‘ cabal of errors’ , for F. Bacon, 159 Cabbalistic tradition, 164 Cable, T., 85 Caecilius, Saint, 57 Cakavian, 118 -19 calculemus, for Leibniz, 184 calculus, 177 Calepino, A., 66, 110, 116 ‘call of history’ , 156 Calvinism, 25 Campagnac, E. T., 220 n.50 Campbell Fraser, A., 221 n.6o Camporeale, S., 69 n.6, 87 Canons, by Choeroboscus, 126 cant, of thieves, 186 Cappagli, A., 73 n.50, 74 n.78, n.8o, 76 n.i 10, 87

Cardim, L., 75 n.95, 87 Cardona, G. R., 217 n.21, 218 n.26, n.30, 229 carka ‘comma’ , 111 Carletti, F., 160, 218 n.25 Carlino, M. A. A., 33 Camiola, 118 Cartesian tradition, 154, 166, 204 Cartinha, by J. de Barros, 75 n.93 cartographical representation, 188 Carvalhao Buescu, M. L., 41-2, 72 n.40, 73 nn.62-3, 75 n.93, 80 n.150, 87 Casacci, A., 69 n.6, 87 Casciano, P., 69 n.6, 87 Casciato, M., 218 n.31, 229 Cassirer, E., 178, 216 n.io, 219 n.48, 220 n.55, 221 n.6o, 230 Castellani Pollidori, O., 49, 72 n.48, 76 n.i 11, 87 Castellano, by G. G. Trissino, 74 n.75 Castellano primitivo, 49, 57, 58 Castelli, E., 103 Castelvetro, L., 34, 47-9 , 55, 75 n.81, 76 n.i 10, n.i 13, 80 n.143 castigationes, 32 Castiglione, B., 16, 37, 115 Castilian, 17, 23, 24, 31, 5 5-7 derivation from Latin, 58 grammar, 7, 30 primitive, 55, 57, see Castellano primitivo Castro Pineda, L., 68, 87 Catach, N., 25, 72 n.40, n.44, 73 nn.60-1, 87-8 Catalan, 31, 57 Catdlogo de las lenguas, by L. Hervas y Panduro, 189 Catherine II, Czarina, 188, 223 n.79 causa, efficiens, finalis, formalis, materialis, 11 causae, 11 cause inventionis, 166, 192 Cavazzuti, G., 75 n.81, 88 Cawdrey, R., 67 Ceard, J., 45, 60, 78 n.130, 88 Cecioni, C. G., 73 n.66, 88 celeriter et compendiose, for T. Hobbes,

177 Celt' hellenisme, by L. Trippault, 52 Celtic, 65, 214 Celtophiles, 49, 53 Cenova, F., 119 n.3 Centuria III ad Belgas, by J. Lipsius, 65 Certame coronario, 30 Cesano de la lingua toscana, by C. Tolomei, 22, 48-9, 72 n.48 Cesarini Martinelli, L., 69 n.6, 88


INDEX Cesarotti, M., 194, 201, 203, 209, 215, 225 n.115 Chalcondylas, D., 10 Chaldean, 163 Chamard, H., 77 n .i23 Champ Fleury, by G. Tory, 20 chancery, imperial, 27 Character, by J. J. Becher, 221 n.56 characteristica universalis, 183-4 characters real, 157-8, 171 Charles IV, Emperor, King of Bohemia, 10, 112 Charles V, Emperor, 39 Charpentier, N., 41 chauvinism, linguistic, 198, 202-3 Chavy, P., 88 Cheke, J., 28 Cheremis, 188 Chevalier, J.-C., 36, 38, 71 n.25, n.29, 75 n.83, nn.85-7, n.89, 88, 216 n .io, 219 nn.38-9, 227 n .i28, 230 Chiappelli, F., 94 China, 157 China monumentis . . . illustrata, by A. Kircher, 162, 212 Chinese, 202 ideograms, 160 -1, 163, 170, 196, 217 n.21, 218 n.27 tones, 196 Choeroboscus, G., 126, 136 Chojan, J., 117 Chomarat, J., 69 n.6, n.8, 71 n.21, 73 n.65, 88

Chomsky, N., 13, 150, 168-9, 216 nn.6-7, 219 n.42, 230 Chosebus, see Cottbus Chouillet, A. M., 224 n.96 Chrabr, see Xrabr Christian Latin, 51 Christmann, H. H., 225 n.98, 230 Church Fathers, 153, 163 Church Slavonic, 2, 109, 116, 118 -19, 126-32, 136, 138-41 first grammar, 138 Chuvash, 188 Ciafardone, R., 227 n .i24 Cian, V., 76 n.109, 88 Cimbrians, 64 cimbrica, lingua, 65 Cimmerians, 49 and Cimbrians, 64 Cimmerius, 83 n .i67 Cipriani, G., 77 n.i 14, 88 cisla ‘numbers’ , 126 Citolini, A., 16, 35 Cittadini, C., 48 -9, 76 n.i 10, n.i 13 Claes, F., 67, 83 n .i68, 88-9

Clair, P., 218 n.38, 225 n.i 11 Clajus, J., 43 Claretus de Solencia, 111, 120 n.7 clarity of French, 198 classis, species, for J. Locke, 180 Clay, see Clajus, J. Clenardus (Nicolas van der Beke), 71 n .i9 Clerico, G., 71 n.31, 89 Cogitata et visa, by F. Bacon, 159 Colebrooke, H. T., 214 Colet, J., 10, 139 collatio linguarum, 188 Collectanea etymologica, by Leibniz, 222 n.68 Collegium Romanum, 160, 212 Collison, R. L., 68, 89 Colombat, B., 69 n .i, 89 ‘ colonial’ linguistics, 66 colonization and evangelization of Central and South America, 68 Comenius (Komensky, J. A.), 152, 172-5, 182, 184, 220 n.50 Comentarios reales que tratan del origine de los Yncas, by Garcilaso de la Vega, 161 Commedia, by Dante Alighieri, 74 n.79 Commentaria, by Annius of Viterbo, 49 Commentaria epistolarum conficiendarum, by H. Bebel, 8 Commentarii grammatici, by Despauterius, 8 Commentarii linguae graecae, by G. Bude,

51 common, character, 174 writing, 175 comparative linguistics, 45, 149, 156, 187 method, 214 comparison, 155, 162-3, 165, 183, 186-7, 207, 210, 212 Compendium totius grammaticae, by J. Anwykyll, 10 complex ideas, for J. Locke, 179 Computatio, by T. Hobbes, 176-7, 221 n -59 Condillac, E. Bonnot de, 152-3, 191, 194-7, 200-1, 203, 205-6 209-10, 216 n.3, 224 n.83, nn.94-6, 225 n.97, 226 n.i 17 conduit (language as the ‘ great conduit’), for J. Locke, 182 Conformite, by H. Estienne, 38 conformity, 44, 5 1-2 with Latin, 42 of Castilian with Greek, 57 o f French with Greek, 51 confusion of tongues, 158, 163, 170 connotation, 169

242 Consani, C., 89 consuetudo, 5, 29 consignificare, 1 1 Consilium, by Leibniz, 223 n.70 Constantine-Cyril, n o , 125, 141 n .i, n.3 Constantine of Ostrog, Prince, 139 Constantine the Philosopher, see Kostenecki, K. Constantine the Teacher of the Serbs, see Kostenecki, K. Contarino, by P. Valeriano, 77 n.i 15 Contextus universae grammaticae Despauterianae, by J. Pellisson, 8 conventionality of the sign, 11 Cooper, L., 67, 89 Coptic, 162 Corbinelli, J., 53, 78 n .i29 Cordemoy, G. de, 152-3, 204-5 Cornelius, P., 219 n.44, 230 Correas, G., 80 n.147 Correttione, by G. Castelvetro, 76 n.106 Corro, A. de, 41 corruptio-generatio, 47 corruption theory, 58, 156 o f Latin, 47, 55 Cortelazzo, M., 66, 89 Cortesi, M. S., 66, 69 n.8, 70 n.9, 89 Corti, M., 33, 70 n.9, 89 Corvinus, see Matthias Corvinus Coseriu, E., 41, 68, 73 n.63, 77 n.i 14, 80 n.150, 89-90, 216 n.io, 226 n.i 18, 230 Cosimo de’ Medici, 33, 49 Costa, G., 225 n.104, 230 Cottbus dialect, Lower Lusatia, 117 Counter-Reformation, 13 Cours d'etudes, by Condillac, 153, 194, 196-7 courses and recourses, for G. Vico, 189 courtly theory, 15, 20, 37 Couturat, L., 184, 217 n.17, 219 n.45, 220 n.49, n.53, 222 n.68, 223 nn.72-4, 230 Covarrubias, S. de, 67 creation of symbols, for G. Vico, 190 creativity, 150 Crimean Gothic, 81 n .i52 Cristofolini, P., 224 n.89 Croat, 109, 118 -19, 130* *43 n*i3» 161 dictionary, 119 glagolitic literature, 118 grammar, first, 119 linguistic thought, 120 n.30 recension o f Church Slavonic, 112-13 Croats, 1 Croce, B., 190, 193, 224 n.86, 230 Cruciger, G., 163

INDEX Crusca, 66 dictionary, influence abroad, 68 see Accademia della Crusca Cubelier de Beynac, J., 97 Cueva, L. de, 80 n.147 Cupaiolo, T., 76 n .i05, 90 Cyril, see Constantine-Cyril Cyrillo-Methodian mission, 123 Czech, 109-12, 114, 116 -17, 130 dialects, 112 dictionary, 113 grammar, 112 Czechs, 1 dages, 112 D ’Agostino, A., 66, 90 d’Alembert, J. Le Rond, 210 D ’Alessandro, A., 76 -7 n.i 14, 90 Dalgamo, G., 174, 220 n.53 Dainville, F. de, 72 n.35, 90 Dalmatian Croat, 119 Dalmatin, J., 118 Danielsson, B. A., 67, 73 n.67, 82 n. 160, 90 Daniil, Metropolitan, 142 n.6 Dante, see Alighieri Dascal, M., 221 n.59, 222 n.68, 230 Dasypodius, P., 110, 116 Daube, A., 75 n.94, 90 De analogia huius nominis ‘verbum' et quorundam aliorum, by B. Benvoglienti, 46 De Anna, L., 164, 230 De antiquitate et affinitate linguae zendicae .. . , by Paulino a Sancto Bartolomaeo, 213 De antiquo Statu Burgundiae, by G. Paradin, 77 n.122 de Brosses, C., 209, 213, 228 n .i38 De causis linguae latinae, by J. C. Scaliger, 10 -11, 54 De constantia iurisprudentis, by G. Vico, 225 n.104 De emendata structura latini sermonis, by T. Linacre, 10, 13, 34 De Etruriae regionis . . . , by G. Postel, 78 n.i 29 De Foenicum Uteris, by G. Postel, 78 n .i28 De Gaetano, A. L., 74 n.78, 90 De gentium aliquot migrationibus, by W. Lazius, 64, 82 n .i62 De Grave, B., 35 De hellenistica commentarius, by C. Saumaise, 164-5 de Heuiter, Pontus, 27 De italica pronuciatione et orthographia libellus, by S. D. Rhys, 23

INDEX De la antigua lengua, poblaciones y comarcas de las Espahas, by A. de Poza, 56 De la lingua che si parla et scrive in Firenze, by P. Giambullari, 22 De latinitate falso suspecta expostulatio Enrici Stephani, 76 n. 113 De Vexcellence de I’ affinite de la langue grecque avec la frangoise, by Blasset, 52 D e I’ influence des opinions sur le langage et du langage sur le opinions, by D. Michaelis, 207 De linguae gallicae origine, by J. Perion,

