a man of considerable learning, taste and talent, pointed out in time some most incredible blunders that the compilers of the "additions and improvements" to this edition had committed. In 1696 the Academy saw the necessity of publishing a new edition of the "Vocabolario." They were urged to it by the publication of Ottonelli's Annotazioni, the fairness and justice of whose criticisms they could not deny. In 1710 little progress had been made in the compilation; but the date is worth mentioning, as in that year one of the Academicians, Cionacci, wrote, recommending that "none but Florentine writers should be quoted." The work proceeded at intervals till 1724, when it was continued with redoubled energy without intermission, and the first volume sent to press in 1726. The printing of this volume was finished in September 1728, and in the course of ten years from that time the two last volumes, the fifth and sixth, were completed. The Preface was written by Bottari. The number of volumes is of itself an evidence that the work was greatly enlarged, and there is no doubt that it was often improved and corrected; but the radical defects of the plan were also increased, rendered more prominent, and more injurious in their effects. To the old authors of the fourteenth century others were added, no matter how vulgar, dull and insignificant, and whilst among the more modern ones the Florentines were freely quoted, other Italians, no matter how illustrious, were as strictly excluded. Taking those who lived in the immediately preceding century, among the poets they quoted Allegri, del Bene, Capponi, Filicaia, Menzini, Ria Salvini, and Soldani-all Florentines; some of Chiabrera's poems, but not a syllable of Tassoni, Guidi, Testi, Rosa, Schettini, Lemene, Maggi. Except Filicaia and Menzini, not one of those selected is now read or known to have existed by the generality of Italian scholars. But every one of those omitted-more particularly the first four-are read and admired by every person even moderately conversant with Italian literature. From various causes which it would be too long to enumerate, the fifth edition of the "Vocabolario," which was intended to appear soon after the fourth, did not begin to be published till * Atti dell' Accademia della Crusca, vol. i. p. 91. Martini, an Academician of the Crusca, wrote as follows in 1741: "The compilers of this edition of the Dictionary, did not at first perceive all the faults of the preceding editions. Not being acquainted with the sort of work they had undertaken, with the MSS., and with the works they had to consult-not having conceived that so many mistakes had been committed as was the case, these compilers neglected many most important points, they were reluctant to alter and correct what had been done by the compilers of the third edition-some of whom were still alive," &c. This is enough to enable us to judge of the character of this edition. Lippi and Baldovini. 229 1843. The Academy itself fell into a sort of languor. The Italian cotemporaries of Maffei, Zeno, and Muratori, were ashamed of the ridiculous devices and surnames of the Crusca. The last century, moreover, was not the age favourable to Academies. The Grand Duke Leopold in 1783 abolished the Crusca and the Florentine Academy, and created one named "Accademia Fiorentina." Soon after that, this young Academy thought of the dictionary. They were ashamed that one of their members, Martini, should have edited a new impression of their (improved) dictionary, which in 1763 was published at Venice; and the works of Bergantini* and others, which served to improve the edition of Naples 1746, were indirect reproaches to their idleness. In 1786 the new Academy sanctioned an additional list of authors from which examples should be taken; and, as usual, going from bad to worse, they left out, for instance, all the poets above mentioned except Guidi, but they added, among others, two more-both Florentines, belonging to the 17th century, a fact which we thus specially mention, to give an idea of what the Academicians were then capable. The two poets are Lippi, author of the "Malmantile," and Baldovini, the writer of the" Lamento di Cecco da Varlungo." The work of Lippi is deliberately written in a coarse and vulgar style, full of Florentine idioms and proverbs. And yet the words, and phrases, and proverbs used in that work were proposed in 1783, as patterns of correct, elegant, and classical writing. The "Lamento di Cecco," by Baldovini, consists of about forty stanzas, (ottave,) purporting to be the complaint of Cecco, a peasant of Varlungo, on account of the faithlessness of his sweetheart Sandra. It is written in the common country dialect of Varlungo, the greatest of its merits being the spirited and proper use of the phrases, words, vulgarisms, barbarisms, and mispronunciations of the peasants of that district. It was at a comparatively recent pericd published in London, with an English translation,† the preface of which begins with stating