vii. 1-120), which represents the old Piedmontese dialect of Pavia

(_Bollett. della Soc. pav. di Storia Patria_, ii. 193 et seq.). The oldest Ligurian texts, if we except the "contrasto" in two languages of Rambaud de Vaqueiras (12th century _v._ Crescini, _Manualetto provenzale_, 2nd ed., 287-291), belong to the first decades of the 14th century (_Arch. glott._ xiv. 22 et seq., ii. 161-312, x. 109-140, viii. 1-97). Emilia has manuscripts going back to the first or second half of the 13th century, the _Parlamenti_ of Guido Fava (see Gaudenzi, _op. cit._ 127-160) and the _Regola dei servi_ published by G. Ferraro (Leghorn, 1875). An important Emilian text, published only in part, is the Mantuan version of the _De proprietatibus rerum_ of Bartol. Anglico, made by Vivaldo Belcalzer in the early years of the 14th century (v. Cian. _Giorn. stor. della letteratura italiana_, supplement, No. 5, and cf. _Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo_, series ii. vol. xxxv. p. 957 et seq.). For Modena also there are numerous documents, starting from 1327. For western Lombardy the most ancient texts (13th century, second half) are the poetical compositions of Bonvesin de la Riva and Pietro da Bescape, which have reached us only in the 14th-century copies. For eastern Lombardy we have, preserved in Venetian or Tuscan versions, and in MSS. of a later date, the works of Gerardo Patecchio, who lived at Cremona in the first half of the 13th century. Bergamasc literature is plentiful, but not before the 14th century (_v. Studi medievali_, i. 281-292; _Giorn. stor. della lett. ital._ xlvi. 351 et seq.).

2. _Sardinian Dialects._[5]--These are three--the Logudorese or central, the Campidanese or southern and the Gallurese or northern. The third certainly indicates a Sardinian basis, but is strangely disturbed by the intrusion of other elements, among which the Southern Corsican (Sartene) is by far the most copious. The other two are homogeneous, and have great affinity with each other; the Logudorese comes more particularly under consideration here.--The pure Sardinian vocalism has this peculiarity that each accented vowel of the Latin appears to be retained without alteration. Consequently there are no diphthongs representing simple Latin vowels; nor does the rule hold good which is true for so great a proportion of the Romance languages, that the representatives of the _e_ and the _i_ on the one hand and those of the _o_ and the _u_ on the other are normally coincident. Hence _plenu_ (_e_); _deghe_, decem (_e_); _binu_, vino (_i_); _pilu_ (_i_); _flore_ (_o_); _roda_, rota (_o_); _duru_ (_u_); _nughe_, nuce (_u_). The unaccented vowels keep their ground well, as has already been seen in the case of the finals by the examples adduced.--The _s_ and _t_ of the ancient termination are preserved, though not constantly: _tres_, _onus_, _passados annos_, _plantas_, _faghes_, facis, _tenemus_; _mulghet_, _mulghent_.--The formulae _ce_, _ci_, _ge_, _gi_ may be represented by _che_ (_ke_), &c.; but this appearance of special antiquity is really illusory (see _Arch._ ii. 143-144). The nexus _cl_, &c., may be maintained in the beginning of words (_claru_, _plus_); but if they are in the body of the word they usually undergo resolutions which, closely related though they be to those of Italian, sometimes bring about very singular results (e.g. _usare_, which by the intermediate forms _uscare_, _usjare_ leads back to _usclare_ = _ustlare_ = _ustulare_). _Nz_ is the representative of _nj_ (_testimonzu_, &c.); and _lj_ is reduced to _z_ alone (e.g. _mezus_, melius; Campidanese _mellus_). For _ll_ a frequent substitute is _dd_: _massidda_, maxilla, &c. Quite characteristic is the continual labialization of the formulae _qua_, _gua_, _cu_, _gu_, &c.; e.g. _ebba_, equa; _sambene_, sanguine (see _Arch._ ii. 143). The dropping of the primary d (_roere_, rodere, &c.) but not of the secondary (_finidu_, _sanidade_, _maduru_) is frequent. Characteristic also is the Logudorese prothesis of _i_ before the initial _s_ followed by a consonant (_iscamnu_, _istella_, _ispada_), like the prothesis of _e_ in Spain and in France (see _Arch._ iii. 447 sqq.).--In the order of the present discussion it is in connexion with this territory that we are for the first time led to consider those phonetic changes in words of which the cause is merely syntactical of transitory, and chiefly those passing accidents which occur to the initial consonant through the historically legitimate or the merely analogical action of the final sound that precedes it. The general explanation of such phenomena reduces itself to this, that, given the intimate syntactic relation of two words, the initial consonant of the second retains or modifies its character as it would retain or modify it if the two words were one. The Celtic languages are especially distinguished by this peculiarity; and among the dialects of Upper Italy the Bergamasc offers a clear example. This dialect is accustomed to drop the _v_, whether primary or secondary, between vowels in the individual vocables (_caa_, cavare; _faa_, fava, &c.), but to preserve it if it is preceded by a consonant (_serva_, &c.).--And similarly in syntactic combination we have, for example, _de i_, di vino; but _ol vi_, il vino. Insular, southern and central Italy furnish a large number of such phenomena; for Sardinia we shall simply cite a single class, which is at once obvious and easily explained, viz. that represented by _su oe_, il bove, alongside of _sos boes_, i. buoi (cf. _biere_, bibere; _erba_).--The article is derived from _ipse_ instead of from _ille_: _su sos_, _sa sas_,--again a geographical anticipation of Spain, which in the Catalan of the Balearic islands still preserves the article from _ipse_.--A special connexion with Spain exists besides in the _nomine_ type of inflexion, which is constant among the Sardinians (Span. _nomne_, &c., whence _nombre_, &c.), _nomen_, _nomene_, _ramine_, aeramine, _legumene_, &c. (see _Arch._ ii. 429 sqq.).--Especially noteworthy in the conjugation of the verb is the paradigm _cantere_, _canteres_, &c., _timere_, _timeres_, &c., precisely in the sense of the imperfect subjunctive (cf. A. 1; cf. C. 3 b). Next comes the analogical and almost corrupt diffusion of the -_si_ of the ancient strong perfects (such as _posi_, _rosi_) by which _cantesi_, _timesi_ (cantavi, timui), _dolfesi_, dolui, are reached. Proof of the use and even the abuse of the strong perfects is afforded, however, by the participles and the infinitives of the category to which belong the following examples: _tennidu_, tenuto; _parfidu_, parso; _balfidu_, valso; _tennere_, _balere_, &c. (_Arch._ ii. 432-433). The future, finally, shows the unagglutinated periphrasis: _hapo a mandigare_ (ho a mangiare = manger-o); as indeed the unagglutinated forms of the future and the conditional occur in ancient vernacular texts of other Italian districts. [The Campidanese manuscript, in Greek characters, published by Blancard and Wescher (_Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes_, xxxv. 256-257), goes back as far as the last years of the 11th century. Next come the Cagliari MSS. published by Solmi (_Le Carte volgari dell' Archivio arcivescovile di Cagliari_, Florence, 1905; cf. Guarnerio in _Studi romanzi_, fascicolo iv. 189 et seq.), the most ancient of which in its original form dates from 1114-1120. For Logoduro, the _Condaghe di S. Pietro di Silchi_ (SS xii.-xiii.), published by G. Bonazzi (Sassari-Cagliari, 1900; cf. Meyer-Lubke, _Zur Kenntnis des Altlogudoresischen_, Vienna, 1902), is of the highest importance.]

[3. _Vegliote_ (_Veglioto_).--Perhaps we may not be considered to be departing from Ascoli's original plan if we insert here as a third member of the group B the neo-Latin dialect which found its last refuge in the island of Veglia (Gulf of Quarnero), where it came definitively to an end in 1898. The Vegliote dialect is the last remnant of a language which some long time ago extended from thence along the Dalmatian coast, whence it gained the name of _Dalmatico_, a language which should be carefully distinguished from the Venetian dialect spoken to this day in the towns of the Dalmatian littoral. Its character reminds us in many ways of Rumanian, and of that type of Romano-Balkan dialect which is represented by the Latin elements of Albanian, but to a certain extent also, and especially with regard to the vowel sounds, of the south-eastern dialects of Italy, while it has also affinities with Friuli, Istria and Venetia. These characteristics taken altogether seem to suggest that _Dalmatico_ differs as much as does Sardinian from the purely Italian type. It rejects the -s, it is true, retaining instead the nominative form in the plural; but here these facts are no longer a criterion, since in this point Italian and Rumanian are in agreement. A tendency which we have already noted, and shall have further cause to note hereafter, and which connects in a striking way the Vegliote and Abruzzo-Apulian dialects, consists in reducing the accented vowels to diphthongs: examples of this are: spuota, Ital. spada; _buarka_, Ital. barca; _fiar_, Ital. ferro; _nuat_, Ital. notte; _kataina_, Ital. catena; _paira_, Ital. pero; Lat. _piru_; _jaura_, Ital. ora; _nauk_, Ital. noce; Lat. _nuce_; _ortaika_, Ital. ortica; _joiva_, Ital. uova. Other vowel phenomena should also be noted, for example those exemplified in _prut_, Ital. prato; _dik_, Ital. dieci, Lat. _decem_; _luk_, Ital. luogo, Lat. _locu_; _krask_, Ital. crescere; _cenk_, Ital. cinque, Lat. _quinque_; _buka_, Ital. bocca, Lat. _bcca_. With regard to the consonants, we should first notice the invariable persistence of the explosive surds (as in Rumanian and the southern dialects) for which several of the words just cited will serve as examples, with the addition of _kuosa_, Ital. casa; _praiza_, Ital. presa; _struota_, Ital. strada; _rosuota_, Ital. rugiada; _latri_, Ital. ladro; _raipa_, Ital. riva. The _c_ in the formula _ce_, whether primary or secondary, is represented by _k_: _kaina_, Ital. cena; _kanaisa_, Ital. cinigia; _akait_, Ital. aceto; _plakar_, Ital. piacere; _dik_, Ital. dieci; _mukna_, Ital. macina; _dotko_, Ital. dodici; and similarly the _g_ in the formula _ge_ is represented by the corresponding guttural: _ghelut_, Ital. gelato; _jongar_, Ital. giungere; _plungre_, Ital. piangere, &c. On the contrary, the guttural of the primitive formula _cu_ becomes _c_ (_col_, Ital. culo); this phenomenon is also noteworthy as seeming to justify the inference that the _u_ was pronounced _u_. _Pt_ is preserved, as in Rumanian (_sapto_, Lat. _septem_), and often, again as in Rumanian, _ct_ is also reduced to _pt_ (_guapto_, Lat. _octo_). As to morphology, a characteristic point is the preservation of the Lat. _cantavero_, Ital. avro cantato, in the function of a simple future. _Cantaverum_ also occurs as a conditional. For Vegliote and Dalmatico in general, see M. G. Bartoli's fundamental work, _Das Dalmatische_ (2 vols., Vienna, 1906), and _Zeitschrift fur roman. Philologie_, xxxii. 1 sqq.; Merlo, _Rivista di filologia e d'istruzione class_, xxxv. 472 sqq. A short document written about 1280 in the Dalmatic dialect of Ragusa is to be found in _Archeografo Triestino_, new series, vol. i. pp. 85-86.]