64 De linguarum origine, by G. Stiemhielm, 164 De lingue latine differentiis, by Guarino Veronese, 55 De Uteris et lingua Getarum, by B. de Smet, 80 n .i52 De Mas, E., 218 n.22, 230 De Mauro, T., 216 n.5, n .io, 217 n.22, 218 n.37, 221 n.56, 223 n.68, 224 n.83, n.91, 228 n .i37, 230 de Mesmes, J. P., 35 De Mott, B., 220 n.50, 230 de Neve, O., 67, 90 De optimo genere grammaticorum hebraicorum commentarius, by T. Bibliander, 81 n .i56 De origine, usu et ratione vulgarium vocum, by J. Bourgoing, 79 n .i36 De originibus, by G. Postel, 78 n .i28 De orthographia bohemica, attr. to J. Hus, 111—12 De orthographia germanica, ac potius suevica, by H. Wolf, 27 De orthographia linguae belgicae, by A. Sexagius, 27 De Petris, A., 68, 90 De prisca Celtopaedia, by J. Picard, 52, 64 De pronuntiatione linguae gallicae libri duo, by C. de Sainliens, 26 D e ratione communi omnium linguarum et literarum commentarius, by T. Bibliander, 62-3, 81 n .i58 De recta et emendata linguae anglicanae scriptione dialogus, by T. Smith, 20, 28 De recta et emendata linguae grecae pronuntiatione, by T. Smith, 28 De recta pronunciatione latinae linguae dialogus, by J. Lipsius, 83 n .i69 de Sacy, S., 228 n .i35 De Sanctis, F., 219 n.39

243 de Smet, Bonaventure (Vulcanius), 60, 80 n.i 52 de Smet, G., 67, 90 D e tradendis disciplinis, by L. L. Vives, 81 n.i 58 De vulgari eloquentia, by Dante Alighieri, 21, 53-4, 72 n.48, 78 n .i29 de W ez, G., 35 de Worde, Wynkyn, 10 deep, vs surface structure, 13 variety of languages, for J. Locke, 180 Defence et illustration, by J. Du Bellay, 77 n.i 23 Defensio verae translationis . . . , by J. Sandecki-Malecki, 115 degeneration of languages, 156, 166, 169 Degli elementi del parlar toscano, by G. Bartoli, 22 D el origen, by B. de Aldrete, 59, 80 n .i49 Del Paso y Troncoso, F., 68, 91 D ellforigine di Firenze, by G. B. Gelli, 76 n.i 14 Demaiziere, C., 75 n.88, 91 Demonet-Launay, M.-L., 79 n .i34, 82 n.165, 91 Des Autels, G., 19, 25, 28, 73 n.6o Des tropes, by C. C. du Marsais, 228 n .i28 Descartes, R., 152-4, 166, 172, 174-5, 204, 219 n.41, n.48 Descartes’ letter to Mersenne, 152, 166, 172 descriptivism, 14 deshabillage de /' esprit, 206 Desiderata, by Leibniz, 188, 223 n.77 Despauterius, 8, 14, 114 Deux dialogues, by H. Estienne, 78 n .i24 development of grammar, for G. Vico, 192 diachronic approach, 46, 214 and comparative linguistics, 59 diachrony, for J. Locke, 180, 193 dialect, 46 its dignity, 198 speech, 73 n.50 dialectica, 5 dialectics, 3, 8 Dialogo, by J. de Barros, 41, 58 Dialogo, by P. de Magalhaes de Gandaro, 59 Dialogo da vigiosa vergonha, by J. de Barros, 75 n.93 Dialogo de la lengua, by J. de Valdes, 24, 55 Dialogo em louvor da nossa linguagem, by J. de Barros, 75 n.93 Dialogo in defensione della lingua thoscana, by S. Marmocchini, 77 n.i 14

244 Dialogo sopra le lingue volgari, by P. Valeriano, 49-50, 77 n.i 15 Dialogorum de linguae gallicae origine, by J. Perion, 52 Didlogos, by L. de Cueva, 80 n.147 Diatriba de Europaeorum linguis, by J. J. Scaliger, 165 Diaz Rubio, E., 68, 91 Dibbets, G. R. W., 27, 91 Diccionario de la lengua castellana, of the Spanish Academy, 199 Di Cesare, D., 217 nn.10-11, 218 n.26, 224 n.91, 230 Dictionarium, by A. Calepino, 66 Dictionarium, by P. Dasypodius, 116 Dictionarium quatuor linguarum, by H. Megiser, 39, 81 n .i60 Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum, by F. Vrancic, 119 Dictionarium seu latinae linguae thesaurus, by R. Estienne, 66 Dictionarium teutonico-latinum, by C. van Kiel, 83 n .i68 Dictionary o f the English Language, by S. Johnson, 199 Dictionnaire de L Academic frangaise, 199 Dictionnaire etymologique, by G. Menage, 199 Dictionnaire frangoys-latin, by R. Estienne, 67, 116 Didactica magna, by Comenius, 220 n.50 Didascalia, by Z. Bernik, 118 Diderichsen, P., 228 n .i37, 230 Diderot, D., 153, 194, 203, 205, 210, 213, 225 n.109, 227 n.127 Die rechte weis auffs kurtzist lesen zu lernen, by V. Ickelsamer, 27 Diels, P., 121 diglossia, ancient, 56 in the Middle Ages, 17 dignitas, 109 Dillinger, D., 71 n.32, 91 Dini, P. U., 102 Dionisotti, C., 23, 46, 68, 72 n.46, 74 nn.76-7, 76 n.102, 77 n.i 15, 91 Dionysius Areopagiticus, 141 n.i Dionysius Thrax, 125 Dis Samothes, ancestor of the French Gauls, for Annius, 78 n.127 Discorso, by A. Persio, 5 0 -1, 77 n.i 18 Discorso intorno alia nostra lingua, by N. Machiavelli, 74 n.79 Discours de la methode, by R. Descartes, 204 Discours physique de la parole, by G. G. de Cordemoy, 204

INDEX Discours sur /’ uiversalite de la langue frangaise, by A. de Rivarol, 203 Discursos, by G. Lopez Madera, 80 n.147 Dissertation, by J. D. Michaelis, 226 n .i23 Dissertation on the Origin o f Language, by A. Smith, 226 n.i 18 Dmitrij Tolmac, 137 Dobrovsky, J., 113 Dobson, E. J., 28, 72 n.40, 73-4 nn.65-9,

9i Doctrinale, by Alexandre de Villedieu, 4,

7-8 Dolezel, P., 117 Dominicy, M., 230 Donat francois, by J. Barton, 31 Donatus, 3-4, 6, 10, 43, n o , 112, 136-7, 140 Donatz proensals, 31 Donawische, 27 Donze, R., 219 n.38, 231 Dortelata, Neri, 22 dot above the letter, in Czech, 111 Doubravsky z Doubravy, R., 112 Droixhe, D., 45, 69 n.*, 81 n .i52, 82 n.165, 91, 156, 163, 216 n.io, 217 n.13, n.21, 218 n.23, nn.31-4, 223 n.77, n.8o, 227 n .i25, 228 n .i37, 231 Drosai, J., 36 Druids, 38 Du Bellay, J., 52, 77 n .i23 Du Marsais, C. Chesneau, 153, 203, 210, 227 n.128 Dubois, C. G., 75 n.87, n.89, 77 nn.120-1, 78 nn.125-6, 78 n .i30, 79 nn.133-4,

9i Dubois, J., 25, 35-7, 45, 49, 53-4, 60, 78 n.125, 79 n.135 Dukat, V., 121 Dumont-Dumaiziere, C., 72 n.42 Duret, C., 63, 79 n.131, 81 n .i58 Dutens, L., 186, 222 n.68 Dutz, K., 219 n.45, 222 n.68, 231 Dvorak, E., 120 n .i4, 121 Dworzanin polski, by L. Gomicki, 115, 120 n.23 Eberenz, R., 68, 92 Eberhard de Bethune, 3 Eco, U., 218 n.31, 219 n.45, 220 n-5°> nn.52-4, 231 educational system, 68 Egyptian, 161-2, 170 hieroglyphs, 155 Egyptians, 46 Eight Parts o f Speech, 123, 125, 127 Eisenstein, E., 72 n.44, 92 elegantia, 5, 11


INDEX elegantia liguae latinae, 9 Elegantie, by L. Vaila, 4-6 , 8, 69 n.6 Elert, C. C., 218 n.36, 231 elision, 14 Elizabeth I, Queen, 35 ellipsis, 13, 211 Renaissance theory, 71 n.32 Ellis, R. L., 217 n.22 Emillinus, Helfricus, 113 emithologia, 53, 78 n .i27 Emmaus monastery, 112 empiricist line, 154, 157-8, 177-8, 180, 182, 195, 210, 214-15 Enchiridion, by J. Kolross, 27 Encomium oratonis dominicae, by H. Megiser, 63 encyclopaedia of sciences, for Leibniz,

183-4 Encyclopedie, 2 10 -11, 227 n .i27 English, 202 monolingual dictionary, 67 -Spanish dictionaries, 67 English Grammar, by B. Jonson, 12 Entretiens d'Ariste et d ’ Eugene, by D. Bouhours, 198, 202 enuntiatio, 71 n.25 Epistola de le lettere, by G. G. Trissino, 21 Epistolaris de historia etymologica dissertatio, by Leibniz, 186, 222 n.68 epistolary or vulgar language, for G. Vico,

193 Erasmus, 5, 9-10 , 16, 28, 69 n.8, 71 n.21, 73 n.65, 78 n.125, 114 on Greek pronunciation, 73 n.65 Ercolano, by B. Varchi, 47 Eroms, H.-W., 85 erotemata, 125, 140 Erotemata, by Moschopoulos, 126, 130 Esclaircissement de la langue franqoyse, by J. Palsgrave, 35 Essai, by Condillac, 194-6, 200, 205-6 Essay, by T. Nugent, 225 n.96 Essay, by J. Wilkins, 174, 176, 220 n.55 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, by J. Locke, 177-82, 186, 204, 221 n.6o Esteve Serrano, A., 72 n.40, 73 n.57, 92, 103 Estienne, H., 9, 26, 37-8, 49, 5 1-2 , 54-5, 70 n.19, 76 n.i 13, 77 n.i 19, 78 n.124, 80 n.143 Estienne, R., 8, 25-6, 35, 37, 66, n o , 116 Estonian, 188 ethology, 153 Etruria, 49 Etruscan, 53, 56 Etymologiae, by Isidore, 58

Etymologiae, sive origines dictionum germanicarum, by A. Helvigius, 65 etymological research, 183, 187, 193, 210 Etymologicum teutonicae linguae, by C. van Kiel, 65, 83 n .i68 Etymologie, by A. R. J. Turgot, 211 Euthymian restoration, 128-9 Euthymius, 127-9, M* Evangeliarium, 141 n.i evangelization of Central and South America, 68 everyday Latin, 9 ex natura relations, 4 Exarch, see John Exarch Excelencia de la Monarquia y reyno de Espaha, by G. Lopez Madera, 80 n .i 4 7

Exotericarum exercitationum liber, by J. C. Scaliger, 79 n .i33 explanatory concepts, 4 extra-European languages, 45 Eyn nutzlich buchlein ettlicher gleich stymender worther Aber ungleichs verstandes, by J. Fabritius, 27 ezykb, 129 Fabritius, J., 27 Faithfull, R. G., 76 n .i09, 92 Farenga, P., 87 Farrer, L. E., 75 n.84, 92 Fattori, M., 220 n.50 Fauchet, C., 54, 79 n .i36 Fernandez de Palencia, A., 67 Ferrari, M., 102 Ferrari, P., 102 Ferriani, M., 229 Fessia, L., 35, 75 n.82, 92 Ficino, M., 66 figurae constructionis, 13 Filelfo, F., 8 Filgueira Alvado, A., 68, 92 Filomates, V., 112 Finnish, 188 and Hungarian relation, 164 Fiorelli, P., 73 nn.53-4, 92 Firenzuola, A., 21, 72 n.48 First Fruits, by J. Florio, 35 First Part o f the Elementarie, by R. Mulcaster, 29 Fischer, J. E., 188 Fish, M. H., 224 n.89 Flajshans, V., 120 n.7, 121 Flavio Biondo, see Biondo Flavio Flavius Josephus, 50 Flemish, 163 school, 218 n.34 flood, 49