as a well known fact, "that the peasants of Tuscany have always possessed a language peculiar to themselves, distinguished from that used in the city by its expressive vulgarity and extravagant mutilations." To propose works expressly written in this dialect as patterns of elegant, correct, and refined language, is such an incredible piece of folly, that if in a novel intended to ridicule Academies any one had supposed this to have Della Volgare Eloquenza, vol. i., fol. Ven. 1740. It contains only the letters A and B of an immense work on the language, the MS. of which he left complete ; but it will probably never be published, as many who have profited by it, without ever quoting the learned author, will like it better unedited. Bergantini pub lished, moreover, three distinct critical works on the dictionary, in 1745, 1758, and 1760. + Cecco's Complaint, translated by John Hunter, Esq. Lond. 1800, 8vo. been done, the supposition would have been treated as an extravagant caricature. We believe that the Crusca is the only Academy that was, is, or ever can be capable of so great an outrage on common sense. While the Academicians were thus proving themselves incorrigible, a lexicographer, who had already published a dictionary in two languages which has never been equalled, was quietly collecting materials for a new Dictionary of the Italian language. This was Francesco Alberti da Villanuova, who, in 1797, began to publish his "Dizionario Universale della Lingua Italiana," which he did not live to see completed. He died while the second volume. was in the press; the remaining four were edited by Federici ; and the sixth and last appeared in 1805. His work is, therefore, open to many objections, which, had the author lived to see it through the press, he might have removed. But when we consider how many definitions he has improved, how many useless paragraphs he has cancelled or abridged, how wisely he has modified the plan and arrangement, the great addition of useful every-day words belonging to the arts or sciences which he has made, and the judicious choice of his authorities; we must admit the immense superiority of Alberti's Dictionary over that of the Academy. Granting that some of the definitions are incorrect, and that many technical words are still omitted, the superiority is nevertheless very great; and the faults are pointed out with a bad grace by those who did not see them in the Dictionary of the Academy, where they are tenfold more numerous. Alberti, for the purpose of seizing the true meaning of words, visited all parts of Italy; entered the workshops of mechanics; studied the books of the most distinguished scientific men; had recourse to tariffs, particularly those published in Tuscany, to learn the names of many articles of commerce; inquired on the coasts of the Mediterranean for all words relating to navigation;† in fact, left nothing undone to compile a perfect work. It is true that, in order to save room, he omitted too many examples, and when he inserted them, he did not refer to the precise part of the work from which he quoted. It is to be observed, however, that this was the general practice of Johnson, and that the French Academicians in their Dictionary purposely omitted to quote It is impossible to enter into particulars with respect to this point; but if any one will take the trouble of comparing the entries under A (preposition) in the Crusca and Alberti's, or those under Dare, Fare, &c., he will immediately perceive the merits of Alberti in this respect. + Johnson says of his own work: "That many terms of art and manufacture are omitted, must be frankly acknowledged; but for this defect 1 may boldly allege that it was unavoidable. I could not visit caverns to learn the miners' language, nor take a voyage to perfect my skill in the dialect of navigation, nor visit the warehouses of merchants and shops of artificers to gain the names of wares, tools, and operations of which no mention is found in books,” from writers examples which, they said,* might tend to the corruption of the language by authorizing archaisms that are themselves after all but a form of corruption. Alberti, moreover, who was reduced to great distress by the French Revolution, was probably obliged to conclude his work in a shorter time, and to bring it within a smaller compass than he had originally intended. Some of his faults are owing to the plan of the Academicians; for, had they not set the pernicious example, he would not have inserted many words which have not been in use for the last three hundred years; and with respect to low and indecent words, he gives as his apology the precedent set by the Academy. The dictionary of Alberti was just published, when a new one was begun to be printed at Verona in 1806, and was completed in six volumes 4to. The editor of it was Cesari, who, assisted by several gentlemen, (Lombardi, Zanotti, and Vannetti-the two first, as well as Cesari, from Verona,) undertook to publish a corrected and improved edition of the "Vocabolario della Crusca." To do this in a suitable manner, they read over carefully all the authors that had been read by the Academicians, and one or two, moreover, of the fourteenth century, that had not been used before as "testi di lingua." Wherever they found a new word, or a new acceptation of an old one, without caring whether it was an error of the press or of the transcribers, a gross vulgarism or a cant term, an affected expression or a barbarism-they entered it without any discrimination or choice in their dictionary. They found it in one of the works selected as "testi di lingua," and they took for granted there was "no mistake," nor the possibility of one.