C. _Dialects which diverge more or less from the genuine Italian or Tuscan type, but which at the same time can be conjoined with the Tuscan as forming part of a special system of Neo-Latin dialects_.

1. _Venetian._--Between "Venetian" and "Venetic" several distinctions must be drawn (_Arch._ i. 391 sqq.). At the present day the population of the Venetian cities is "Venetian" in language, but the country districts are in various ways Venetic.[6] The ancient language of Venice itself and of its estuary was not a little different from that of the present time; and the Ladin vein was particularly evident (see A. 2). A more purely Italian vein--the historical explanation of which presents an attractive problem--has ultimately gained the mastery and determined the "Venetian" type which has since diffused itself so vigorously.--In the Venetian, then, we do not find the most distinctive characteristics of the dialects of Upper Italy comprised under the denomination Gallo-Italic (see B. 1),--neither the _u_ nor the _o_, nor the velar[7] and faucal nasals, nor the Gallic resolution of the _ct_, nor the frequent elision of unaccented vowels, nor the great redundancy of pronouns. On the contrary, the pure Italian diphthong of _o_ (e.g. _cuor_) is heard, and the diphthong of _e_ is in full currency (_diese_, dieci, &c.). Nevertheless the Venetian approaches the type of Northern Italy, or diverges notably from that of Central Italy, by the following phonetic phenomena: the ready elision of primary or secondary _d_ (_cruo_, crudo; _sea_, seta, &c.); the regular reduction of the surd into the sonant guttural (e.g. _cuogo_, Ital. cuoco, coquus); the pure _c_ in the resolution of _cl_ (e.g. _cave_, clave; _oreca_, auricula); the _s_ for _g_ (_sovene_, Ital. giovane); _c_ for _s_ and _c_ (_pece_, Ital. pesce; _ciel_, Ital. cielo). _Lj_ preceded by any vowel, primary or secondary, except _i_, gives _g_: _famega_, familia. No Italian dialect is more averse than the Venetian to the doubling of consonants.--In the morphology the use of the 3rd singular for the 3rd plural also, the analogical participle in _esto_ (_tasesto_, Ital. taciuto, &c.; see _Arch._ iv. 393, sqq.) and _se_, Lat. _est_, are particularly noteworthy. A curious double relic of Ladin influence is the interrogative type represented by the example _credis-tu_, credis tu,--where apart from the interrogation _ti credi_ would be used. For other ancient sources relating to Venice, the estuary of Venice, Verona and Padua, see _Arch._ i. 448, 465, 421-422; iii. 245-247. [Closely akin to Venetian, though differing from it in about the same degree that the various Gallo-Italian dialects differ among one another, is the indigenous dialect of ISTRIA, now almost entirely ousted by Venetian, and found in a few localities only (Rovigno, Dignano). The most salient characteristics of Istrian can be recognized in the treatment of the accented vowels, and are of a character which recalls, to a certain extent at least, the Vegliote dialect. Thus we have in Istrian _i_ for _e_ (_bivi_, Ital. bevi, Lat. _bibis_; _tila_, Ital. tela; _viro_, Ital. vero and vetro, Lat. _veru_, _vitru_; _nito_, Ital. netto, Lat. _nitidu_, &c.) and analogously _u_ for _o_ (_fiur_, Ital. fiore, Lat. _flore_; _bus_, Ital. voce, Lat. _voce_, &c.); _ei_ and _ou_ from the Lat. _i_ and _u_ respectively (_ameigo_, Lat. _amicu_, _feil_, Lat. _filu_, &c.; _mour_, Lat. _muru_; _noudu_, Lat. _nudu_; _frouto_, Ital. frutto, Lat. _fructu_, &c.); _ie_ and _uo_ from _e_ and _o_ respectively in position (_piel_, Lat. _pelle_, _mierlo_, Ital. merlo, Lat. _merula_; _kuorno_, Lat. _cornu_; _puorta_, Lat. _porta_), a phenomenon in which Istrian resembles not only Vegliote but also Friulian. The resemblance with Verona, in the reduction of final unaccented -_e_ to _o_ should also be noted (_nuoto_, Ital. notte, &c., _bivo_, Ital. _beve_; _malamentro_, Ital. malamente, &c.), and that with Belluno and Treviso in the treatment of -_oni_, -_ani_ (_barboi_, -_oin_, Ital. barboni), though it is peculiar to Istrian that -_ain_ should give -_en_ (_kan_, _ken_, Ital. cane -i). With regard to consonants, we should point out the _n_ for _gn_ (_lino_, Ital. legno); and as to morphology, we should note certain survivals of the inflexional type, _amita_, -_anis_ (sing. _sia_, Ital. zia, pl. _sianne_).] The most ancient Venetian documents take us back to the first half of the 13th century (v. E. Bertanza and V. Lazzarini, _Il Dialetto veneziano fino alla morte di Dante Alighieri_, Venice, 1891), and to the second half of the same century seems to belong the Saibante MS. For Verona we have also documents of the 13th century (v. Cipolla, in _Archivio storico italiano_, 1881 and 1882); and to the end of the same century perhaps belongs the MS. which has preserved for us the writings of Giacomino da Verona. See also _Archivio glottologico_, i. 448, 465, 421-422, iii. 245-247.

2. _Corsican_[8]--If the "Venetian," in spite of its peculiar "Italianity," has naturally special points of contact with the other dialects of Upper Italy (B. 1), the Corsican in like manner, particularly in its southern varieties, has special points of contact with Sardinian proper (B. 2). In general, it is in the southern section of the island, which, geographically even, is farthest removed from Tuscany, that the most characteristic forms of speech are found. The unaccented vowels are undisturbed; but _u_ for the Tuscan _o_ is common to almost all the island,--an insular phenomenon _par excellence_ which connects Corsica with Sardinia and with Sicily, and indeed with Liguria also. So also -_i_ for the Tuscan -_e_ (_latti_, latte; _li cateni_, le catene), which prevails chiefly in the southern section, is also found in Northern and Southern Sardinian, and is common to Sicily. It is needless to add that this tendency to _u_ and _i_ manifests itself, more or less decidedly, also within the words. Corsican, too, avoids the diphthongs of _e_ and _o_ (_pe_, _eri_; _cori_, _fora_): but, unlike Sardinian, it treats _i_ and _u_ in the Italian fashion: _beju_, bibo; _peveru_, piper; _pesci_; _noci_, nuces.[9]--It is one of its characteristics to reduce a to e in the formula _ar_ + a consonant (_cherne_, _berba_, &c.), which should be compared particularly with the Piedmontese examples of the same phenomenon (_Arch._ ii. 133, 144-150). But the gerund in _-endu_ of the first conjugation (_turnendu_, _lagrimendu_, &c.) must on the contrary be considered as a phenomenon of analogy, as it is especially recognized in the Sardinian dialects, to all of which it is common (see _Arch._ ii. 133). And the same is most probably the case with forms of the present participle like _merchente_, mercante, in spite of _enzi_ and _innenzi_ (anzi, innanzi), in which latter forms there may probably be traced the effect of the Neo-Latin _i_ which availed to reduce the _t_ of the Latin _ante_; alongside of them we find also _anzi_ and _nantu_. But cf. also, _grendi_, Ital. grande. In Southern Corsican _dr_ for _ll_ is conspicuous--a phenomenon which also connects Corsica with Sardinia, Sicily and a good part of Southern Italy (see C. 2; and _Arch._ ii. 135, &c.), also with the northern coast of Tuscany, since examples such as _beddu_ belong also to Carrara and Montignoso. In the Ultramontane variety occur besides, the phenomena of _rn_ changed to r (= _rr_) and of _nd_ becoming _nn_ (_furu_, Ital. forno; _koru_, Ital. corno; _kuannu_, Ital. quando; _vidennu_, Ital. vedendo). The former of these would connect Corsican with Sardinian (_corru_, cornu; _carre_, carne, &c.); the latter more especially with Sicily, &c. A particular connexion with the central dialects is given by the change of _ld_ into _ll_ (_kallu_, Ital. caldo).--As to phonetic phenomena connected with syntax, already noticed in B. 2, space admits the following examples only: Cors, _na vella_, una bella, _e bella_ (_ebbella_, et bella); _lu jallu_, lo gallo, _gran ghiallu_; cf. _Arch._ ii. 136 (135, 150), xiv. 185. As Tommaseo has already noted, _-one_ is for the Corsicans not less than for the Sicilians, Calabrians and the French a termination of diminution: e.g. _fratedronu_, fratellino.--In the first person of the conditional the _b_ is maintained (e.g. _farebe_, farei), as even at Rome and elsewhere. Lastly, the series of Corsican verbs of the derivative order which run alongside of the Italian series of the original order, and may be represented by the example _dissipeghja_, dissipa (Falcucci), is to be compared with the Sicilian series represented by _cuadiari_, riscaldare, _curpiari_, colpire (_Arch._ ii. 151).