246 Flood, J., 102 Florentine, 199 Academy, 22, 33-4, 49, 53 ‘Aramaics’ , 50, 54 humanism, 30 Floriani, P., 77 n.i 15, 92 Florio, J., 35, 66 Florio, M., 35 Floris italicae linguae libri, by A. Monosini, 50, 77 n.i 18 Foffano, T., 102 Folchino dei Borfoni, 4, 70 n.9 Folena, G., 68, 92, 225 n.99, n.107, 231 Fonti della lingua toscana, by C. Tolomei, 48 foreign-language vocabularies in Europe, 68 formaliter, 11 Formigari, L., 154, 156, 180, 216 n.4, n.io, 217 nn.10-11, 218 n.22, nn.25-6, n.37, 220 n.50, nn.53-5, 221 n.56, n.59, 221 n.6o, n.63, n.65, 223 n.68, 226 n.i 16, n.i 19, n.121, n.124, 227 n .i25, 228 nn.136-7, 231 Fortunio, G. F., 20-1, 32-3, 35, 72 n.45 Foucault, M., 45 France, 2, 16, 24, 41, 189, 197, 215 Franco Subri, M. R., 74 n.8o, 92 Franco-Gallia, by F. Hotman, 79 n .i36 Frangk, F., 26-7 Frank, son of Hector and king of Gaul, 51 Frank, T., 220 n.55, 231 Frasso, G., 102 Freidhof, G., 120 n .i5, 121, 142 n.4, 148 Fremdwdrterhiicher, 67 French, 163, 167, 170, 200, 202-3, 205 Academy, 199, 202 grammars for the British, 36 Greek and Hebrew elements, 54 Greek origin, 51, 54 lexicography, 66 Revolution, 189 universal, rational language, 189 Freydank, D., 145 Freytag-Loringhoff, B. von, 219 n.38 ‘friends of languages’ , 60 Froben, H., 80 n .i52 Frosch, C., 62 Friihgeschichte, 80 n.151 Fubini, R., 70 n. 116, 92 Fuchsperger, O., 27 Funke, O., 44, 71 n.30, 75 -6 nn.95-6, 92-3, 218 n.22, 219 n.45, 220 n.55 Fuzier, J., 68, 93 Gabba, E., 76 n .i05, 93 Gajek, B., 85 Galharde, G., 26, 41

INDEX Gallic, Greek origin, 64 Gallicae linguae institutio, by J. Pillot, 37 Gallina, A., 66, 93 Gallus, 78 n .i27 Gamberini, S., 35, 93 Gandolfo, M. D., 108 Garavelli Mortara, B., 219 n.39, 231 Garcia, C., 13, 40, 70 n .n , 71 n.31, 93 Garcilaso de la Vega, 68, 161, 218 n.28 Gardiner, S., 28 Garibay, E., 56 Garin, E., 103, 217 n .i4, 231 Gamier, J., 36 Garvin, B., 74 n.8o, 93 Gasparo Veronese, 6 Gatti, G., 73 n.53, 93 Gauger, H.-M., 89 Gaulish-Romance dialect dictionaries, 67 Gauls, 53 Gaza, T., 140 Gebauer, J., 121 Geissler, H., 121, 220 n.50, 231 Gelen, S., 60-2, 80 n .i52 Gelli, G. B., 49, 76 n.i 14 Gello, by P. F. Giambullari, 76 n.i 14 general, grammar, 155, 198, 210, 214 and reasoned grammar, 166 signs, for J. Locke, 179 terms, for J. Locke, 178 generative grammar, 13 genetic, and organic images, 45 relation of languages, 165, 212 genie des langues, see genius of languages genius of languages, 197, 200-1, 205, 222 n.67 Gensini, S., 215 n .i, 217 n.io, 220 n.50, 222 n.68, 223 nn.67-8, 224 n.95, 225 n.ioo, n.107, 231-2 genus, differences, species, for J. Wilkins,

175 Georg von Niimberg, 66 Gerasimov, D., see Dmitrij Tolmac Gerhardt, C. I., 222 n.68 Gerl, H. B., 69 n.6, 93 German, 163, 198, 201-2, 205 comparison with French, 64 dictionaries, 67 grammarians, 75 n.94 influence on Netherlandish lexicography, 67 lexicography, 67 linguistic unity, 27 vernacular, 42 Germanic, family, 165 -Persian correspondences, 81 n .i52 philology, 60 world, 59

INDEX Germany, 7, 15, 26, 207, 215 Gesner, C., 62-3, 81 n .i59, 116, 162 gestures, 157 Geuljans, R. J., 85 Geymonat, L., 216 n.3 Ghinassi, G., 72 n.44, 93 Giambelluca-Kossova, A., 141 n.2, 145 Giambullari, P. F., 22, 34, 49, 53, 76 -7 n.i 14, 78 n .i29 Gian Pietro d’Avenza, 70 n.9 Giard, L., 69 n.*, n.6, 72 n.36, 76 n.97, 93 Giese, R., 71 n.21, 93 Giovanni Nanni, see Annius Girardi, E. N., 77 n.i 14, 93 Girbal, L., 218 n.38, 225 n.i 11 Giunte, by L. Castelvetro, 34-5, 47-8, 76 n.i 13 glagol ‘ verb’ , 140 Glagolitic, 111, 118 -19 Glatigny, M., 68, 93 Glaumalis du Vezelet, see Des Autels, G. Glogowczyk, J., 114 Glosniki, by J. Seklucjan, 114 Glossarius, 111 Goemans, L., 27, 93 Goldblatt, H., 119 n.2, 120-3, 129-30, 142 n.8, 143 n .i2, n.16, 145-7 Golling, J., 71 n.33, 94 Gomer, son of Japhet, 49, 53, 64-5, 78 n.127 Gonzales de la Calle, P. U., 70 n .u , 72 n-39, 94 Gomicki, L., 115-16, 120 n.23 Goropius Becanus, J., 64-5, 82 n .i65, 163 Gorskij, A. V., 142 n.6, 145 Gothic, 214 governing, 4 government, 211 Graciotti, S., 120 n.30, 121 Graecismus, by Eberhard de Bethune, 3 Graeco-vemacular etymologies, 46 Grafton, A., 71 n.25, 94 Gramatica castellana, by A. de Nebrija, 20, 29, 31, 40, 42, 55, 74 n.72 Gramatica castellana, by C. de Villalon, 24, 40 Gramatica da lingua portuguesa, by F. de Oliveira, 26, 41, 58 Gramatica da lingua portuguesa, by J. de Barros, 26, 58, 75 n.93 Gramatica de la lengua vulgar de Espana, anon., 39 Gramaticno iskazanie, by J. Krizanic, 143 n.13 Gramatyka slovenhska jazyka, 138 Gramere, by P. de la Ramee, 26 Grammaire, by N. Beauzee, 211

247 Grammaire, by Condillac, 194, 196 -7 Grammaire, of Port-Royal, 153, 165-70, 198, 202 Grammaire espagnole, by C. Oudin, 41 Grammaire generale, by N. Beauzee, 228 n.i 29 Grammaire italienne, by J. P. de Mesmes, 35 grammairiens-philosophes, 210 grammar, 3-4, 158 teaching, 6 teaching in German universities, 7 vs dialectics, 7 Grammar o f the Engish Language, by J, Wallis, 227 n .i26 grammatica, 3, 18 Grammatica, by J. Turmair, 8 Grammatica, by L. B. Alberti, 20, 29-30, 74 n.71 Grammatica, by P. de la Ramee, 12 Grammatica anglicana, by P. Greaves, 12, 44, 7* n.30 Grammatica de la lingua italiana, by A. Citolini, 35 Grammatica gallica, by J. Serreius de Badonviller, 36 Grammatica germanicae linguae, by J. Clay, 43 Grammatica latina, by Ph. Melanchthon, 8 Grammatica Philippi Melanchthonis, 112 Grammatica samscrdamica, by Paulinus a Sancto Bartolomaeo, 213 Grammatica volgar, by M. A. Ateneo Carlino, 33 Grammatika slovenska, by L. Zizanii, 139-40 Grammaticae hohemicae . . . , by V. B. Nedozersky, 113 Grammaticae institutiones, by J. Heinrichmann, 8 Grammaticae quadriliguis partitiones, by J. Drosai, 36 grammatical science vs art, 10 grammaticality, 14 grammatice loqui, 5 Grammatices rudimenta, by J. de Barros, 75 n.93 Grammatices rudimenta, by S. Zaborowski, 114 Grammatika ceska, by V. Optat et al., 112 gramota, 132, 143 n.19 Grantham, H., 35 Grass, R., 68, 94 Grave, B., 39 Gravelle, S. S., 69 n.6, 94 Grayson, C., 74 n.71, 94 great chain of being, 204

248 Greaves, P., 12, 44 Greek, 46, 57, 59, 130, 158, 163, 167, 213 -Celtic unity, 64 five dialects, 46 humanist system, 46 in Southern Italy, 51 modem, 161 origin of French, 16 origin of vernacular, 50-1 presumption towards Latin, 47 vs Latin, 21 Greenblatt, S. J., 68, 94 Greene, J., 156, 221 n.57, 225 n.113, 226 n.i 16, 227 n.125, 232 Gregoire, B. H., abbe, 189, 223 n.81 Grenon, P. J., 68, 94 Grezen, M., 122 Griffith, T. G., 73 n.55, 94 Grimsley, R., 226 n .i21 Grise, C. M., 88 Groening, M., 120 n.6 Ground Work, by F. Lodwick, 174 Grubmiiller, K., 67, 94 Grundsatze, by J. N. Tetens, 227 n .i24 Grzegorczyk, P., 121 Guarani, 161 Guarino Veronese 3-4, 8, 19, 31, 55, 70 n.9 Guglielminetti, M., 218 n.25 Guichard, E., 162-3 Guillerme, L., 68, 94 Guillon, R., 78 n.125 Guitarte, G., 68, 94 Gulstad, D., 72 n.40, 94 Gulya, J., 223 n.77, n.79, 232 Gusdorf, G., 217 n.20, 228 nn. 137-8, 232 Gzell, P., 112 hacek ‘hook’ , 111 Halkin, L. H., 71 n.21, 95 Hall, J. R., 221 n.57, 232 Halluin, G. d\ 8-10, 14, 70 nn.17-18 Halm, K. von, 70 n .i3 Ham, 62 Hamm, J., 143 n. 13,146 Handbuchlin gruntlichs berichts, recht und wolschrybens, by J. H. Meichssner, 2 6-7 handicapped people and language, 153, 157, 208 Haneron, A., 70 n .i5 Haney, J. V., 145 Hanka, V., 120 n.7, 121 Hankamer, P., 75 n.94, 95, 219 n.47, 232 Hanxleden, E., 212 Hanzeli, V. E., 218 n.24, 232 Harmonia linguarum, by G. Cruciger, 163

INDEX Harmonie etymologique, by E. Guichard, 162 Hamois, G., 227 n.128, 232 Harris, James, 222 n.67, 225 n.109, 227 n.126 Hart, J., 20, 28, 73 n.67 Hartmann, D., 90 Hartmann, G., 72 n.40, 95 Hausmann, F. J., 25, 73 n.6o, 95 Havranek, B., 120 n.8, 121 Hayashi, T., 67, 95 Heath, D. D., 217 n.22 Heath, S. B., 68, 95 Heath, T., 7, 69 n.2, n.8 Hebrew, 60, 62-3, 65, 130, 162-4 Hector, 51 Heestermans, H., 89 Hegius, A., 8 Heilmann, L., 221 n.56 Heinekamp, A., 222 n.68, 232 Heinrichmann, J., 8 Heintel, E., 226 n .i24 Helber, S., 27 Hellenism, in vernacular, 57 Hellenizing, 50 Humanist tardition, 53 idea of common language, 43 movement, 16 theory, 52 Helvigius, A., 65 Hemmerdinger, B., 65, 95 Henderson, C., 106 Henry IV, king of France, 41 Herder, J. G., 194, 207, 209, 215, 218 n.28, 225 n.109, 226 n.122, n.124, 227 n.125 Herding, O., 95 Hermes, by J. Harris, 225 n.109, 227 n.126 Herodotus, 50, 79 n. 134, 82 n .i65 Herrera, F. de, 24 Hervas y Panduro, L., 189, 223 n.8o Hesychasm, 127-8 Hewes, G. W., 217 n.19, 232 hieroglyphic language, for G. Vico, 193, 224 n.90 hieroglyphs, 157-8, 191, 217 n.21 ‘high’ vs ‘ low ’ line in linguistic thought, 156, 160, 166, 170, 183 Historia del gran regno de la China, by J. C. Mendoza, 161 Historical Essay .. ., by J. Webb, 163 historical, grammar, 58 linguistics, 47, 215 study of language, 22, 187, 214-15 view, 45 historicity of languages, 215 for G. Vico, 190