§ To add to the sources of error, the very worst editions are those which have been preferred for examples. These pious Veronese priests have been, moreover, * L'idée d'un tel recueil (des citations textuelles), sous la forme de lexique ou d'index, se retrouve au déclin de toutes les langues; et elle n'est propre souvent qu'à favoriser le retour à l'archaïsme, qui est une des phases et une des formes de ce déclin. + Lucchesini Illustrazione delle Lingue, i. 77. He was no partisan of Alberti. It is to be observed, (he says, on registering one of these words which we need not specify,) with respect to words of this description, that I enter them only because they were not rejected by the compilers of the Dictionary of the Crusca. For instance-and one instance of this sort is as strong as one thousand: a Debitore in significato di Creditore. Vit. SS. Pad. I. 233. Venni a mano di tre debitore, a due de' quali in alcun modo ho soddisfatto, ma il terzo mi tiene e richiedemi il debito." Had the compilers possessed only common sense, would they ever have received as a genuine word, debtor instead of creditor, any more than no instead of yes, even if a cart-load of musty texts could be produced to support such downright nonsense! But what is more is that in the only example adduced it is palpable that the writer had undoubtedly used the word creditori and not debitore, substituted by the mere oversight either of a copyist, or of the printer of the edi tion used by the compiler. most industrious in collecting the lowest and filthiest words that had escaped their predecessors, and in explaining the hidden indecencies that less holy men had recoiled from unfolding. We sincerely believe that their exertions have been crowned with the completest success in this respect, and that they have left nothing for posterity to glean. The Academicians had been careful from the first to collect all cant words used by pick-pockets, footpads, spies, beggars, denizens of gaols, and such like persons. Their successors followed the worthy example; but all their efforts were thrown into the shade by the reverend compilers from Verona, who seem to have performed their task with unwearied gusto. There was a feeling of indignation from one end of Italy to the other on the publication of this work. Above all places, it was the strongest at Milan, the capital of a small state then dignified with the name of Kingdom of Italy. It was felt that anything which tended to perpetuate the municipal divisions of the peninsula was a national crime, and it was properly considered that nothing tended more to do away with these divisions, and to nationalize Italy than unity of language. Hence to deny the name of Italian to the language which was used by the educated classes all over Italy was regarded as a national insult, as was the attempt to make it appear that the national language was confined to the dialect of a province. The kingdom of Italy crumbled to pieces, Italy was subdivided, and the very wish to restore its nationality was considered a crime, and punished with a ferocity of which no one but the late Emperor of Austria could be capable. Yet this wish would not be stifled, and the doctrines of Dante as to the Italian language were received with an almost religious enthusiasm. Under the form of a philological discussion, patriotic principles were propagated and defended. Not long after the fall of the kingdom of Italy, the (ci-devant Italian) Institute, established after the model of that of France at Milan, proposed (on the 10th of July 1816) to the resuscitated Academy of the Crusca to join in the compilation of a National Italian dictionary. The proposal came from a body of men to which belonged Scarpa, Volta, Oriani, Stratico, Monti, Paradisi, Piazzi, Breislak, Brocchi, Venturi, Morcelli, and Pindemonte, twelve men from different parts of Italy, to whom the Crusca could not find three among her members to compare. The answer of the Academy was worthy of the representatives of Lo 'nfarinato and Lo 'nferigno. They admitted that they might derive assistance from all Italy, but "being satisfied that they ought to follow the track of their ancestors," they did not think it necessary, they said, to wait for any help, and having already accumulated materials for the fifth edition of the dictionary, it |