3. _Dialects of Sicily and of the Neapolitan Provinces._--Here the territories on both sides of the Strait of Messina will first be treated together, chiefly with the view of noting their common linguistic peculiarities.--Characteristic then of these parts, as compared with Upper Italy and even with Sardinia, is, generally speaking, the tenacity of the explosive elements of the Latin bases (cf. _Arch._ ii. 154, &c.). Not that these consonants are constantly preserved uninjured; their degradations, and especially the Neapolitan degradation of the surd into the sonant, are even more frequent than is shown by the dialect as written, but their disappearance is comparatively rather rare; and even the degradations, whether regard be had to the conjunctures in which they occur or to their specific quality, are very different from those of the dialects of Upper Italy. Thus, the t between vowels ordinarily remains intact in Sicilian and Neapolitan (e.g. Sicil. _sita_, Neap. _seta_, seta, where in the dialects of Upper Italy we should have _seda_, _sea_); and in the Neapolitan dialects it is reduced to _d_ when it is preceded by _n_ or _r_ (e.g._ viende_, vento), which is precisely a collocation in which the _t_ would be maintained intact in Upper Italy. The _d_, on the other hand, is not resolved by elision, but by its reduction to _r_ (e.g. Sicil. _viriri_, Neap. dialects _vere_, vedere), a phenomenon which has been frequently compared, perhaps with too little caution, with the _d_ passing into _rs_ (_d_) in the Umbrian inscriptions. The Neapolitan reduction of _nt_ into _nd_ has its analogies in the reduction of _nc_ (_nk_) into _ng_, and of _mp_ into _mb_, which is also a feature of the Neapolitan dialects, and in that of _ns_ into _nz_; and here and there we even find a reduction of _nf_ into _mb_ (_nf_, _nv_, _nb_, _mb_), both in Sicilian and Neapolitan (e.g. at Casteltermini in Sicily _'mbiernu_, inferno, and in the Abruzzi _cumbonn'_, _'mbonn'_, confondere, infondere). Here we find ourselves in a series of phenomena to which it may seem that some special contributions were furnished by Oscan and Umbrian (_nt_, _mp_, _nc_ into _nd_, &c.), but for which more secure and general, and so to say "isothermal," analogies are found in modern Greek and Albanian. The Sicilian does not appear to fit in here as far as the formulae _nt_ and _mp_ are concerned; and it may even be said to go counter to this tendency by reducing _ng_ and _nz_ to _nc_, _nz_ (e.g. _punciri_, pungere; _menzu_, Ital. mezzo; _sponza_, Ital. spugna, Ven. _sponza_).[10] Nay, even in the passing of the sonant into the surd, the Neapolitan dialects would yield special and important contributions (nor is even the Sicilian limited to the case just specified), among which we will only mention the change of _d_ between vowels into _t_ in the last syllable of proparoxytones (e.g. _ummeto_, Sicil. _umitu_, umido), and in the formula _dr_ (Sicil. and Neap. _quatro_, Ital. quadro, &c.). From these series of sonants changing into surds comes a peculiar feature of the southern dialects.--A pretty common characteristic is the regular progressive assimilation by which _nd_ is reduced to _nn_, _ng_ to _nn_, _mb_ to _mm_, and even _nv_ also to _mm_ (_nv_, _nb_, _mb_, _mm_), e.g. Sicil. _sinniri_, Neap. _sennere_, scendere; Sicil. _chiummu_, Neap. _chiumme_, piombo; Sicil. and Neap. _'mmidia_, invidia; Sicil. _sannu_, sangue. As belonging to this class of phenomena the Palaeo-Italic analogy (_nd_ into _nn_, _n_), of which the Umbrian furnishes special evidence, readily suggests itself. Another important common characteristic is the reduction of secondary _pj fj_ into _kj_ (_chianu_ -_e_, Sicil., Neap., &c., Ital. piano), _s_ (Sicil. _sumi_, Neap. _summe_, fiume), of secondary _bj_ to _j_ (which may be strengthened to _ghj_) if initial (Sicil. _jancu_, Neap. _janche_, bianco; Sicil. _agghianchiari_, imbiancare), to _l_ if between vowels (Neap. _neglia_, nebbia, Sicil. _nigliu_, nibbio); of primary _pj_ and _bj_ into _c_ (Sicil. _sicca_, Neap. _secca_, seppia) or _g_ respectively (Sicil. _ragga_, Neap. _arragga_, rabbia), for which phenomena see also Genoese (B. 1). Further is to be noted the tendency to the sibilation of _cj_, for which Sicil. _jazzu_, ghiaccio, may serve as an example (_Arch._ ii. 149),--a tendency more particularly betrayed in Upper Italy, but Abruzzan departs from it (cf. Abr. _jacce_, ghiaccio, _vracce_, braccio, &c.). There is a common inclination also to elide the initial unaccented palatal vowel, and to prefix _a_, especially before _r_ (this second tendency is found likewise in Southern Sardinian, &c.; see _Arch._ ii. 138); e.g. Sicil. _'ntenniri_, Neap. _'ndennere_, intendere; Sicil. _arriccamari_, Neap. _arragamare_, ricamare (see _Arch._ ii. 150). Throughout the whole district, and the adjacent territories in Central Italy, a tendency also prevails towards resolving certain combinations of consonants by the insertion of a vowel; thus combinations in which occur _r_ or _l_, _w_ or _j_ (Sicil. _kiruci_, Ital. croce, _filagutu_, Ital. flauto, _salivari_, salvare, _variva_, Ital. barba; Abr. _calechene_, Ital. ganghero, _Salevestre_, Silvestro, _feulemenande_, fulminante, _jereve_, Ital. erba, &c.; Avellinese _garamegna_, gramigna; Neap. _avotro_ = _*awtro_, Ital. altro, _cevoza_ = _*cewza_, Ital. gelso, _ajeta_ side by side with _ajta_, Ital. eta, _odejo_ = _odjo_, Ital. odio, &c.; Abr. _'nniveje_, indiva, _nebbeje_, nebbia, &c.); _cattajeve_ = _cattajve_, cattivo, _gouele_ = _*gowle_, gola, &c. &c., are examples from Molfetta, where is also normal the resolution of _sk_ by _sek_ (_mesekere_, maschera, _sekatele_, scatola, &c.); cf. _seddegno_, sdegno, in some dialects of the province of Avellino. In complete contrast to the tendency to get rid of double consonants which has been particularly noted in Venetian (C. 1), we here come to the great division of Italy where the tendency grows strong to gemination (or the doubling of consonants), especially in proparoxytones; and the Neapolitan in this respect goes farther than the Sicilian (e.g. Sicil. _soggiru_, suocero, _cinniri_, cenere, _doppu_, dopo; _'nsemmula_, insieme, in-simul; Neap. _dellecato_, dilicato; _ummeto_, umido; _debbole_).--As to the phonetic phenomena connected with the syntax (see B. 2), it is sufficient to cite such Sicilian examples as _nisuna ronna_, nesuna donna, alongside of _c' e donni_, c' e donne; _cincu jorna_, cinque giorni, alongside of _chiu ghiorna_, piu giorni; and the Neapolitan _la vocca_, la bocca, alongside of _a bocca_, ad buccam, &c.

We now proceed to the special consideration, first, of the Sicilian and, secondly, of the dialects of the mainland.

(a) _Sicilian._--The Sicilian vocalism is conspicuously etymological. Though differing in colour from the Tuscan, it is not less noble, and between the two there are remarkable points of contact. The dominant variety, represented in the literary dialect, ignores the diphthongs of _e_ and of _o_, as it has been seen that they are ignored in Sardinia (B. 2), and here also the _i_ and the _u_ appear intact; but the _e_ and the _o_ are fittingly represented by _i_ and _u_; and with equal symmetry unaccented _e_ and _o_ are reproduced by _i_ and _u_. Examples: _teni_, tiene; _novu_, nuovo; _pilu_, pelo; _minnitta_, Ital. vendetta; _jugu_, giogo; _agustu_, Ital. agosto; _cridiri_, credere; _vinniri_, Ital. vendere; _sira_, sera; _vina_, vena; _suli_, Ital. sole; _ura_, ora; _furma_, Ital. forma. In the evolution of the consonants it is enough to add here the change of _lj_ into _ghj_ (e.g. _figghiu_, Ital. figlio) and of _ll_ into _dd_ (e.g. _gaddu_, Ital. gallo). As to morphology, we will confine ourselves to pointing out the masculine plurals of neuter form (_li pastura_, _li marinara_). For the Sicilian dialect we have a few fragments going back to the 13th century, but the documents are scanty until we come to the 14th century.