INDEX history, 156 and diachrony, for G. Vico, 193 Hobbes, T., 154, 165, 176 -7, 181-3, 221 n -59 Hochst Reinische, 27 Hofacker, E. P., 98 Hoffmann, E. T. A., 225 n. 115 Hofler, M., 97 Holy, A., 227 n .i26 Holyband, see Sainliens homophones in French, 25 Horbatsch, (>.,145, 147 Homik, M., 120 n.27, 121 Hotman, F., 54, 79 n .i36 Hoybye, P., 66, 95 Hufeland, K., 102 Huffiness, M. L., 72 n.44, 95 Humanism, 59, 119 n.4, 127, 134 Humanist grammar, 6 in England, 10 in Poland, 114 Latin, 17 philology, 32 presumptions toward the vernacular, 47 reform, 7 religious approach, 47 Humboldt, W. von, 209 Hungarian, 11 6 -1 7 and Finnish relation, 164, 187 Hus, J., h i , 114, 117 Hymes, D., 105, 217 n .io, 232 Hypomneses de gallica lingua, by H. Estienne, 37 Ianua, anon., 4 Ickelsamer, V., 27, 42 Idea et desideria de colligendis linguarum speciminibus, by Catherine II, 188 ideal language, 172 ideograms, 157, 162 idola fori, 158 Ijsewijn, J., 69 n.6, 70 n .i2, 83, 95 Ijsewijn Jacobs, J., 70 n.15, 95 Ikonnikov, V. S., 145 illitteralis, 19 Illustrations, by J. Lemaire de Beiges, 51, 77 n.121 ime ‘noun’ , 126, 140 imperfections o f human languages, 170,

175 In linguam gallicam Isagwge, by J. Dubois, 25* 35- 6, 79 n .i35 Incas, 68 Indo-European 45, 62, 65, 165 philology, 61 ‘Indoscythica’ , 82 n.165 innate ideas, 187

Institutio gallicae linguae in usum iuventutis germanicae, by J. Gamier, 36 Institutiones, by A. Manuzio, 6 Institutiones grammaticae, by J. Brassicanus,

8 Institutionum florentinae linguae libri duo, by E. Lapini, 35 Institutionum gramaticarum de lingua hebraea . . . , by T. Bibliander, 81 n.i 56 Institutionum linguae illyricae libri duo, by B. Kasic, 119 Institutionum linguae turcicae libri quatuor, by H. Megiser, 82 n .i60 Introduciones latinas, by A. de Nebrija, 7, 3 L 40 Introductio in linguam germanicam, by P. Schede, 27 Introductiones latinae, by A. de Nebrija, 7 Introductorie for to Lerne to Rede, to Pronounce and to Speke French, by G. de W ez, 35 Introductorium linguae latinae, by W. de Worde, 10 Invectiva contra modos significandi, by A. Hegius, 8 inversions, 203 Irano-Germanic comparison, 65 Irmscher, H. D., 226 n.124 Isella, D., 97 Isidoneus germanicus, by J. Wimpfeling, 8 Isidore of Seville, 58 Ising, E., 43, 73 n.64, 75 n.94, 96 Ising, G., 67, 96 Istiny pokazanie, by Z. Otenskij, 144 n.21 Italian, 163, 173, 202, 205, 220 n.50 dialects, 34 -English lexicography, 66 -French lexicography, 66 -German linguistic book, 66 grammars for foreigners, 35-6 grammatical tradition, 4, 32 Humanist theories of translation, 68 literary lexicography, 66 orthography, 20, 22 -Spanish lexicography, 66 Italian Grammer, by S. Lentulo, transl. by H. Grantham, 35 Italianist ideas o f G. G. Trissino, 33 Ttalianists’ , 50 ltalicae grammatices praecepta ac ratio, by S. Lentulo, 35 Italy, 41, 198, 202, 215 Itinerarum Galliae Narbonensis, by J. I. Pontanus, 64, 82 n .i63 Ivanov, A. I., 145 Iversen, E., 217 n.21, 232

250 hbornik Svjatoslava, 136 izlozenija ‘ moods’ , 126 Izzo, H., 73 nn.54-5, 96 Jacobin linguistic policy, 189 Jagic, V. I., 121, 135, 141 n .i, 142 nn.3-6, n.9, 143 nn.16-17, n.19, 145-6 Jakobson, R., 120 n.i 1, 121, 146 Jakubica, M., 117 Jankovic de Mirievo, F., 189 Janow, J., 121 Janua linguarum reserata, by Comenius, 172-3, 220 n.50 Janus, 150 Januszowski, J., 115 Japanese syllabary, 160 Japhet, 49, 53, 58, 62, 64, 83 n .i67 Jeanne d ’Albret, Queen of Navarre, 41 Jeantet Fields, R., 79 n.131, 96 Jednota bratrska, 112 Jellinek, M. H., 26, 72 n.40, 75 n.94, 96 Jenc, K. A., 121 Jensen, K., 69 nn.1-2, 71 n.23, n.25, n.28, 96 jer, 112 Jespersen, O., 73 n.67, 96 Jesuits, 14, 38, 68, 72 n.35, 115, 160-1, 189, 212 Jewish, grammarians, 112 settlements in Spain, 17 Jews, 158 jezykb, 129 John Exarch, 124-5, 131* 141 n .i, 142 n.6 John of Damascus, Saint, 124-5, l 34> l 42 n.6 Johnson, Samuel, 199 Joly, A., 94, 216 n.7, 219 n.38, 232 Jones, R. F., 218 n.22, 232 Jones, Sir William, 165, 213-14, 228 n.140 Jones, W. J., 67, 72 n.36, 96 Jonson, Ben, 12 Josephus, see Flavius Josephus Joubert, L., 54 Judaizers, 132, 143 n .i8 Juliard, P., 227 n .i28, 232 Julien, J., 75 n.85, 96 Junghans, H., 105 Jungmayr, J., 90 Junius, Adrianus, 82 n .i62 Kalajdovic, K. F., 142 n.4, n.6, 146 Kaljuta, A. M., 119 n.3, 123 Kant, I., 149, 216 n.5, 227 n .i24 Kant’s ‘ silence’ , 216 n.5, 227 n .i24 Karpov, A. I., 146 Kashubian, 119 n.3 Kasic, B., 119, 139

INDEX Kazarova, N. A., 146 Keipert, H., 146 Keller, H. E., 85 Kemp, J. A., 227 n.126 Kempe, A., 218 n.36 Kempelen, W. von, 205, 225 n. 115 Kenny, A., 101 Kepler, J., 16 Kessler, E., 83 Kibbee, D. A., 69 n*, 75 n.83, 96 Kiel, C. van, 65, 67 Kikongo, 161 kinship of languages, 156 Kircher, A., 161-2, 212, 218 n.31, 221 n.56, 228 n.137 Klibanov, A. I., 146 Knaanic, 112 Knapski, G., 115-16 Knjzka slow czeskych . . . , by M. Benesovsky, 113 Knops, M., 81 n .i54, 96 Knowlson, J. R., 219 n.45, 223 n-74* 2 32 Kochanowski, J., 115-16 Kociuba, O., 120 n .i6, n.20, 121 Koemer, E. F. K., 91 Kohonen, V., 75 n.95, 96 Kolb, H., 85 Kolesov, V. V., 135, 146 Kolross, J., 27 Kombol, M., 120 n.30, 122 Komensky, J. A., see Comenius Konetze, R., 68, 96 Konneker, B., 68, 96 Koran, translation into Latin, 62 Kormcaja kniga, 136 Koska, V., 136 Kostenecki, K., 129-31, 143 n .n Kovtun, L. S., 146 Kralice Bible, 112-13, 117 Kralicka bible, 112 Kraus, C. J., 223 n.79 Krelj, S., 118 Kresalkova, J., 66, 97 Kretzmann, N., 101, 217 n.io, 221 n.63, 232 Kristeller, P. O., 72 n.37, 88, 97, 119 n.4 Krizanic, J., 143 n .i3, 146 Kromer, M., 116 Kucata, M., 121 Kucharski, A., 120 n.21, 122 Kuev, K. M., 141 n.2, 142 n.9 Kuhn, T. S., 59 Kuiper, G. C., 83 Kukenheim, L., 225 n.101, 227 n.128, 233 Kul’man, N., 146 Kulov dialect, Upper Sorbian, 117 Kundelka, M., 122

INDEX Kuntz, M. L., 78 n .i26, 97 Kuricyn, F., 132 Kuznecov, P. S., 146 La Garanderie, M.-M., 70 n .i9, 97 Labarre, A., 97 Lagreid, A., 82 n.160, 120 n.28, 122 Lakoff, R., 72 n.34, 97, 216 n.7, 233 Lambert, J., 227 n.124 Lambley, K., 75 n.83, 97 Lancelot, C., 165, 219 n.39 langage d’action, for Condillac, 191, 195-6, 206 Langley, A. G., 222 n.68 language, and culture, 158 and education, 6, 152-3 and knowledge, 152, 195 and logic, 152 and theology, 151 and thought, 152, 166 change, 165, 171 family, 156, 165, 183, 185-7, 212 learning, 54 natural and formalized, 177 of action, see langage d'action of nature, 171 for J. Bohme, 154 pathology, 54 question, 15-16, 50, 59, 72 n.36, 108-9 reform, 154, 174, 177-8, 182, 185, 215 uniformity, 18 unity and diversity, 154 Langue des calculs, by Condillac, 194 Laodikijskoe postanie, by F. Kuricyn, 132-3, 144 n.20 Lapini, Eufrosino, 35 Lardet, P., 69 n.*, 71 n.25, 97> 102 Large, A., 219 n.45, 233 Lascaris, C., n o Lascaris, J., 78 n .i25, 140 Latin, 163, 167, 170, 188, 205, 213 Aeolic dialect, 46 archaic, 49 artificial language, 70 n .i6 conversation manuals 9 corruption of, 49, 57 -Czech dictionary, 113 debate for and against, 76 n .i09 derived from Cimbric, 64 derived from Greek 46 direct method, 71 n.21 -English lexicography, 67 -German dictionary, 67 -German-Czech dictionary, 115 -German-Polish dictionaries, 115 -German-Polish-Greek dictionary, by M. Volckmar, 115

251 grammar, 7, 155 grammarians, 30 grammatical tradition, 69 n.i historical and natural language, 70 n .i6 in Spanish universities, 70 n. 11 international language, 185 literary, 7 living language, 8 mixing with Germanic languages, 49 -Netherlandish glossaries, 67 -Polish dictionary, first, 115 syntax, 71 n.33 teaching, 172 as puberty rite, 72 n.35 in Protestant Europe, 69 n.i in the family, 71 n .i9 tradition, 135-6 -vernacular glossaries, 66 vs barbarian languages, 48 vs Greek, 5, 63, 73 n.49 vs vernacular, 47-8, 55, 198 vulgar vs literary, 49 latine loqui, 5 ,1 1 latine vs grammatice loqui, 9, 14 latinitas, 5 Latino-anglica grammar, 139 Lazius, W., 64, 82 n .i62 Le Roy, G., 224-5 n.96 Leau, L., 217 n.17, 219 n.45, 220 n-49* n.53, 223 nn.73-4 Ledda, G., 80 n.147, 97 Leesskonst, by O. Fuchsperger, 27 Legationis turcicae epistolae, by A. G. de Busbecq, 81 n .i52 Leibniz, G. W. von, 152, 156, 164, 172, 183-8, 192-3, 198, 214-15, 217 n.io, 218 n.37, 219 n.45, 221 n-6o, 222 n.68, 223 n.68, nn.77-8, 225 n.ioo Leibniz’s letter to H. Oidenbourg, 184, 222 n.68 Leksikon, by P. Berynda, 136 Leksis, by L. Zizanij, 136, 140 Lemaire de Beiges, J., 51 ‘ lengua companera del Imperio’ , 31, 40 Lentulo, S., 35 Lepschy, G. C., 69 n.*, 72 n.42, 73 n.50, 83 n.169, 97 Leroy Turcan, I., 225 n.102, 233 ‘ Lessico greco-latino Laur. Ashb. 1439’ , by M. Ficino, 66 Leto, Pomponio, 6, 70 n.9 Lettera in difesa della lingua volgare, by A. Citolini, 16 Lettere, by F. Sassetti, 212 Lettre sur les sourds et le muets, by D. Diderot, 227 n.127 Leviathan, by T. Hobbes, 176 -7, 221 n.59

252 Lewanski, R., 122 lexicography, 66, 187, 198 Lexicon latino-polonicum, by J. M^czynski, 116 Lexicum symphonum, by S. Gelen, 62, 80 n.i 52 Libellus grammatices, by N. Perotti, 112 Liber de differentia vulgarium linguarum, by C. de Bovelles, 34, 72 n.42 Libro subtilissimo intitulado honza de escribanos, by P. de Madariaga, 24 Libumio, N., 21, 72 n.48 lica ‘persons’ , 127 Lilienfeld, F. von, 146 Lily, W., 10, 14, 44, 71 n.22, 139 Linacre, T., 10, 13, 34, 71 n.23 Linde, S. B., 116 Lindemann, M., 67, 97 Lingua aegyptiaca restituta, by A. Kircher, 162 Lingua belgica, by A. van der Myle, 82 n.165, 163, 165 lingua franca, 186 lingua mexicana, language of the Aztecs, 68 lingua sancta, 164 linguae matriculares, 65 linguae sacrae, 65 Linguae vandalicae . . . , by J. Chojan, 117 Linguarum duodecim .. ., by G. Postel, 78 n.i 28 Linguarum methodus novissima, by Comenius, 220 n.50 Linguarum totius orhis vocabularia comparativa, by P. S. Pallas, 189 linguistic, colonization of America, 68 effects of printing, 72 n.44 policies of Church and Crown, 68 vs extra-linguistic approach, 7 Linke, H., 90 Linnaeus, C., 213 Lipsius, Justus (Joost Lips), 65, 83 n.169, 194 Lithuania, 139 Lithuanians, 2 Livet, C.-L., 38, 75 n.89, 97 living vs dead language, 76 n.109 Lo Cascio, V., 233 Lo Piparo, F., 217 n .io Locke, John, 152-6, 176-82, 185-7, 193-4, 204, 210 -15, 221 nn.60-1, nn.63-6, 222 nn.67-8 Lodwick, F., 174, 220 n.54 logic, 8, 214 and rhetoric, 12 logicism, 180, 211, 214-15 rejected by G. Vico, 190

INDEX iogicity of French, 168 Logique, by C. C. Du Marsais, 228 n .i28 Logique, by Condillac, 194 Logique of Port-Royal, 153-4, 165-6, 169, ■85 Longobards, 48 Lopacinski, H. R., 122 Lopez de Valencia, D., 80 n .i47 Lopez Madera, G., 57-8, 80 n .i47 Lord’ s Prayer in different languages, 188 Los, J., 120 n .i8, 122 Lottini, O., 221 n.58, 233 Louvain university, 8 Lovejoy, A. O., 225 n.i 10, 233 Ludolf, H. W., 120 n.6, 187 Ludovici, Georgius, 117 Ludwig, O., 90 Lull, R., 183 Lur’e, Ja. S., 146 Lusignan, S., 75 n.83 Luther, M., 15, 27, 42-3, 68 his ideas on translation, 68 Lutheran influence, 43 Lutz, C. E., 70 n .i4, 98 MacDonald, G., 67, 98 MacFarlane, I. D., 70 n .i2 Machiavelli, N., 74 n.79 Machometis Sarracenorum principis vita, by T. Bibliander, 81 n .i56 M^czynski, J., 110, 116 Madariaga, P. de, 24 Maddison, F., 92 Maffei, R., 46 Magalhaes de Gandavo, P. de, 58-9, 73 n.62 Magalotti, L., 218 n.25 Magnien, M., 97 Maine de Biran, M. F. P. Gonthier, 226 n.121 Makedonskij listok, 141 n.i Mamczarz, I., 120 n.23, 122 Mancinelli, A., 70 n.9 manera de significar, 31 Manuzio, Aldo, 6, 8, 10, 116, 119 Maraschio, N., 73 n.50, n.56, 98 Marazzini, C., 218 n.26, 228 n .i39, 233 Marconcini, C., 66, 98 Mares, F., 120 n .io, 122 Margolin, J.-C., 83 Marin, L., 233 Marineo Siculo, L., 56 marks, for J. Wilkins, 175 or notes, for T. Hobbes, 176 Marmocchini, S., 77 n.i 14 Marrone, C., 218 n.31, 233 Marsh, D., 69 n.6, 98

INDEX Martelli, L., 21, 72 n.48 Marti, M., 74 n.77 Martianus Capella, 70 n .i4 Martinez Ruiz, J., 80 n .i49, 98 Masnicyius, see Masnik, T. Masnik, T., 116 Master Klaret, see Claretus materialiter, 11 Matheeussen, C., 70 nn. 17-18, 71 n.21, 98 mathematics, 172, 177 Mathiesen, R. C., 129, 146 Matilla, M., 72 n.35, 98 Matore, G., 67, 98 Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, 63 Maupertuis, P. L. Moreau de, 206-7, 22^ n.121 Maxim Grek (Michael Trivoiis), 134-5, 137, 140, 145 Mayenowa, M. R., 120 n.17, 122 Mayer, P. H., 227 n.127 McNiven Hine, E., 224 n.95, 233 Mecchia, R., 227 n.127, 233 mechanical nature of people, 204 Mechanismus, by W. von Kempelen, 205 Mecherzynski, K., 120 n.20, 122 Meckovskaja, N. B., 139, 146 medieval copyists, 18 Megiser, H., 63, 67, n o , 118, 162 Meichssner, J. H., 27 Meigret, L., 19, 25-8, 36-8, 73 n.6o, 75 n.87, n.89 Melanchthon (Philipp Schwarzerd), 8, 14, 43, 70 n.14, n o , 114, 118 Melissus, see Schede, P. Melzi, R. C., 75 n.81, 76 n.i 13, 98 Menage, G., 199, 225 n .i02 Mendoza, J. C., 161 Menendez Pidal, G., 68 Meninski, F., n o mental alphabet, 172 Menteur de Lucien, by L Meigret, 73 n.6o Mercury, by J. Wilkins, 174 Merker, N., 227 nn. 124-5 Mersenne, M., 152, 166, 172 Meschini, A., 76 n .i05, 98 Mesgnien, F. L., see Meninski, F. Messerschmidt, D. G., 188 mesto-imene ‘pronoun’ , 126, 140 meta-linguistic dimension, for T. Hobbes, 176 Metasthenes, 50 Metcalf, G. J., 45, 62, 65, 81 n .i57, n .i59, 82 n.165, 98, 165, 218 nn.34-5, 233 Methode or Comfortable Beginning for all Unlearned, by J. Hart, 28 Methode raisonnee, by C. C. Du Marsais, 228 n .i28

253 Methodes, 153 Methodius, n o Micaglia, G., 119 Mical, N., abbd, 205 Michael, J., 75 n.95, 76 n.96, 98 Michaelis, J. D., 207, 223 n.74, 226 n .i23 Miechowita (Maciej z Miechowa), 116 Miglio, M., 87 Migliorini, B., 35, 72 n.40, 99 Mijl, A. van der, see Mylius Millcayac, 161 Millet, A., 72 n.40, n.43, 99 mind-body debate, 150 Minerva seu de causis linguae latinae, by F. Sanchez, 13-14, 71 n.31 Miranda, G „ 41 Miro Quesada, A., 68, 99 ‘missionary’ linguistics, 66, 160-1, 212 misuse of language, 171, 175 Mithridates, by C. Gesner, 63, 81 n .i59, 83 n.i 69, 162 mitterteutsche, 27 mixed modes, for J. Locke, 179-82, 186, 221 n.66 mnemonics, 173, 175, 220 n.50 modi significandi, 7 Modigliani, A., 87 Modist grammar, 10 Modistae, 11 Molina, A. de, 68 Molina, C. de, 68 Molina Redondo, J. A. de, 80 n.149, 99 Monboddo, James Burnett, Lord, 208-9, 223 n.74, 226 n.124, 227 nn.125-6 Monfasani, J., 69 n.7 monogenesis, 162-3, *86 Monosini, A., 5 0 -1, 77 n.i 18 Montaigne, M., 9, 70 n .i9 Montesquieu, C.-L. de Secondat, 213 Montoya, see Ruiz de Montoya Monucleus aureus, by A. Seitz, 70 n.14 mood, 12 Moravia, 112, 116 Moravia, S., 217 n .i6, n.20, 233 Moravian dialects, 113 More, T., 16 morphology, 13 Morpurgo Davies, A., 228 n. 137 Moschopoulos, M., 126, 130, 140 Moscow principality, 131 Moszynski, L., 120 n.io, n.19, 122 mother language, daughter language, sister languages, 45, 165, 212 motivation, 186 mots de nombre, 38 Mounin, G., 68, 99, 216 nn.9-10, 23 n.82, 169, 233


254 Mount Athos, 127, 134 Mulcaster, R., 29 Muller, C., 43, 99 Muller, J., 73 n.64, 75 n.9, 99 Muller, J. CL, 81 n.152, 99 Mumerus, F., see Mymer, F. Munarriz Peralta, J., 84 Muratori, L. A., 202 Murmelius, J., 115 Murzynowski, S., 115 Muscovite state, 130 mutability, 189 mute statue, for Condillac, 206 Mylius (A. van der Myle), 64-5, 82 n.165, 163, 165, 218 n.34 Mymer, F., 115 Myrayll de trobar, 31 mystical vs rationalistic line, 174 Nacalo bukvam po ortografii, 131 nacrhtania ‘ figures’ , 126-7 Nagel, R., 75 n.93, 99 Nahuatl and Spanish, 68 Napisanie o gramote, 132, 143 n.19 narecie ‘adverb’ , 126-7, *4° Narr, G., 73 n.6o, 226 n.i 18 Naselli, C., 75 n.82, 99 national, language, 15 languages, emancipation, 44 philologies, 44 traditions, 215 nationalistic and religious motives, 45 natural, history and human institutions, for G. Vico, 190 history o f grammar, for Condillac, 196 order, 4, 168, 196, 198, 202-3, 210 natural sciences, 206, 215 naturalness, 19 Nauwelaerts, M., 69 n.2, 99 Naylor, K., 145 Neander, M., n o Nebrija, A. de, 6 -9 , 14, 20, 23-4, 29, 31, 39-40, 42, 55-6, 67, 69 n.8, 70 n.i 1, 73 n.57, 74 n.72, 80 n.143 Necco, G., 226 n.124 Nederduitse orthographie, by P. de Heuiter, 27 Nedozersky, V. B. (Laurentius Benedicti Nudozerinus), 113 ‘ nefarious grammarians’ , 69 n.2 Nembroth, 79 n.131 Nencioni, G., 74 n.77, 99, 225 n.103, 233 Nestorian heresy, 143 n .u Netherlandish, 9 Flemish, 163 lexicography, 67 Neues Organon, by J. Lambert, 227 n.124