(b) _Dialects of the Neapolitan Mainland._--The Calabrian (by which is to be understood more particularly the vernacular group of the two Further Calabrias) may be fairly considered as a continuation of the Sicilian type, as is seen from the following examples:--_cori_, cuore; _petra_; _fimmina_, femina; _vuce_, voce; _unure_, onore; _figghiu_, figlio; _spadde_, spalle; _trizza_, treccia. Both Sicilian and Calabrian is the reducing of _rl_ to _rr_ (Sicil. _parrari_, Cal. _parrare_, parlare, &c.). The final vowel -_e_ is reduced to -_i_, but is preserved in the more southern part, as is seen from the above examples. Even the _h_ for _s_ = _fj_, as in _huri_ (Sicil. _suri_, fiore), which is characteristic in Calabrian, has its forerunners in the island (see _Arch._ ii. 456). And, in the same way, though the dominant varieties of Calabria seem to cling to the _mb_ (it sometimes happens that _mm_ takes the form of _mb_: _imbiscare_ = Sicil. '_mmiscari_ 'immischiare', &c.) and _nd_, as opposed to the _mm_, _nn_, of the whole of Southern Italy and Sicily, we must remember, firstly, that certain other varieties have, e.g. _granne_, Ital. grande, and _chiummu_, Ital. piombo; and secondly, that even in Sicily (at Milazzo, Barcelona, and as far as Messina) districts are to be found in which _nd_ is used. Along the coast of the extreme south of Italy, when once we have passed the interruptions caused by the Basilisco type (so called from the Basilicata), the Sicilian vocalism again presents itself in the Otrantine, especially in the seaboard of Capo di Leuca. In the Lecce variety of the Otrantine the vocalism which has just been described as Sicilian also keeps its ground in the main (cf. Morosi, _Arch._ iv.): _sira_, sera; _leitu_, oliveto; _pilu_; _ura_, ora; _dulure_. Nay more, the Sicilian phenomenon of _lj_ into _ghj_ (_figghiu_, figlio, &c.) is well marked in Terra d' Otranto and also in Terra di Bari, and even extends through the Capitanata and the Basilicata (cf. D' Ovidio, _Arch._ iv. 159-160). As strongly marked in the Terra d'Otranto is the insular phenomenon of _ll_ into _dd_ (_dr_), which is also very widely distributed through the Neapolitan territories on the eastern side of the Apennines, sending outshoots even to the Abruzzo. But in Terra d'Otranto we are already in the midst of the diphthongs of _e_ and of _o_, both non-positional and positional, the development or permanence of which is determined by the quality of the unaccented final vowel,--as generally happens in the dialects of the south. The diphthongs of _e_ and _o_, determined by final -_i_ and -_u_, are also characteristic of central and northern Calabria (_viecchiu_ -_i_, vecchio -a, _vecchia_ -_e_, vecchia -e; _buonu_ -_i_, _bona_ -_e_, &c. &c.). Thus there comes to be a treatment of the vowels, peculiar to the two peninsulas of Calabria and Salent. The diphthongal product of the _o_ is here _ue_. The following are examples from the Lecce variety of the dialect: _core_, pl. _cueri_; _metu_, _mieti_, _mete_, mieto, mieti, miete (Lat. metere); _sentu_, _sienti_, _sente_; _olu_, _ueli_, _ola_, volo, voli, vola; _mordu_, _muerdi_, _morde_. The _ue_ recalls the fundamental reduction which belongs to the Gallic (not to speak of the Spanish) regions, and stretches through the north of the Terra di Bari, where there are other diphthongs curiously suggestive of the Gallic: e.g. at Bitonto alongside of _lueche_, luogo, _suenne_, sonno, we have the _oi_ and the _ai_ from _i_ or _e_ of the previous phase (_vecoine_, vicino), and the _au_ from _o_ of the previous phase (_anaure_, onore), besides a diphthongal disturbance of the _a_. Here also occurs the change of _a_ into an _e_ more or less pure (thus, at Cisternino, _scunsulete_, sconsolata; at Canosa di Puglia, _arruete_, arrivata; _n-ghepe_, "in capa," that is, in capo); to which may be added the continual weakening or elision of the unaccented vowels not only at the end but in the body of the word (thus, at Bitonto, _vendett_, _spranz_). A similar type meets us as we cross into Capitanata (Cerignola: _graite_ and _grei_-, creta (but also _peite_, piede, &c.), _coute_, coda (but also _foure_, fuori, &c.); _voine_, vino, and similarly _poile_, pelo (Neap. _pilo_), &c.; _fueke_, fuoco; _caretate_, carita, _parla_, parlare, &c.); such forms being apparently the outposts of the Abruzzan, which, however, is only reached through the Molise--a district not very populous even now, and still more thinly peopled in bygone days--whose prevailing forms of speech in some measure interrupt the historical continuity of the dialects of the Adriatic versant, presenting, as it were, an irruption from the other side of the Apennines. In the head valley of the Molise, at Agnone, the legitimate precursors of the Abruzzan vernaculars reappear (_feafa_, fava, _stufeate_ and -_uote_, stufo, annojato, _fea_, fare; _chiezza_, piazza, _chiegne_, piangere, _cuene_, cane; _puole_, palo, _pruote_, prato, _cuone_, cane; _veire_ and _vaire_, vero, _moile_, melo, and similarly voive and veive, vivo; _deune_, dono, _deuva_, doga; _minaure_, minore; _cuerpe_, corpo, but _cuolle_). The following are pure Abruzzan examples. (1) From Bucchianico (Abruzzo Citeriore): _veive_, vivo; _rraje_, re; _allaure_, allora; _craune_, corona; _cirche_, cercare; _mele_, male; _grenne_, grande; _quenne_; but _'nsultate_, insultata; _strade_, strada (where again it is seen that the reduction of the _a_ depends on the quality of the final unaccented vowel, and that it is not produced exclusively by _i_, which would give rise to a further reduction: _scillarite_, scellerati; _ampire_, impari). (2) From Pratola Peligna (Abruzzo Ulteriore II.); _maje_, mia; _'naure_, onore; _'njuriete_, inguriata; _desperete_, disperata ( alongside of _venneca_, vendicare). It almost appears that a continuity with Emilian[11] ought to be established across the Marches (where another irruption of greater "Italianity" has taken place; a third of more dubious origin has been indicated for Venice, C. 1); see _Arch._ ii., 445. A negative characteristic for Abruzzan is the absence of the change in the third syllable of the combinations _pl_, _bl_, _fl_ (into _kj_, _j-_, _s_) and the reason seems evident. Here the _pj_, _bj_ and _fj_ themselves appear to be modern or of recent reduction--the ancient formulae sometimes occurring intact (as in the Bergamasc for Upper Italy), e.g. _planje_ and _pranje_ alongside of _pianje_, piagnere, _branghe_ alongside of _bianghe_, bianco (Fr. _blanc_), _flume_ and _frume_ alongside _fiume_, fiume. To the south of the Abruzzi begins and in the Abruzzi grows prominent that contrast in regard to the formulae _alt ald_ (resolved in the Neapolitan and Sicilian into _aut_, &c., just as in the Piedmontese, &c.), by which the types _aldare_, altare, and _calle_, caldo, are reached.[12] For the rest, when the condition and connexions of the vowel system still retained by so large a proportion of the dialects of the eastern versant of the Neapolitan Apennines, and the difference which exists in regard to the preservation of the unaccented vowels between the Ligurian and the Gallo-Italic forms of speech on the other versant of the northern Apennines, are considered, one cannot fail to see how much justice there is in the longitudinal or Apenninian partition of the Italian dialects indicated by Dante.--But, to continue, in the Basilicata, which drains into the Gulf of Taranto, and may be said to lie within the Apennines, not only is the elision of final unaccented vowels a prevailing characteristic; there are also frequent elisions of the unaccented vowels within the word. Thus at Matera: _sintenn la femn chessa cos_, sentendo la femina questa cosa; _disprat_, disperata; at Saponara di Grumento: _uomnn' scilrati_, uomini scellerati; _mnetta_, vendetta.--But even if we return to the Mediterranean versant and, leaving the Sicilian type of the Calabrias, retrace our steps till we pass into the Neapolitan pure and simple, we find that even in Naples the unaccented final vowels behave badly, the labial turning to _e_ (_bielle_, bello) and even the _a_ (_bella_) being greatly weakened. And here occurs a Palaeo-Italic instance which is worth mention: while Latin was accustomed to drop the u of its nominative only in presence of _r_ (_gener_ from *gener-u-s, _vir_ from *vir-u-s; cf. the Tuscan or Italian apocopated forms _vener_ = venere, _venner_ = vennero, &c.), Oscan and Umbrian go much farther: Oscan, hurz = *hort-u-s, Lat. hortus; Umbr. _pihaz_, piatus; _emps_, emptus, &c. In Umbrian inscriptions we find _u_ alternating with the _a_ of the nom. sing. fem. and plur. neut. In complete contrast with the Sicilian vocalism is the Neapolitan _e_ for unaccented and particularly final _i_ of the Latin and Neo-Latin or Italian phases (e.g. _viene_, vieni; cf. _infra_), to say nothing further of the regular diphthongization, within certain limits, of accented _e_ or _o_ in position (_apierte_, aperto, fem. _aperta_; _muorte_, morto, fem. _morta_, &c.).--In the quasi-morphological domain it is to be noted how the Siculo-Calabrian _u_ for the ancient _o_ and _u_, and the Siculo-Calabrian _i_ for the ancient _e_, _i_, are also still found in the Neapolitan, and, in particular, that they alternate with _o_ and _e_ in a manner that is determined by the difference of termination. Thus _cosetore_, cucitore, pl. _coseture_ (i.e. _coseturi_, the _-i_ passing into _e_ in keeping with the Neapolitan characteristic already mentioned); _russe_, Ital. rosso, _-i_; _rossa_ _-e_, Ital. rossa -e; _noce_, _noce_, pl. _nuce_; _crede_, io credo; _cride_ (*cridi), tu credi; _crede_, egli crede; _nigre_, but _negra_.

Passing now to a cursory mention of purely morphological phenomena, we begin with that form which is referred to the Latin pluperfect (see A. 1, B. 2), but which here too performs the functions of the conditional. Examples from the living dialects of (1) Calabria Citeriore are _faceru_, farei (Castrovillari); _tu te la collerre_, tu te l'acolleresti (Cosenza); _l'accettera_, l'accetterebbe (Grimaldi); and from those of (2) the Abruzzi, _vuler'_, vorrei (Castelli); _dere_, darei (Atessa); _candere_, canterei. For the dialects of the Abruzzi, we can check our observations by examples from the oldest chronicle of Aquila, as _non habera lassato_, non avrebbe lasciato (str. 180) (cf. _negara_, Ital. negherei, in old MS. of the Marches). There are some interesting remains (more or less corrupted both in form and usage) of ancient consonantal terminations which have not yet been sufficiently studied: _s' incaricaviti_, s' incaricava, -abat (Basilicata, Senise); ebbiti, ebbe (ib.); _aviadi_, aveva (Calabria, Grimaldi); _arrivaudi_, arrivo (ib.). The last example also gives the _-au_ of the 3rd pers. sing. perf. of the first conjugation, which still occurs in Sicily and between the horns of the Neapolitan mainland. In the Abruzzi (and in the Ascolan district) the 3rd person of the plural is in process of disappearing (the _-no_ having fallen away and the preceding vowel being obscured), and its function is assumed by the 3rd person singular; cf. C. 1.[13] The explanation of the Neapolitan forms _songhe_, io sono, essi sono, _donghe_, io do, stonghe, io sto, as also of the enclitic of the 2nd person plural which exists, e.g. in the Sicil. _avissivu_, Neap. _avisteve_, aveste, has been correctly given more than once. It may be remarked in conclusion that this Neo-Latin region keeps company with the Rumanian in maintaining in large use the -ora derived from the ancient neuter plurals of the type _tempora_; Sicil. _jocura_, giuochi; Calabr. _nidura_, Abruzz. _nidere_, nidi, Neap. _ortola_ (= -_ra_), orti, Capitanata _acure_, aghi, Apulian _aceddere_ (Tarantine _aceddiri_), uccelli, &c. It is in this region, and more particularly in Capua, that we can trace the first appearance of what can definitely be called Italian, as shown in a Latin legal document of the year 960 (_sao co kelle terre per kelle fini qui ki contene trenta anni le possette parte Sancti Benedicti_, Ital. "so che quelle terre per quei confini che qui contiene trent 'anni le possedette la parte di S. Benedetto"), and belongs more precisely to Capua. The so-called _Carta Rossanese_ (Calabria), written in a mixture of Latin and vulgar tongue, belongs to the first decades of the 12th century; while a document of Fondi (Campania) in the vulgar tongue goes back to the last decades of the same century. Neapolitan documents do not become abundant till the 14th century. The same is true of the Abruzzi and of Apulia; in the case of the latter the date should perhaps be put even later.

4. _Dialects of Umbria, the Marches and the Province of Rome._--The phenomena characteristic of the Gallo-Italian dialects can be traced in the northern Marches in the dialects not only of the provinces of Pesaro and Urbino (_Arch. glott._ ii. 444), where we note also the constant dropping of the final vowels, strong elisions of accented and unaccented vowels, the suffix -_ariu_ becoming -_er_, &c., but also as far as Ancona and beyond. As in Ancona, the double consonants are reduced to single ones; there are strong elisions (_breta_, Ital. berretta; _blin_, Ital. bellino; _figurte_, Ital. "figurati"; _vermne_, Ital. verme, "vermine," &c.); the -_k_- becomes _g_; the _s_, _s_. At Jesi -_t_- and -_k_- become _d_ and _g_, and the _g_ is also found at Fabriano, though here it is modified in the Southern fashion (_spia_ = _spiga_, Ital. spica). Examples are also found of the dropping of -_d_- primary between vowels: Pesaran _raica_, Ital. radica; Fabr. _peo_; Ital. piede, which are noteworthy in that they indicate an isolated Gallo-Italian phenomenon, which is further traceable in Umbria (_peacchia_ = ped-, Ital. orma; _raica_ and _raice_, Ital. radice; _trubio_, Ital. torbido; _fracio_, Ital. fracido; at Rieti also the dropping of the -_d_- is normal: _veo_, Ital. vedo; _fiatu_, Ital. fidato, &c.; and here too is found the dropping of initial _d_ for syntactical reasons: _ente_, Ital. dente, from _lu [d]ente)_. According to some scholars of the Marches, the _e_ for _a_ also extends as far as Ancona; and it is certainly continued from the north, though it is precisely in the territory of the Marches that Gallo-Italian and Abruzzan come into contact. The southern part of the Marches (the basin of the Tronto), after all, is Abruzzan in character. But the Abruzzan or Southern phenomena in general are widely diffused throughout the whole of the region comprising the Marches, Umbria, Latium and Aquila (for the territory of Aquila, belonging as it does both geographically and politically to the Abruzzi, is also attached linguistically to this group), which with regard to certain phenomena includes also that part of Tuscany lying to the south of the southern Ombrone. Further, the Tuscan dialect strictly so called sends into the Marches a few of its characteristics, and thus at Arcevia we have the pronunciation of -_c_- between vowels as _s_ (_formesce_, Ital. forbici),[14] and Ancona has no changes of tonic vowels determined by the final vowel. Again, Umbria and the Sabine territory, and some parts of the Roman territory, are connected with Tuscany by the phenomenon of -_ajo_ for -_ariu_ (_molinajo_, Ital. mugnaio, &c.). But, to come to the Abruzzan Southern phenomena, we should note that the Abruzzan _ll_ for _ld_ extends into the central region (Norcia: _callu_, caldo; Rome: _ariscalla_, riscalda; the phenomenon, however, occurs also in Corsica); and the assimilation of _nd_ into _nn_, and of _mb_ into _mm_ stretches through Umbria, the Marches and Rome, and even crosses from the Roman province into southern Tuscany (Rieti: _quanno_, quando; Spoleto: _comannava_, comandava; Assisi: _piagnenno_, piangendo; Sanseverino Marches: _piagnenne_, '_mmece_, invece (imbece); Fabriano: _vennecasse_, vendicarsi; Osimo: _monno_, mondo; Rome: _fronna_, fronda; _piommo_, piombo; Pitigliano (Tuscany): _quanno_, _piagnenno_). It is curious to note, side by side with this phenomenon, in the same districts, that of _nd_ for _nn_, which we still find and which was more common in the past (_affando_, affanno, &c., see _Zeitschrift fur roman. Philol._ xxii. 510). Even the diphthongs of the _e_ and the _o_ in position are largely represented. Examples are--at Norcia, _tiempi_, _uocchi_, _stuortu_; Assisi and Fabriano: _tiempo_; Orvieto: _tiempo_, _tierra_, _le tuorte_, li torti, and even _duonna_. The change of preconsonantal _l_ into _r_, so frequent throughout this region, and particularly characteristic of Rome, is a phenomenon common to the Aquilan dialect. Similar facts might be adduced in abundance. And it is to be noted that the features common to Umbro-Roman and the Neapolitan dialects must have been more numerous in the past, as this was the region where the Tuscan current met the southern, and by reason of its superior culture gradually gained the ascendancy.[15] Typical for the whole district (except the Marches) is the reduction to _t_ (and later to _j_) of _ll_ and of _l_ initial, when followed by _i_ or _u_ (Velletri, _tuna_, _tuce_; Sora, _juna_, Ital. luna, _jima_, Ital. lima; melica. Ital. mollica, _bete_, Ital. belli, bello, in vulgar Latin _bellu_; but _bella_, bella, &c.). The phonological connexions between the Northern Umbrian, the Aretine, and the Gallo-Italic type have already been indicated (B. 2). In what relates to morphology, the -_orno_ of the 3rd pers. plur. of the perfect of the first conjugation has been pointed out as an essential peculiarity of the Umbro-Roman territory; but even this it shares with the Aquila vernaculars, which, moreover, extend it to the other conjugations (_amorno_, _timorono_, &c.), exactly like the -_o_ of the 3rd person singular. Further, this termination is found also in the Tuscan dialects.

Throughout almost the whole district should be noted the distinction between the masculine and neuter substantive, expressed by means of the article, the distinction being that the neuter substantive has an abstract and indeterminate signification; e.g. at S. Ginesio, in the Marches, _lu pesce_, but _lo pesce_, of fish in general, as food, &c.; at Sora _te wetre_, the sheet of glass, but _le wetre_, glass, the material, original substance.[16] As to the inflection of verbs, there is in the ancient texts of the region a notable prevalence of perfect form in the formation of the imperfect conjunctive; _tolzesse_, Ital. togliesse; _sostenesse_, Ital. sostenesse; _conubbessero_, Ital. conoscessero, &c. In the northern Marches, we should note the preposition sa, Ital. con (_sa lia_, Ital. con lei), going back to a type similar to that of the Ital. "con-esso."

In a large part of Umbria an _m_ or _t_ is prefixed to the sign of the dative: _t-a lu_, a lui; _m-al re_, al re;[17] which must be the remains of the auxiliary prepositions _int(us)_, _a(m)pud_, cf. Prov. _amb_, _am_ (cf. _Arch._ ii. 444-446). By means of the series of Perugine texts this group of dialects may be traced back with confidence to the 13th century; and to this region should also belong a "Confession," half Latin half vernacular, dating from about the 11th century, edited and annotated by Flechia (_Arch._ vii. 121 sqq.). The "chronicle" of Monaldeschi has been already mentioned. The MSS. of the Marches go back to the beginning of the 13th century and perhaps still further back. For Roman (see Monaci, _Rendic. dell' Accad. dei Lincei_, xvi. 103 sqq.) there is a short inscription of the 11th century. To the 13th century belongs the _Liber historiarum Romanorum_ (Monaci, _Archivio della Societa rom. di storia patria_, xii.; and also, _Rendic. dei Lincei_, i. 94 sqq.), and to the first half of the same century the _Formole volgari_ of Raineri da Perugia (Monaci, ib., xiv. 268 sqq.). There are more abundant texts for all parts of this district in the 14th century, to which also belongs the _Cronica Aquilana_ of Buccio di Ranallo, republished by De Bartholomaeis (Rome, 1907).