Nevostruev, I. K., 142 n.6, 145 New Essays, by Leibniz, 185-7, 222 n.68 New Testament, Luther’s translation, 15 New World, 66 Newton, I., 174, 213 Niavis, P., 71 n.20 Nicole, P., 165 Nicolini, F., 224 n.89, 225 n.104 Nicot, J., 67 Niederehe, H. J., 67, 72 n.38, 92, 95, 99 Niedzwidski, see Ursinus Nieto Jimenez, L., 80 n.149, 99 Nimcuk, V. V., 145-8 Noachian, Annian myth, 65 language, 54 mythology, 53 vs Noachic, 79 n .i32 Noah, 49-50, 53, 58, 63, 78 n.127, 79 n.132, 83 n.166, 163 Nogent, T., 225 n.96 Nomenclator, by A. Junius, 82 n .i62 Nomenclator quadrilinguis, by Daniel Adam z Veleslavfna, 113 Nomenclatura trium linguarum, by A. Bohoric, 118 nomenclature, 173 norm, 156 norma, 109 Norton, G. P., 68, 99 nota rei permanentis vs nota rei sub tempore, 11 Notationes, by G. Becanus, 82 n.165 notes, notae, for T. Hobbes, 176 of thought, 157 Nouveaux essais, see New Essays, by Leibniz Novum hie inventum . . . , by A. Kircher, 162 Novum organum, by F. Bacon, 159 Nowy karakter polski, by J. Januszowski, 115 Nuchelmans, G., 71 n.33, 100 Nudozerinus, see Nedozersky Nugent, T., 225 n.96 Nunes do Leao, D., 26, 59, 73 n.62 O bukvach . . . , 131 O jed n osti. . . , by P. S. Karga, 138 O pismenech, attr. to Xrabr, 124 Oakeshott, M., 221 n.59 Ohjasnbenie, by J. Krizanic, 143 n .i3 O ’Connor, D. J., 66, 100 Oldenburg, H., 184 Olinger, A., 43 Oliveira, F. de, 26, 41, 58, 73 n.63, 80 n.i 50 Olivieri, O., 66, 100

INDEX Olschki, L., 72 n.36, 100 On the Hindus, by W. Jones, 228 n .i40 Ong, W., 71 n.29, 72 n.35, 100 onomatopoeia, 186, 209 for G. Vico, 192 Opening o f the Unreasonable Writing o f our Inglish Toung, by J. Hart, 20, 28 operations de Vame, for Condillac, 195 operations of the mind, 167, 209 Optat, V., 112 Orang-outang, by E. Tyson, 204 Oratio de variorum linguarum cognitione paranda, by P. Schade, 61 Oratio dominica, specimina, 63 Orationes in laudem litterarum graecarum, 46 Orbis sensualium pictus, by Comenius, 172-3, 182, 220 n.50 order, sequential, 226 n.i 17 ordinary language philosophy in L. Valla, 69 n.6 ordo artificialis, see artificial order naturalis, see natural order Oriental languages, 155 Orientalism, 213 Origem da lingua portuguesa, by D. Nunes do Leao, 59 origin, o f language, 151-2, 154, 156, 177, 185, 194, 205-6, 215 of the vernacular, 80 n .i50 of writing, for G. Vico, 192 Origin and Progress o f Language, by Monboddo, 208 original language, 53-4, 60, 153-4, 163, 166, 200, 209, 214 Origines, by J. C. Scaliger, 79 n .i33 Origines antwerpianae, by G. Becanus, 64, 82 n.165 Origini, by C. Cittadini, 76 n.i 10 Originum francicarum libri VI, by J. I. Pontanus, 64, 82 n .i63 oriste vs aoriste, 38 Orsi-Bouhours polemic, 202 Orthodox church, 2, 132-3, 143 n .i8, 144 n.20 Orthodox Slavdom, 1, 109, 119 n .i, 123, 127, 129-30, 138-41 Orthographia, by F. Frangk, 26 Orthographia da lingoa portuguesa, by D. Nunes do Leao, 26 Orthographia polska, by S. Murzynowski,

US Orthographia seu modus .. . , by S. Zaborowski, 114 Orthographia ungarica, by M. Devai Biro, 20

255 orthographic reform, 20, 28 Orthographie, by J. Hart, 28 orthography, 18-19 and orthodoxy, 129 French, 25 in Fortunio, 33 Ortografia, by J. de Barros, 20 Oshmb cestii slova, 125, 131, 134-5, 137, 140, 144 n.21 Osservationi della lingua castigliana, by G. Miranda, 41 Osservazioni per la pronunzia forentina, by Neri Dortelata, 22 Ossola, C., 93 Otwinowska, B., 122 Oudin, C., 41 Owen, A., 75 n.83, 100 Oxford, 10 padezi ‘cases’ , 126 Padley, G. A., 6 -7 , 27, 38, 44, 69 n .i, 70 n.9, n.i 1, nn.14-15, n.22, nn.24-5, nn.28-9, n.31, 74 n.70, 76 n.96, 100, 218 n.23, 233 Pagliaro, A., 193, 224 n.83, n.92, 233 Pallas, P. S., 188-9 223 n-79 Palmer, F. R., 217 n.io, 229 Palsgrave, J., 35, 75 n.83 panglottia, 173 pansophia, 152, 172-3, 175, 184 Papia, 67 Paradin, G., 77 n.122 paradise, 238 n.36 Paragone della lingua toscana e castigliana, by G. M. Alessandri, 41 Parfaicte methode pour entender, escrire et parler la langue espagnole, by N. Charpentier, 41 Pariente, J.-C., 233 Parkosz, J. (Parkoszowic z Zorawicy), 114, 120 n.18 Parodi, S., 66, 100 Parret, H., 95, 233 parricide, for J. Locke, 180 partes orationis, 69 n.i particular grammars, 155, 198 parts of speech, 6 -7 , 12, 31, 126 pasigraphia, 162 patois, 189 Paton, J., 80 n .i47 Patristic thought, see Church Fathers Paulinus a Sancto Bartholomaeo, 213, 228 n.i 39 Pausch, O., 66, 100 Peirone, L., 73 n.54, 100 Peletier du Mans, J., 25, 28, 73 n.6o Pellegrini, G., 35, 100



Pellerey, M., 219 n.45, 233 Pelling, M., 92 Pellisson, J., 8 Penna, M., 79 n .i39, 100 Pennisi, A., 217 n.16, 225 n.i 15, 226 n .i20, 233 Pentecost, 45, 60-1, 63 Percival, W. K., 4, 13, 31, 69 n.4, 70 n.9, 71 n.31, 72 n.34, 100-1, 217 n.15, 225 n.i 14, 233 Percivale, R., 41 Perger, B., 8 Perion, J., 51-2, 64, 77 n.i 19, 78 n.125 permutatio litterarum, 162 Perotti, N., 6, 8, 10, n o , 112, 114 Persian, 214 Persio, Ascanio, 50 -1, 77 n .i8 Pertusi, A., 76 n .i00, 101 Peter I, Czar, 187-8 Peters, M., 81 n .i59, 101 Peters, R. A., 67, 101 Petkov, G., 146 Petrarch, 15, 32-3 Petrarchist poetry, 16 Pettenati, G., 74 n.77, 101 Pfannuch, H., 227 n .i24 philoglotti, 60 philoglottoi, 80 n .i52 philosophical language, 152, 154, 158, 170-5, 177-8, 215 Phoenicians, 46 phonetic vs etymological principle, 18, 23 phono-symbolism, 186 Picard, J., 37, 52-3, 64 Picardy grammarians, 75 n.87 Picchio, R., 2, 119 nn.1-2, 120, 120 n.25, 121-3, 139, 141 n.2, 142 n.8, 145-7 Pieraccini, A. M., 74 n.8o, 76 n.i 10, 87, 102 Pietro da Montagnana, 70 n.9 Pillot, J., 37, 75 n.87 Pinborg, J., 101 Pincelli, U., 102 Pineaux, J., 68, 101 Pinero Ramirez, P. M., 72 n.40, 73 n.57,

101 Pinot, V., 217 n.21, 218 n.27, 233 Pintaudi, R., 66 Pinto, R. M., 41-2, 101 Piron, M., 228 n .i36 Plantijn, C., 67 Plautus, 55 Pleiade, 16, 26, 52 Plessow, M., 44, 101 plurilinguism, 60, 63 in the Renaissance, 45 Plutarch, 80 n.146

poetic, characters, for G. Vico, 190 nature of languages, for G. Vico, 189 Poggi Salani, T., 66, 101, 218 n.25 Poggio Bracciolini, 8 Pohl, H. D., 66, 101 Pohl, V., 111 Poiabian, 119 n.3 Poland, 114 -Lithuania, 138 Polanski, K., 120 n.26, 122 Poldauf, I., 75 n.95, 101 Poles, 1 Polikarpov, T., 140 Polish, 109, 113, 116 codification, 114 grammar, first, 110, 115 Protestant schools, 115 version of the Scriptures, 111 Polito, by C. Tolomei, 21-2 Poliziano, A., 10 Pollard, A. W., 217 n.22 Polygraphia nova et universalis, by A. Kircher, 162, 221 n.56 Pombo, O., 222 n.68, 223 n.69, n.74, 233 Pomponio Leto, see Leto, Pomponio Pontanus, J. I., 64 Ponticus Virunius, L., 46 Porfir’ev, I. Ja., 145 Porset, C., 224 n.96, 226 n.i 18 Port-Royal, 7, 139, 152-3, 166, 200, 152-5, 165-70, 185, 194, 200, 202, 218 n.38, 219 n.39 Portugal, 26 Portuguese, 59 grammarians on the original language, 80 n.i 50 orthography, 73 n.62 Postel, G., 49-50, 53-4, 63-4, 77 n.i 19, 78 nn.125-7, 79 n.131 Poujoul, J., 78 n .i27, 101 Povestb vremeennych let, 124 Poza, A. de, 56-7 Pozzi, M., 74 n.77 Prague university, 111 pravo-pisanie ‘orthography’ , 128 pravo-slavie ‘orthodoxy’ , 128 pre-Babelic, 54, 81 n .i57 pre-diluvial, 81 n .i57 predlogb ‘preposition’ , 126-7, 140 Presa, G., 66, 101 Preti, G., 223 n.71, 233 pricestie ‘participle’ , 126-7, 140 primaeval language, 44, 162-5, 185, 209, 212 prime elements, 174 primitive couple, for Condillac, 206 primordial roots, 185-6


INDEX Principal Rules o f the Italian Grammer, by W. Thomas, 35 Principes de grammaire generale, by S. de Sacy, 228 n .i35 Principia linguae wendicae, by J. Ticinus,

ill Principios de la gramatica latina, by J. Sanchez de Cordoba, 24 printing, 18 Priscian, 4, 6, 30, 46, n o Prissian da Milan, by G. A. Biffi, 73 n.50 Prodromus, by Comenius, 173, 220 n.50 Prodromus coptus, by A. Kircher, 162 pronuciation of classical languages, 28 proof-readers, 19 Prose della volgar lingua, by P. Bembo, 15-16, 33, 47, 74 n.77 prosta mova ‘vernacular language’ , 140 Prosvetitelh, by I. Volockij, 144 n.21 Protestant, language, 15 reformation, 109, 114 Protestantism, 45 and literacy, 26 Provencal, 31 Puppo, M., 225 n .i05 Purae et elegantes linguae latinae phrases, by A. Manuzio, 116 Puzynina, J., 122 Quechua, 68 questione della lingua, 14, 29, 33, 47, 198-9 Quilis, A., 30 -1, 74 n.72, 95, 101 Quintilian, 4-5, 9 -10 , 12, 14, 23, 70 n.18 Quondam, A., 106 Radcenko, K. F., 143 n.14, 147 Raddoppiamento da parola a parola, by C. Tolomei, 74 n.8o radical, arbitrariness, for J. Locke, 180-1, 186 word, for F. Bacon, 158 radicalism, in orthography and religion, 26 Ragionamenti, by F. Carletti, 218 n.25 Ramat, P., 95 Rambaud, H., 26 Ramus (Pierre de la Ramee), 11—13, 26, 37-8, 44, 71 n.29, 75 n.87, 113 ratio, 3, 5 Ratio Studiorum, 72 n.35 rationalism, rejected by G. Vico, 190 rationalist line, 166 Ray, J., 221 n.57 razlicie ‘ article’ , 126-7, *40 Razos de trobar, 31 real characters, see characters real

recb ‘verb’ , 126 Recb zidovskago jazyka, 136 Recherches sur VInde, by A.-H. Anquetil Duperron, 213 reckoning, for T. Hobbes, 177 reconstruction, 165 recte loqui, 1 1 Recueil de V origine de la langue, by C. Fauchet, 79 n .i36 Reflexions philosophiques, by Maupertuis, 206 Reformation, 2 Reformed people, 60 taste for plurilinguism, 63 reformed alphabet by H. Rambaud, 26 regional, chanceries in Germany, 15 koinai, 18 Register, by J. Dalmatin, 118 Reglas de orthographia en la lengua castellana, by A. de Nebrija, 20, 73 n-57 Reglas grammaticales para aprender la lengua espanola y francesa, by A. de Corro, 41 Regole de la lingua thoscana, by M. Florio,