D. _Tuscan, and the Literary Language of the Italians._

We have now only to deal with the Tuscan territory. It is bounded on the W. by the sea. To the north it terminates with the Apennines; for Romagna Toscana, the strip of country on the Adriatic versant which belongs to it administratively, is assigned to Emilia as regards dialect. In the north-west also the Emilian presses on the Tuscan, extending as it does down the Mediterranean slope of the Apennines in Lunigiana and Garfagnana. Intrusions which may be called Emilian have also been noted to the west of the Apennines in the district where the Arno and the Tiber take their rise (Aretine dialects); and it has been seen how thence to the sea the Umbrian and Roman dialects surround the Tuscan. Such are the narrow limits of the "promised land" of the language which has succeeded and was worthy to succeed Latin in the history of Italian culture and civilization,--the land which comprises Florence, Siena, Lucca and Pisa. The Tuscan type may be best described by the negative method. There do not exist in it, on the one hand, any of those phenomena by which the other dialectal types of Italy mainly differ from the Latin base (such as _u_ = _u_; frequent elision of unaccented vowels; _ba = gua_; _s_ = _fl_; _nn_ = _nd_, &c.), nor, on the other hand, is there any series of alterations of the Latin base peculiar to the Tuscan. This twofold negative description may further serve for the Tuscan or literary Italian as contrasted with all the other Neo-Latin languages; indeed, even where the Tuscan has a tendency to alterations common to other types of the family, it shows itself more sober and self-denying--as may be seen in the reduction of the _t_ between vowels into _d_ or of _c_ (_k_) between vowels into _g_, which in Italian affects only a small part of the lexical series, while in Provencal or Spanish it may be said to pervade the whole (e.g. Prov. and Span. _mudar_, Ital. _mutare_; Prov. _segur_, Span. _seguro_, Ital. _sicuro_). It may consequently be affirmed without any partiality that, in respect to historical nobility, the Italian not only holds the first rank among Neo-Latin languages, but almost constitutes an intermediate grade between the ancient or Latin and the modern or Romance. What has just been said about the Tuscan, as compared with the other dialectal types of Italy, does not, however, preclude the fact that in the various Tuscan veins, and especially in the plebeian forms of speech, there occur particular instances of phonetic decay; but these must of necessity be ignored in so brief a sketch as the present. We shall confine ourselves to noting--what has a wide territorial diffusion--the reduction of _c_ (_k_) between vowels to a mere breathing (e.g. _fuoho_, fuoco, but _porco_), or even its complete elision; the same phenomenon occurs also between word and word (e.g. _la hasa_, but _in casa_), thus illustrating anew that syntactic class of phonetic alterations, either qualitative or quantitative, conspicuous in this region, also, which has been already discussed for insular and southern Italy (B. 2; C. 2, 3), and could be exemplified for the Roman region as well (C. 4). As regards one or two individual phenomena, it must also be confessed that the Tuscan or literary Italian is not so well preserved as some other Neo-Latin tongues. Thus, French always keeps in the beginning of words the Latin formulae _cl_, _pl_, _fl_ (_clef_, _plaisir_, _fleur_, in contrast with the Italian _chiave_, _piacere_, _fiore_); but the Italian makes up for this by the greater vigour with which it is wont to resolve the same formula within the words, and by the greater symmetry thus produced between the two series (in opposition to the French _clef_, clave, we have, for example, the French _oeil_, oclo; whereas, in the Italian, _chiave_ and _occhio_ correspond to each other). The Italian as well as the Rumanian has lost the ancient sibilant at the end (-_s_ of the plurals, of the nominative singular, of the 2nd persons, &c.), which throughout the rest of the Romance area has been preserved more or less tenaciously; and consequently it stands lower than old Provencal and old French, as far as true declension or, more precisely, the functional distinction between the forms of the _casus rectus_ and the _casus obliquus_ is concerned. But even in this respect the superiority of French and Provencal has proved merely transitory, and in their modern condition all the Neo-Latin forms of speech are generally surpassed by Italian even as regards the pure grammatical consistency of the noun. In conjugation Tuscan has lost that tense which for the sake of brevity we shall continue to call the pluperfect indicative; though it still survives outside of Italy and in other dialectal types of Italy itself (C. 3b; cf. B. 2). It has also lost the _futurum exactum_, or perfect subjunctive, which is found in Spanish and Rumanian. But no one would on that account maintain that the Italian conjugation is less truly Latin than the Spanish, the Rumanian, or that of any other Neo-Latin language. It is, on the contrary, by far the most distinctively Latin as regards the tradition both of form and function, although many effects of the principle of analogy are to be observed, sometimes common to Italian with the other Neo-Latin languages and sometimes peculiar to itself.

Those who find it hard to believe in the ethnological explanation of linguistic varieties ought to be convinced by any example so clear as that which Italy presents in the difference between the Tuscan or purely Italian type on the one side and the Gallo-Italic on the other. The names in this instance correspond exactly to the facts of the case. For the Gallo-Italic on either side of the Alps is evidently nothing else than a modification--varying in degree, but always very great--of the vulgar Latin, due to the reaction of the language or rather the oral tendencies of the Celts who succumbed to the Roman civilization. In other words, the case is one of new ethnic individualities arising from the fusion of two national entities, one of which, numerically more or less weak, is so far victorious that its speech is adopted, while the other succeeds in adapting that speech to its own habits of utterance. Genuine Italian, on the other hand, is not the result of the combination or conflict of the vulgar Latin with other tongues, but is the pure development of this alone. In other words, the case is that of an ancient national fusion in which vulgar Latin itself originated. Here that is native which in the other case was intrusive. This greater purity of constitution gives the language a persistency which approaches permanent stability. There is no Old Italian to oppose to Modern Italian in the same sense as we have an Old French to oppose to a Modern French. It is true that in the old French writers, and even in the writers who used the dialects of Upper Italy, there was a tendency to bring back the popular forms to their ancient dignity; and it is true also that the Tuscan or literary Italian has suffered from the changes of centuries; but nevertheless it remains undoubted that in the former cases we have to deal with general transformations between old and new, while in the latter it is evident that the language of Dante continues to be the Italian of modern speech and literature. This character of invariability has thus been in direct proportion to the purity of its Latin origin, while, on the contrary, where popular Latin has been adopted by peoples of foreign speech, the elaboration which it has undergone along the lines of their oral tendencies becomes always the greater the farther we get away from the point at which the Latin reached them,--in proportion, that is, to the time and space through which it has been transmitted in these foreign mouths.[18]

As for the primitive seat of the literary language of Italy, not only must it be regarded as confined within the limits of that narrower Tuscany already described; strictly speaking, it must be identified with the city of Florence alone. Leaving out of account, therefore, a small number of words borrowed from other Italian dialects, as a certain number have naturally been borrowed from foreign tongues, it may be said that all that was not Tuscan was eliminated from the literary form of speech. If we go back to the time of Dante, we find, throughout almost all the dialects of the mainland with the exception of Tuscan, the change of vowels between singular and plural seen in _paese_, _paisi_; _quello_, _quilli_; _amore_, _amuri_ (see B. 1; C. 3 b); but the literary language knows nothing at all of such a phenomenon, because it was unknown to the Tuscan region. But in Tuscan itself there were differences between Florentine and non-Florentine; in Florentine, e.g. it was and is usual to say _unto_, _giunto_, _punto_, while the non-Florentine had it _onto_, _gionto_, _ponto_, (Lat. _unctu_, &c.); at Florence they say _piazza_, _mezzo_, while elsewhere (at Lucca, Pisa) they say or used to say, _piassa_, _messo_. Now, it is precisely the Florentine forms which alone have currency in the literary language.

In the ancient compositions in the vulgar tongue, especially in poetry, non-Tuscan authors on the one hand accommodated their own dialect to the analogy of that which they felt to be the purest representative of the language of ancient Roman culture, while the Tuscan authors in their turn did not refuse to adopt the forms which had received the rights of citizenship from the literary celebrities of other parts of Italy. It was this state of matters which gave rise in past times to the numerous disputes about the true fatherland and origin of the literary language of the Italians. But these have been deprived of all right to exist by the scientific investigation of the history of that language. If the older Italian poetry assumed or maintained forms alien to Tuscan speech, these forms were afterwards gradually eliminated, and the field was left to those which were purely Tuscan and indeed purely Florentine. And thus it remains absolutely true that, so far as phonetics, morphology, rudimental syntax, and in short the whole character and material of words and sentences are concerned, there is no literary language of Europe that is more thoroughly characterized by homogeneity and oneness, as if it had come forth in a single cast from the furnace, than the Italian.

But on the other hand it remains equally true that, so far as concerns a living confidence and uniformity in the use and style of the literary language--that is, of this Tuscan or Florentine material called to nourish the civilization and culture of all the Italians--the case is not a little altered, and the Italian nation appears to enjoy less fortunate conditions than other nations of Europe. Modern Italy had no glowing centre for the life of the whole nation into which and out of which the collective thought and language could be poured in ceaseless current for all and by all. Florence has not been Paris. Territorial contiguity and the little difference of the local dialect facilitated in the modern Rome the elevation of the language of conversation to a level with the literary language that came from Tuscany. A form of speech was thus produced which, though certainly destitute of the grace and the abundant flexibility of the Florentine, gives a good idea of what the dialect of a city becomes when it makes itself the language of a nation that is ripening its civilization in many and dissimilar centres. In such a case the dialect loses its slang and petty localisms, and at the same time also somewhat of its freshness; but it learns to express with more conscious sobriety and with more assured dignity the thought and the feeling of the various peoples which are fused in one national life. But what took place readily in Rome could not with equal ease happen in districts whose dialects were far removed from the Tuscan. In Piedmont, for example, or in Lombardy, the language of conversation did not correspond with the language of books, and the latter accordingly became artificial and laboured. Poetry was least affected by these unfortunate conditions; for poetry may work well with a multiform language, where the need and the stimulus of the author's individuality assert themselves more strongly. But prose suffered immensely, and the Italians had good cause to envy the spontaneity and confidence of foreign literatures--of the French more particularly. In this reasonable envy lay the justification and the strength of the Manzoni school, which aimed at that absolute naturalness of the literary language, that absolute identity between the language of conversation and that of books, which the bulk of the Italians could reach and maintain only by naturalizing themselves in the living speech of modern Florence. The revolt of Manzoni against artificiality and mannerism in language and style was worthy of his genius, and has been largely fruitful. But the historical difference between the case of France (with the colloquial language of Paris) and that of Italy (with the colloquial language of Florence) implies more than one difficulty of principle; in the latter case there is sought to be produced by deliberate effort of the _literati_ what in the former has been and remains the necessary and spontaneous product of the entire civilization. Manzoni's theories too easily lent themselves to deplorable exaggerations; men fell into a new artificiality, a manner of writing which might be called vulgar and almost slangy. The remedy for this must lie in the regulating power of the labour of the now regenerate Italian intellect,--a labour ever growing wider in its scope, more assiduous and more thoroughly united.

The most ancient document in the Tuscan dialect is a very short fragment of a jongleur's song (12th century; see Monaci, _Crestomazia_, 9-10). After that there is nothing till the 13th century. P. Santini has published the important and fairly numerous fragments of a book of notes of some Florentine bankers, of the year 1211. About the middle of the century, our attention is arrested by the _Memoriali_ of the Sienese Matasala di Spinello. To 1278 belongs the MS. in which is preserved the Pistojan version of the _Trattati morali_ of Albertano, which we owe to Sofredi del Grathia. The Riccardian _Tristano_, published and annotated by E. G. Parodi, seems to belong to the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries. For other 13th-century writings see Monaci, _op. cit._ 31-32, 40, and Parodi, _Giornale storico della letteratura italiana_, x. 178-179. For the question concerning language, see Ascoli, _Arch. glott._ i. v. et seq.; D' Ovidio, _Le Correzioni ai Promessi Sposi e la questione della lingua_, 4th ed. Naples, 1895.