35 Regole della lingua fiorentina, by P. Giambullari, 34, 73 n.52 Regole grammaticali della volgar lingua, by G. F. Fortunio, 20, 32, 72 n.45 Regoliosi, M., 69 nn.5-6, 85, 98, 102 Regulae grammaticales, by Guarino Veronese, 3-4 regularization of writing and grammar, 42 Reiffenstein, I., 68, 102 Rej, M., 115 Relazione della China, by F. Magalotti, 218 n.25 religious reform, 111 Remarques sur la langue frangaise, by Vaugelas, 219 n.43 Renaissance, 119 n.4 ‘ structuralism’ , 12 renovatio studiorum, 127 Renzi, L., 75 n.81, 102, 223 n.81, 234 Restauratio linguae latinae, by G. d’Halluin, 8 restitutio of original language, 54 Rhagius Aesticampianus, J., 70 n.14 rhetoric, 4, 7 for G. Vico, 191 Rhys, S. D., 23 Ricard, R., 68, 102 Ricci, M., 160-1, 218 n.26 Richardson, B., 28, 72 n.40, n.44, n.48, 102 Ricken, U., 224 n.95, 225 nn. 108-9, 234

258 Rico, F., 7, 31, 69 n.2, n.B, 70 n .n , 99, 102 Rivarol, A. de, 203 river names, 187 Rizza, R., 69 n.* Roberts, R. J., 67, 102 Robins, R. H., 216, 220 n.55, 234 Rocher, L., 228 n .i39 rodb ‘gender’ , 126-7 Roger, A., 212 Roldan [Perez], A., 39, 73 n.57, 75 nn.90-1, 84, 102-3 Roman, Latin, 56, 158 school, 6 Slavdom, 1, 2, 108-9, 112, 119 n .i, n.5 Romance, linguistics, origin in France and Spain, 79 n .i36 philology, 60-1 Romani, W., 68, 103 Romanians, 2 Romans, 46 language of the ancient, 30, 46 Romantic ideology, 208 Romeo, R., 218 n.24, 234 Ronsard, P. de, 26, 52, 77 n .i23 Rosa, J. V., i n Rosenblat, A., 68, 103 Rosenfield, L., 217 n .i5, 234 Rosiello, L., 216 n.io, 224 n.83, n-95’ 225 n.98, 227 n .i27, 228 n.136, 234 Rosier, J. L., 66, 97, 103 Rospond, S., 120 n.22, 123 Rossi, P., 150-1, 156, 216 nn.3-4, nn.9-10. 217 n.i 1, n.17, n.22, 219 nn.45-6, n.48, 220 n.50, nn.54-5, 221 n.64, 222 n.68, 223 n.69, 224 n.87, nn.89-90, 234 Roth, H., 212 Rousseau, J. J., 194, 210, 226 nn.118-19 Rowe, J. H., 218 n.23, n.29, 234 Royal Society, 153, 172, 174, 176, 178, 182, 204, 213, 220 n.55, 221 n.56, Rudimenta, by Aldus Manutius, 6 Rudimenta grammaticae, by J. Turmair, 8 Rudimenta grammaticae latinae, by P. de la Ramee, 12 Rudimenta grammaticae sorabovandalice . . . , by G. Ludovici, 117 Rudimenta grammatices, by N. Perotti, 8 Rudnyckyj, J. B., 144 n.24, !48 Ruiz de Montoya, A., 161 Russia, 131, 135, 188 Russian, 1, 113, 130, 143 n .i3 Academy of Sciences, 188 grammars, 120 n.6 heretics, 143 n .i8 Ruthenian, 1, 136, 138 Ruysschaert, J., 70 n.9, 103

INDEX Saba Sardi, F., 218 n.28 Sabbadini, R., 4, 69 n.3, 71 n.33, 103 Sacerdoti Mariani, G., 67, 103 Saggio sulla filosofia delle lingue, by M. Cesarotti, 201, 209 Sahlin, G., 227 n .i27, 234 Sainsliens, C. de, 26, 36, 65 n.83 Salmon, V., 70 n .i8, 72 n.34, 103, 220 nn.54-5, 221 n.56, n.58, 234-5 Salvador, A., 85 Salviati, L., 34, 66 Sambin, P., 70 n.9, 103 Sanchez, A., 75 n.92, 103 Sanchez de Cordoba, J., 24 Sanchez de las Brozas, F. (Sanctius, F.), 13-14, 71 n.31 Sandecki-Malecki, J., 114-15, 120 n.22 Sannazaro, J., 33 Sanskrit, 212-14 Santagata, M., 106 Sapir, E., 227 n .i24, 235 Sassetti, F., 212 Saturn, 83 n .i66 Saumaise, C., 164-5 Saussure, F. de, 173, 197, 221 n.65 Savarese, G., 219 n.39 Scaglione, A. D., 69 n .i, 71 n.33, I03 Scaliger, J. C., 10 -11, 13, 54, 71 n.25, 79 n.i 33 Scaliger, J. J., 71 n.25, *65 Scebresinensis, A. B. (Szczebrzeszynski), 114 Schade, P., 61 Schede, P. (Melissus), 27 Schenker, A. M., 122-3, t 47 Schirokauer, A., 67, 103 Schlieben Lange, B., 92 Schmitt, C., 75 n.88, 103 Scholae, 71 n.29 Scholae in liberates artes, by P. de la Ramee, 11 scholastic disputations, 8 Scholia to the Techne by Dionysius Thrax, 126 Schropfer, J., 120 nn.9-10, 123 Schryfftspiegel, anon., 20, 26 Schulenburg, S. von der, 223 n.77, 235 Schumann, V., 61 Schupp, V., 102 Schuster-Sewc, H., 123 Scienza Nuova, by G. Vico, 190, 192-3, 201 Scythian theory, 64, 82 n .i65, 164, 213 scythica, sive cimbrica, sive ascania, sive togormana (lingua), 65 Sebeok, T. A., 100, 217 n.io, 235 second Southern Slavic influence, 131

INDEX Secret, F., 78 nn. 126-7, n.129, 103 Seigel, J. E., 69 n.6, 104 Seitz, A., 70 n.14 Seklucjan, J., 114-15, 120 n.21 ‘Semeiotik’ in J. Lambert, 227 n.124 semilatinas, 62 semiotics, 178 Semitic family, 165 Senior [Merril], J., 31, 104 Sensi, F., 22, 73 n.50, 76 n.i 10, 104 Serbia, 125, 131, 140 Serbian, 130 Serbs, 1 sermo, litteratus vs vulgaris, 48 quotidianus, 9 vulgaris, 48, 58 Serreius de Badonviller, J., 36 Semis, C., 167, 217 n.13, 235 seventy-two Babelic languages, 63, 81 n.i 57 Sexagius, A., 27 Sgard, J., 224 n.94, 235 Shipman, G. R., 73 n.6o, 104 Short Introduction or Guiding to Print, Write, and Reade Inglish Speech, by W. Bullokar, 29 Sienese school, 76 n.i 12 significare, 11 signified, 11 signifier, 11 Signorini, M., 74 n.73 signs (signa), for T. Hobbes, 176 Sila susestvu kniznogo slova, 131 Silesia, 112 Silver, I., 77 n .i23, 104 Simecek, Z., 122 Simenon, Czar, 25 Simon, G., 40 Simoncelli, P., 104 Simone, R., 45, 104, 216 n.8, 217 n .n , 219 n.38, n.40, 225 n.97, n.106, n.i 11, 226 n.i 17, 235 Simoni, P. K., 147 Simonini, R. C., 75 n.84, 104 simple ideas, for J. Locke, 179 simple modes, for J. Locke, 181 Skarga, P., 138, 147 Skazdnie Izbjavljenno o pismenech, by C. Kostenecki, 129-31, 143 n .i6, 144 n.21 Skubic, M., 74 n.77, 104 Slaughter, M. M., 219 n.45, 220 n-5°> n*55>

235 Slav languages, 66 Slavdom Eastern, 125 Slavia Orthodoxa, 2, 119 n.i Slavia Romana, 2, 119 n.i

259 Slavic, grammatical terminology, 127 Humanists, n o , 124 letters, 125 people, 143 n.13 Slavonian, 130 Slavonic, 130, 136 Slovak, 109, 1 1 6 -1 7 dialects, 113 dictionary, 116 Slovaks, 1 Slovene, 109 Slovenian, 110, 118 linguistic thought, 120 n.29 Slovenians, 1 slovenskyi, 130 Slovesa, 131, 135, 143 n .i6 Smith, A., 226 n . n 8 Smith, R., 71 n.32, 73 n.66, 104 Smith, Sir Thomas, 20, 28 Smotrickij, M., 120 n.16, 134, 138, 140,

147 Smotryc’kyj, see Smotrickij Soave, F., 219 n.39 Soberanas, A. J., 70 n .n , 99, 104 Sobolevskij, A. I., 143 n.14 Soccio, P., 224 n.89 Sola-Sole, J. M., 30, 40, 104 Sommer, H., 225 n.98, 236 Sorau Lower Sorbian dialect, 117 Sorbian, Upper and Lower, 109, 117-18 Sottili, A., 69 n.8, 102, 104 Southern Slavic, 131, 133 Spain 2, 16 -17, 25, 38, 189 Spanish, 163, 202 Academy, 199 and Portuguese interaction in the TupiGuarani area, 68 imperial expansion, 68 lexicography, 67 teaching as a foreign language, 75 n.92 Spanish Grammer, by A. de Corro, 41 Specimen linguae et philologiae finonicae, by G. Stiemhielm, 164 Specimen XL diversarum atque inter se differentium linguarum et dialectorum, by H. Megiser, 82 n .i60 Spedding, J., 217 n.22 Spence, J. D., 218 n.26, 219 n.46, 235 Speroni, S., 16 spoken, language, in Tuscany, 73 n.50 languages, their history, 47 usage, 30 usage, in Scaliger, 10 Sprachen des Parodies, by A. Kempe, 218 n.36 Springhetti, E., 14, 70 n.15, 72 n.35, 104 Stabej, J., 20 n.29, I23

26o Stackelberg, J. von, 68, 104 Stammerjohann, H., 67, 104 Stankiewicz, E., 119 n.5, 120, 120 n.12, n.29, 122-3, >47 Starnes, D. W. T., 67, 104 Starobinski, J., 226 n.i 19 Statorius, Petrus, see Stojenski Stefan Lazarevic, Despot, 128 Stefanini, J., 70 n.17, 71 nn.25-7, 79 n .i33, 94, 104-5, 219 n.38 steganographia, 162 Stein, G., 67, 105 Steiner, R. J., 67, 105 Stephens, W., 69 n.*, 77 n .i20, 105 Sterkenburg, P. G., 89 Stevens, H. J. J., 69 n.6, 105 Stiemhielm, G., 164-5, 218 n.35 Stojenski, P. (Petrus Statorius), n o , 115, 139 Stokavian, 119 Stolt, B., 68, 105 Strasser, G. F., 219 n.45, 235 Streckenbach, G., 71 n.20, 105 Streitberg, W., 96 Strekelj, K., 120 n.29, I23 Strelka, J. P., 90 strigol’niki, 132 Strumins’kyj, B., 147 Studins’kyj, K., 147 subject-verb-object sequence, 203 Sulpicio Verulano, G., 6, 8, 10 Sultzbach, G., 33 suppositum, 4 Suprun, A. E., 119 n.3, 123 sbuzb ‘conjunction’ , 126-7 Siissmilch, J. P., 215, 226 n.122 Svejkovsky, F., 123 Swedish, 164, 218 n.36 Sylva quadrilinguis. . . , by D. A. Veleslavfna, 113 Sylvius, see Dubois symbolic, language, for G. Vico, 193 writing, 158 symbols, 157 syncategoremata, 12 Synopsis grammaticae tarn germanicae quam latinae et graecae, by J. Becherer, 43 Syntagma, by M. Smotrickij, 140 syntax, 13 Synthen, J., 8 Syriac, 163 Syrku, P. A., 143 n.14, !47 Szarfenberg, M., 114 Szczebrzeszynski, see Scebresinensis talking machine, 205 Tamayo de Vargas, T., 80 n.147