_Literature._--K. L. Fernow in the third volume of his _Romische Studien_ (Zurich, 1806-1808) gave a good survey of the dialects of Italy. The dawn of rigorously scientific methods had not then appeared; but Fernow's view is wide and genial. Similar praise is due to Biondelli's work _Sui dialetti gallo-italici_ (Milan, 1853), which, however, is still ignorant of Diez. August Fuchs, between Fernow and Biondelli, had made himself so far acquainted with the new methods; but his exploration (_Uber die sogenannten unregelmassigen Zeitworter in den romanischen Sprachen, nebst Andeutungen uber die wichtigsten romanischen Mundarten_, Berlin, 1840), though certainly of utility, was not very successful. Nor can the rapid survey of the Italian dialects given by Friedrich Diez be ranked among the happiest portions of his great masterpiece. Among the followers of Diez who distinguished themselves in this department the first outside of Italy were certainly Mussafia, a cautious and clear continuator of the master, and the singularly acute Hugo Schuchardt. Next came the _Archivio glottologico italiano_ (Turin, 1873 and onwards. Up to 1897 there were published 16 vols.), the lead in which was taken by Ascoli and G. Flechia (d. 1892), who, together with the Dalmatian Adolf Mussafia (d. 1906), may be looked upon as the founders of the study of Italian dialects, and who have applied to their writings a rigidly methodical procedure and a historical and comparative standard, which have borne the best fruit. For historical studies dealing specially with the literary language, Nannucci, with his good judgment and breadth of view, led the way; we need only mention here his _Analisi critica dei verbi italiani_ (Florence, 1844). But the new method was to show how much more it was to and did effect. When this movement on the part of the scholars mentioned above became known, other enthusiasts soon joined them, and the _Arch. glottologico_ developed into a school, which began to produce many prominent works on language [among the first in order of date and merit may be mentioned "Gli Allotropi italiani," by U. A. Canello (1887), _Arch. glott._ iii. 285-419; and _Le Origini della lingua poetica italiana_, by N. Caix (d. 1882), (Florence, 1880)], and studies on the dialects. We shall here enumerate those of them which appear for one reason or another to have been the most notable. But, so far as works of a more general nature are concerned, we should first state that there have been other theories as to the classification of the Italian dialects (see also above the various notes on B. 1, 2 and C. 2) put forward by W. Meyer-Lubke (_Einfuhrung in das Studium der romanischen Sprachwissenschaft_, Heidelberg, 1901; pp. 21-22), and M. Bartoli (_Altitalienische Chrestomathie, von P. Savj-Lopez und M. Bartoli_, Strassburg, 1903, pp. 171 et seq. 193 et seq., and the table at the end of the volume). W. Meyer-Lubke afterwards filled in details of the system which he had sketched in Grober's _Grundriss der romanischen Philologie_, i., 2nd ed. (1904), pp. 696 et seq. And from the same author comes that masterly work, the _Italienische Grammatik_ (Leipzig, 1890), where the language and its dialects are set out in one organic whole, just as they are placed together in the concise chapter devoted to Italian in the above-mentioned _Grundriss_ (pp. 637 et seq.). We will now give the list, from which we omit, however, the works quoted incidentally throughout the text: B. 1 a: Parodi, _Arch. glott._ xiv. 1 sqq., xv. 1 sqq., xvi. 105 sqq. 333 sqq.; _Poesie in dial. tabbiese del sec. XVII. illustrate da E. G. Parodi_ (Spezia, 1904); Schadel, _Die Mundart von Ormea_ (Halle, 1903); Parodi, _Studj romanzi_, fascic. v.; b: Giacomino, _Arch. glott._ xv. 403 sqq.; Toppino, ib. xvi. 517 sqq.; Flechia, ib. xiv. 111 sqq.; Nigra, _Miscell. Ascoli_ (Turin, 1901), 247 sqq.; Renier, _Il Gelindo_ (Turin, 1896); Salvioni, _Rendiconti Istituto lombardo_, s. ii., vol. xxxvii. 522, sqq.; c: Salvioni, _Fonetica del dialetto di Milano_ (Turin, 1884); _Studi di filol. romanza_, viii. 1 sqq.; _Arch. glott._ ix. 188 sqq. xiii. 355 sqq.; _Rendic. Ist. lomb._ s. ii., vol. xxxv. 905 sqq.; xxxix. 477 sqq.; 505 sqq. 569 sqq. 603 sqq., xl. 719 sqq.; _Bollettino storico della Svizzera italiana_, xvii. and xviii.; Michael, _Der Dialekt des Poschiavotals_ (Halle, 1905); v. Ettmayer, _Bergamaskische Alpenmundarten_ (Leipzig, 1903); _Romanische Forschungen_, xiii. 321 sqq.; d: Mussafia, _Darstellung der romagnolischen Mundart_ (Vienna, 1871); Gaudenzi, _I Suoni ecc. della citta di Bologna_ (Turin, 1889); Ungarelli, _Vocab. del dial. bologn. con una introduzione di A. Trauzzi sulla fonetica e sulla morfologia del dialetto_ (Bologna, 1901); Bertoni, _Il Dialetto di Modena_ (Turin, 1905); Pulle, "Schizzo dei dialetti del Frignano" in _L' Apennino modenese_. 673 sqq. (Rocca S. Casciano, 1895); Piagnoli, _Fonetica parmigiana_ (Turin, 1904); Restori, _Note fonetiche sui parlari dell' alta valle di Macra_ (Leghorn, 1892); Gorra, _Zeitschrift fur romanische Philologie_, xvi. 372 sqq.; xiv. 133 sqq.; Nicoli, _Studi di filologia romanza_, viii. 197 sqq. B. 2: Hofmann, _Die logudoresische und campidanesische Mundart_ (Marburg, 1885); Wagner, _Lautlehre der sudsardischen Mundarten_ (Malle a. S., 1907); Campus, _Fonetica del dialetto logudorese_ (Turin, 1901); Guarnerio, _Arch. glott._ xiii. 125 sqq., xiv. 131 sqq., 385 sqq. C. 1: Rossi, _Le Lettere di Messer Andrea Calmo_ (Turin, 1888); Wendriner, _Die paduanische Mundart bei Ruzante_ (Breslau, 1889); _Le Rime di Bartolomeo Cavassico notaio bellunese della prima meta del sec. xvi. con illustraz. e note di v. Cian, e con illustrazioni linguistiche e lessico a cura di C. Salvioni_ (2 vols., Bologna, 1893-1894); Gartner, _Zeitschr. fur roman. Philol._ xvi. 183 sqq., 306 sqq.; Salvioni, _Arch. glott._ xvi. 245 sqq.; Vidossich, _Studi sul dialetto triestino_ (Triest, 1901); _Zeitschr. fur rom. Phil._ xxvii. 749 sqq.; Ascoli, _Arch. glott._ xiv. 325 sqq.; Schneller, _Die romanischen Volksmundarten in Sudtirol_, i. (Gera, 1870); von Slop, _Die tridentinische Mundart_ (Klagenfurt, 1888); Ive, _I Dialetti ladino-veneti dell' Istria_ (Strassburg, 1900). C. 2: Guarnerio, _Arch. glott._ xiii. 125 sqq., xiv. 131 sqq., 385 sqq. C. 3 a: Wentrup-Pitre, in Pitre, _Fiabe, novelle e racconti popolari siciliani_, vol. i., pp. cxviii. sqq.; Schneegans, _Laute und Lautentwickelung des sicil. Dialektes_ (Strassburg, 1888); De Gregorio, _Saggio di fonetica siciliana_ (Palermo, 1890); Pirandello, _Laute und Lautentwickelung der Mundart von Girgenti_ (Halle, 1891); Cremona, _Fonetica del Caltagironese_ (Acireale, 1895); Santangelo, Arch. glott. xvi. 479 sqq.; La Rosa, _Saggi di morfologia siciliana_, i. _Sostantivi_ (Noto, 1901); Salvioni, _Rendic. Ist. lomb._ s. ii., vol. xl. 1046 sqq., 1106 sqq., 1145 sqq.; b: Scerbo, _Sul dialetto calabro_ (Florence, 1886); Accattati's, _Vocabolario del dial. calabrese_ (Castrovillari, 1895); Gentili, _Fonetica del dialetto cosentino_ (Milan, 1897); Wentrup, _Beitrage zur Kenntniss der neapolitanischen Mundart_ (Wittenberg, 1855); Subak, _Die Konjugation im Neapolitanischen_ (Vienna, 1897); Morosi, _Arch. glott._ iv. 117 sqq.; De Noto, _Appunti di fonetica sul dial. di Taranto_ (Trani, 1897); Subak, _Das Zeitwort in der Mundart von Tarent_ (Brunn, 1897); Panareo, _Fonetica del dial. di Maglie d' Otranto_ (Milan, 1903); Nitti di Vito, _Il Dial. di Bari_, part 1, "Vocalismo moderno" (Milan, 1896); Abbatescianni, _Fonologia del dial. barese_ (Avellino, 1896); Zingarelli, _Arch. glott._ xv. 83 sqq., 226 sqq.; Ziccardi, _Studi glottologici_, iv. 171 sqq.; D' Ovidio, _Arch. glott._ iv. 145 sqq., 403 sqq.; Finamore, _Vocabolario dell' uso abruzzese_ (2nd ed., Citta di Castello, 1893); Rollin, _Mitteilung XIV. der Gesellschaft zur Forderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Bohmen_ (Prague, 1901); De Lollis, _Arch. glott._ xii. 1 sqq., 187 sqq.; _Miscell. Ascoli_, 275 sqq.; Savini, _La Grammatica e il lessico del dial. teramano_ (Turin, 1881). C. 4: Merlo, _Zeitschr. f. roman. Phil._, xxx. 11 sqq., 438 sqq., xxxi. 157 sqq.; E. Monaci (notes on old Roman), _Rendic. dei Lincei_, Feb. 21st, 1892, p. 94 sqq.; Rossi-Case, _Bollett. di stor. patria degli Abruzzi_, vi.; Crocioni, _Miscell. Monaci_, pp. 429 sqq.; Ceci, _Arch. glott._ x. 167 sqq.; Parodi, ib. xiii. 299 sqq.; Campanelli, _Fonetica del dial. reatino_ (Turin, 1896); Verga, _Sonetti e altre poesie di R. Torelli in dial. perugino_ (Milan, 1895); Bianchi, _Il Dialetto e la etnografia di Citta di Castello_ (Citta di Castello, 1888); Neumann-Spallart, _Zeitschrift fur roman. Phil._ xxviii. 273 sqq., 450 sqq.; _Weitere Beitrage zur Charakteristik des Dialektes der Marche_ (Halle a. S., 1907); Crocioni, _Studi di fil. rom._, ix. 617 sqq.; _Studi romanzi_, fasc. 3^0, 113 sqq., _Il Dial. di Arcevia_ (Rome, 1906); Lindsstrom, _Studi romanzi_, fasc. 5^0, 237 sqq.; Crocioni, ib. 27 sqq. D.: Parodi, _Romania_, xviii.; Schwenke, _De dialecto quae carminibus popularibus tuscanicis a Tigrio editis continetur_ (Leipzig, 1872); Pieri, _Arch. glott._ xii. 107 sqq., 141 sqq., 161 sqq.; _Miscell. Caix-Canello_, 305 sqq.; _Note sul dialetto aretino_ (Pisa, 1886); _Zeitschr. fur rom. Philol._ xxviii. 161 sqq.; Salvioni, _Arch. glott._ xvi. 395 sqq.; Hirsch, _Zeitschrift f. rom. Philol._ ix. 513 sqq., x. 56 sqq., 411 sqq. For researches on the etymology of all the Italian dialects, but chiefly of those of Northern Italy, the _Beitrag zur Kunde der norditalienischen Mundarten im XV. Jahrhundert_ of Ad. Mussafia (Vienna, 1873) and the _Postille etimologiche_ of Giov. Flechia (_Arch. glott._ ii., iii.) are of the greatest importance. Biondelli's book is of no small service also for the numerous translations which it contains of the Prodigal Son into Lombard, Piedmontese and Emilian dialects. A dialogue translated into the vernaculars of all parts of Italy will be found in Zuccagni Orlandini's _Raccolta di dialetti italiani con illustrazioni etnologiche_ (Florence, 1864). And every dialectal division is abundantly represented in a series of versions of a short novel of Boccaccio, which Papanti has published under the title _I Parlari italiani in Certaldo_, &c. (Leghorn, 1875).