INDEX Tancke, M., 66, 105 Tannery, P., 219 n.48 Tarugi, G., 101 Taszycki, W., 123 Tatiscev, V. N., 188 Tavoni, M., 2, 30, 36, 69 n.6, n.8, 70 n.16, n.19, 72 n.41, n.48, 73 n.49, 76 n.102, nn.104-5, 76 n.107, n .i09, 102, 105-6 taxonomy, 171 Tebaldeo, A., 50 Techne, by Dionysius Thrax, 125-6 Terracini, L., 79 n .i38, n.141, 80 n.144, n.i 48, 106 Tetens, J. N., 227 n.124 Teutsch Grammatick oder Sprachkunst, by L. Albrecht, 43 Teutsche gramatica, by V. Ickelsamer, 42 Teutsches Syllabierbuchlein, by S. Helber, 27 textual criticism, 5 Teza, E., 73 n.54, 106 theology, 151, 154, 162, 215 Theology, by St. John of Damascus, 124 Thesaurus graecae linguae, by H. Estienne,

52 Thesaurus polono-latino-graecus, by G. Knapski, 115-16 Thesaurus polyglottus, by H. Mesiger, 67, 118, 162 Thomas, W., 35 Thom ism, 152, 174 Three Crowns (Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio), 33 Thresor de I’histoire des langues, by C. Duret, 79 n.131, 81 n.158 Thresor de la langue frangoise, by J. Nicot, 67 Thurot, C., 72 n.40, 73 n.6o, 106, 227 n.i 26 Ticina, G. (Jakub Ticinus), 117 Tigerstedt, E. N., 77 n.i 16, 106 tipikb, 129-30 Tischler, J. T., 81 n .i52, 106 Tlbkovanie, 136 Tobolski, A., 116 Togorma, son of Gomer, 65 togormana, lingua, 65 Tollis, F., 31, 73 n.57, 106 Tolomei, C., 21-3, 34, 36, 48-9, 72 n.48, 74 n.8o, 76 n.i 10 Tolton, C. D. E., 88 Tomas ze Stftneho, 11 Tonelli, D., 77 n.i 14 Tonfoni, G., 223 n.8o, 235 Topolinska, Z., 119 n.3, 123 Torrentinus, H., 8 Tortelli, G., 66


INDEX Tory, G., 20, 25 Toscano, S., 123, 147 Toumoy, G., 69 n.6, 95 Toussain, J., 78 n.125 Tovar, A., 223 n.8o, 235 Trabalza, C., 32-3, 35, 75 n.81, 106 Tractado de orthographia, by A. Vanegas, 24 traduire, 68 Traicte de la conformite du langage franqois avec le grec, by H. Estienne,

51-2 Traicte de la grammaire franqoise, by R. Estienne, 37 Traite de la formation mecanique des langues, by C. de Brosses, 213 Traite de la grammaire franqaise, by L. Meigret, 28, 73 n.6o Traite des animaux, by Condillac, 194, 205 Traite des sensations, by Condillac, 194, 206 Traite des systemes, by Condillac, 194 Traite touchant le commun usage de I’ escriture franqoise, by L. Meigret, 25, 28 Traktat o ortografii polskiej, by J. Parkosz, 114 transformational processes, 13 translatio, litterarum, 46-7 studii, 46 translation, 66, 68, 124 from classical languages, 68 from Latin in Germany, 68 literary, 68 poetic, 68 transmission of the alphabet, 46 Trapp, J. B., 51, 77-8 nn.121-4, 106 Trattato, by C. Cittadini, 76 n.i 10 Treatise, by J. G. Herder, 207, 26 n .i24 Trette de la grammere franqoese, by L. Meigret, 25, 36 Trippault, L., 52 Trissino, G. G., 21, 24, 27-8, 32-3, 37, 50, 72 n.48, 74 n.79 Trivium, 3 Tmovo, 127-8 Trovato, P., 72 n.44, n.48, 74 n.73, n.79, 76 n.103, 77 n.i 15, 106 Trubar, P., 118 Tsiapera, M., 235 Tubal, son of Japhet, 58 Tummers, P. M. J. E., 67, 107 Turgot, A.-R.-J., 211, 226 n.121, 228 n .i36 Turkish, 60, 63, 161 grammar, 63 Turmair, J., 8

Tuscan, 16, 56 derived from Etruscan, 49 four languages, 48 grammar, 33 grammar and history, 34 usage, 30 Tuscanists, 21 Tuynman, P., 83 Twespraack vande Nederduitsche letterkunst, by P. de Heuiter, 27 typology, 165, 193, 212 Tyson, E., 204, 225 n.i 13 Ugro-Finnish, 188 Ukena, P., 70 n .i4, 107 Ukraine, 138-9 Unbegaun, B. O., 120 n.6, 123, 147 Underricht der Hoch Teutschen Spraach, by A. Olinger, 43 Ungler, F., 114 Unitas fratrum, 112 universal, aspects in languages, 174 chronography, 45 communication, 183 grammar, 155 language, 154, 162, 170-5, 183, 186, 220 n.54 Universal vocahulario en latfn y en romance, by A. Fernandez de Palencia, 67 universality o f French, 202 universities, 68 teaching, 6 untranslatability of ancient languages, 222 n.67 Upanisad, 213 Uralo-Altaic, 188 Urquhart, T., 221 n.56 Ursinus Leopoliensis, J. (Niedzwidski), 114 Ursprache, 185 usage, 12, 37 Uspenskij, B. A., 120 n.6, n.17, 123, 148 usus, 3, 5 Util y hreve institution para aprender los principios y fundamentos de la lengua hespahola, perhaps by F. de Villalobos, 39 Vaganay, H., 67, 107 Vaillant, A., n o , 141 n .i, 148 Valdes, Juan de, 24, 55, 57 Valence, P., 35 Valencian, 56 Valeriano, Pierio, 49-50 Valla, L., 3-7, 9, 11, 13-14, 31, 48, 69 n.6, 114 his linguistic thought, 69 n.6



Valtanas, D., 56 van der Beke, N., see Clenardus van der Blom, N., 67, 107 van der Myle, A., see Mylius van Gorp, J., see Goropius Becanus van Kiel, see Kiel, C. van van Passen, A. M., 66, 107 van Pauteren, I., see Despauterius Vanegas, A., 24, 55 Varchi, B., 34, 47, 76 n.i 13 Varias antigiiedades, by B. de Aldrete, 80 n.149 Varro, M. T., 9, 70 n.17 Vasilij III, grand duke of Moscow, 137 Vasoli, C., 218 n.31, 235 Vatican linguistics, 160, 218 n.26 Vaucanson, J. de, 205 Vaugelas, C. Favre de, 219 n.43 Veleslavma, Daniel Adam z, 113 Venegas, A., see Vanegas Venero, A., 56 Venturi, F., 227 n .i27, 235 Verantius, Faustus (Vrancic), 119 Verborum in institutione grammatica 116 Verburg, P. A., 216 n.io, 235 Verchnaja sila ellinska, by Maxim Grek,

135 Veritables principes de la grammaire, by C. C. Du Marsais, 228 n .i28 vernacular, autonomy, 20 corruption of Latin, 36 emancipation, 18-19 grammar, 29 in Italy, early success, 16 origin, 54 orthographic emancipation, 21 standardization, 18 used for teaching grammar, 9 vemacularization, 68 Verra, V., 227 n .i24, 235 Via lucis, by Comenius, 172-3, 220 n.50 Viciana, M. de, 55-7, 80 n.143 Vico, G., 152, 154-6, 186-7, *89-95, 201» 206, 209, 215, 223 n.82, 224 nn.83-5, nn.87-91, n.95, 25 n .i04 vid ‘ species’ , 127 Vidavius, see Widawski Vienna, university, 8 view of the world, 200 Vignuzzi, U., 66, 107, 236 Viljamaa, T., 71 n.31, 107 Villalobos, F. de, 39 Villalon, C. de, 24, 30, 40 Villedieu, see Alexander de Villedieu Vinaza, C. M., 68, 73 n.58, 107 Vineis, E., 30, 107

Vintr, J., 123 Vita Constantini, 124 Vita Methodii, 124 Vitale, M., 72 n.36, n.45, 74 n.77, 76 nn.108-9, n.i 12, 79 n.136, 107 Viudas, A., 85 Vivaldi, V., 76 n.108, n.i 13, 107 Vives, J. L., 5, 9, 63, 68, 69 n.8, 81 n .i58 Vocabolario degli Accademici della Crusca, 198-9 Vocabuldr grammaticky, 111 Vocabulario italiano e schiavo, by G. Alasio da Sommaripa, 118 Vocabulario portuguez e latino, by R. Bluteau, 199 Vocabularium sibiricum, by J. E. Fischer, 188 Vocabularius, by Claretus, 120 n.7 Vocahularius cuius nomen Lactifer, by J. B. Wodnansky, 113 voces numeri vs voces sine numero, 12 Volckmar, M., 115 Vorlat, E., 75 -6 nn.95-6, 107 Vorlicny, P., 112 Votyak, 188 vox numeri cum genere et casu vs vox numeri cum tempore et persona, 12 Vozniak, M., 148 Vrancic, see Verantius vremena ‘tenses’ , 126 Vulcanius, see de Smet, B. vulgar Latin, 48 Walachia, 140 Wallis, J., 227 n.126 Walton, B., 163 Ward, Seth, 221 n.56 Wartburg, W. von, 85 Waser, C., 81 n .i59 Washington, G., 189 Waswo, R., 69 n.6, n.8, 107 Watanabe, S., 75 n.95, 108 Way o f Light, see Via lucis Webb, J., 163 Webber, E. J., 79 n .i39, 108 Webster, C., 92 Weidling, F., 43, 108 Weiher, E. von, 142 n.4 Weinberg, J., 77 n.i 16, 108 Weiner, E., 148 Weinrich, H., 219 n.43, 225 n.98, 226 n.i 17, 236 Weiss, R., 76 n.i 12, 108 Wellek, R., 224 n.85, 236 Weliisch, H., 81 n .i59, 108 Wells, M. B., 68, 108 Wheeler, G., 235


INDEX Whitney, C., 218 n.22, 236 Widawski, W. (Vidavius), 114 Wiedemann, T., 70 n.13, 108 Wiehl, P., 102 Wietor, H., 114 wild children, 153, 206, 208 Wilkins, John, 174-6, 220-1 nn.55-7 Wimpfeling, J., 8 Winkler, E., 120 n.24, 123 Wizerunek . .. , by M. Rej, 115 Wodnansky, J. B. (Aquentis), 113 Wolf, Hieronymus, 27 Wolf, L., 68, 108 W olff, C., 227 n. 124 Woodhouse, J. R., 66, 108 Wooldridge, T. R., 67, 108, 225 n.102, 233 word order, 197, 202 Worth, D. S., 143 n .i7, 148 writing, contemporaneous to the origin of language, for G. Vico, 191 systems, 171 Wulfila’s Gospels, 164 Wyle, N. von, 20, 26 Wynkyn de Worde, see de Worde

Xrabr, 124-5, *35 Yates, F., 35, 108, 219 n.46, 220 n.50, 236 Young, M., 73 n.6o, 108 Zaborowski, S., 114, 120 n.21 Zachar’in, D. B., 148 Zambaldi, F., 72 n.40, 108 Zamboni, A., 66, 108 Zapata, L., 55 Zehnder, J., 79 n .i36, 108 Zepeda Rincon, T., 68, 108 Ziomek, J., 123 Zippel, G., 69 n.7 Zivov, V. M., 148 Zizanij, L., 136, 139-40, 148 Zomino da Pistoia, 70 n.9 zoology, 175 Zprava pisma slovenskeho, by T. Masnik, 116 Zubillaga, F., 68, 108 Zukovskaja, L. P., 142 n.4, 143 n .i5, 148 Zumthor, P., 225 n.98, 236 Zwicker, H., 70 n.14