[A very valuable and rich collection of dialectal essays on the most ancient documents for all parts of Italy is to be found in the _Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli_ of E. Monaci (Citta di Castello, 1889-1897); see also in the _Altitalienische Chrestomathie_ of P. Savj-Lopez and M. Bartoli (Strassburg, 1903).] (G. I. A.; C. S.*)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The article by G. I. Ascoli in the 9th edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, which has been recognized as a classic account of the Italian language, was reproduced by him, with slight modifications, in _Arch. glott._ viii. 98-128. The author proposed to revise his article for the present edition of the _Encyclopaedia_, but his death on the 21st of January 1907 prevented his carrying out this work, and the task was undertaken by Professor C. Salvioni. In the circumstances it was considered best to confine the revision to bringing Ascoli's article up to date, while preserving its form and main ideas, together with the addition of bibliographical notes, and occasional corrections and substitutions, in order that the results of more recent research might be embodied. The new matter is principally in the form of notes or insertions within square brackets.

[2] [In Corsica the present position of Italian as a language of culture is as follows. Italian is only used for preaching in the country churches. In all the other relations of public and civil life (schools, law courts, meetings, newspapers, correspondence, &c.), its place is taken by French. As the elementary schools no longer teach Italian but French, an educated Corsican nowadays knows only his own dialect for everyday use, and French for public occasions.]

[3] [It may be asked whether we ought not to include under this section the Vegliote dialect (Veglioto), since under this form the Dalmatian dialect (Dalmatico) is spoken in Italy. But it should be remembered that in the present generation the Dalmatian dialect has only been heard as a living language at Veglia.]

[4] As a matter of fact the "velar" at the end of a word, when preceded by an accented vowel, is found also in Venetia and Istria. This fact, together with others (v. _Kritischer Jahresbericht uber die Fortschritte der roman. Philol._ vii. part i. 130), suggests that we ought to assume an earlier group in which Venetian and Gallo-Italian formed part of one and the same group. In this connexion too should be noted the atonic pronoun _ghe_ (Ital. _ci_-a lui, a lei, a loro), which is found in Venetian, Lombard, North-Emilian and Ligurian.

[5] [The latest authorities for the Sardinian dialects are W. Meyer-Lubke and M. Bartoli, in the passages quoted by Guarnerio in his "Il sardo e il corso in una nuova classificazione delle lingue romanze" (_Arch. glott._ xvi. 491-516). These scholars entirely dissociate Sardinian from the Italian system, considering it as forming in itself a Romance language, independent of the others; a view in which they are correct. The chief discriminating criterion is supplied by the treatment of the Latin -_s_, which is preserved in Sardinian, the Latin accusative form prevailing in the declension of the plural, as opposed to the nominative, which prevails in the Italian system. In this respect the Gallo-Italian dialects adhere to the latter system, rejecting the -_s_ and retaining the nominative form. On the other hand, these facts form an important link between Sardinian and the Western Romance dialects, such as the Iberian, Gallic and Ladin; it is not, however, to be identified with any of them, but is distinguished from them by many strongly-marked characteristics peculiar to itself, chief among which is the treatment of the Latin accented vowels, for which see Ascoli in the text. As to the internal classification of the Sardinian dialects, Guarnerio assumes four types, the Campidanese, Logudorese, Gallurese and Sassarese. The separate individuality of the last of these is indicated chiefly by the treatment of the accented vowels (_dezi_, Ital. dieci; _tela_, Ital. tela; _pelu_, Ital. pelo; _nobu_, Ital. nuovo; _fiori_, Ital. fiore; _nozi_, Ital. noce, as compared, e.g. with Gallurese _deci_, _tela_, _pilu_, _nou_, _fiori_, _nuci_). Both Gallura and Sassari, however, reject the -_s_, and adopt the nominative form in the plural, thus proving that they are not entirely distinct from the Italian system.]

[6] On this point see the chapter, "La terra ferma veneta considerata in ispecie ne' suoi rapporti con la sezione centrale della zona ladina," in _Arch._ i. 406-447.

[7] [There are also examples of Istrian variants, such as _lanna_, Ital. lana; _kadenna_, Ital. catena.]

[8] [There have been of late years many different opinions concerning the classification of Corsican. Meyer-Lubke dissociates it from Italian, and connects it with Sardinian, making of the languages of the two islands a unit independent of the Romance system. But even he (in Grober's _Grundriss_, 2nd ed., vol. i. p. 698) recognized that there were a number of characteristics, among them the participle in -_utu_ and the article _illu_, closely connecting Sassari and Corsica with the mainland. The matter has since then been put in its true light by Guarnerio (_Arch. glott._ xvi. 510 et seq.), who points out that there are two varieties of language in Corsica, the _Ultramontane_ or southern, and the _Cismontane_, by far the most widely spread, in the rest of the island. The former is, it is true, connected with Sardinian, but with that variety, precisely, which, as we have already seen, ought to be separated from the general Sardinian type. Here we might legitimately assume a North-Sardinian and South-Corsican type, having practically the same relation to Italian as have the Gallo-Italian dialects. As to the Cismontane, it has the Tuscan accented vowel-system, does not alter _ll_ or _rn_, turns _lj_ into _i_ (Ital. _gli_), and shares with Tuscan the peculiar pronunciation of _c_ between vowels, while, together with many of the Tuscan and central dialects, it reduces _rr_ to a single consonant. For these reasons, Guarnerio is right in placing the Cismontane, as Ascoli does for all the Corsican dialects, on the same plane as Umbrian, &c.]

[9] The Ultramontane variety has, however, _tela_, _pilu_, _iddu_, _boci_, _gula_, _furu_, corresponding exactly to the Gallurese _tela_, _pilu_, Ital. _pelo_, _iddu_; Ital. "ello," Lat. _illu_; _boci_, Ital. voce; _gula_, Ital. gole.

[10] [Traces are not lacking on the mainland of _ng_ becoming _nc_, not only in Calabria, where at Cosenza are found, e.g. _chiancere_, Ital. piangere, _manciare_, but also in Sannio and Apulia: _chiance_, _monce_, Ital. mungere, in the province of Avellino, _punci_, Ital. (tu) pungi, at Brindisi. In Sicily, on the other hand, can be traced examples of _nc_ _nk_ _nt_ _mp_ becoming _ng_ _ng_ _nd_ _mb_.]

[11] It should, however, be noticed that there seem to be examples of the e from a in the southern dialects on the Tyrrhenian side; texts of Serrara d'Ischia give: _mancete_, mangiata, _maretete_, maritata, _manneto_, mandato; also _tenno_ = Neap. _tanno_, allora. As to the diphthongs, we should not omit to mention that some of them are obviously of comparatively recent formation. Thus, examples from Cerignola, such as _levoite_, oliveto, come from _*olivitu_ (cf. Lecc. _leitu_, &c.), that is to say, they are posterior to the phenomenon of vowel change by which the formula _e-u_ became _i-u_. And, still in the same dialect, in an example like _grejte_, creta, the _ej_ seems perhaps to be recent, for the reason that another _e_, derived from an original _e_ (Lat. _e_), is treated in the same way (_pejte_, piede, &c.). As to examples from Agnone like _puole_, palo, there still exists a plural _pjele_ which points to the phase _*palo_.

[12] We should here mention that _callu_ is also found in the _Vocabolario Siciliano_, and further occurs in Capitanata.

[13] This is derived in reality from the Latin termination _-unt_, which is reduced phonetically to _-u_, a phenomenon not confined to the Abruzzi; cf. _facciu_, Ital. fanno, Lat. _faciunt_, at Norcia; _crisciu_, Ital. crescono, Lat. _crescunt_, &c., at Rieti. And examples are also to be found in ancient Tuscan.

[14] [This resolution of -_c_- by _s_, or by a sound very near to _s_, is, however, a Roman phenomenon, found in some parts of Apulia (Molfettese _lausce_, luce, &c.), and also heard in parts of Sicily.]

[15] There is therefore nothing surprising in the fact that, for example, the chronicle of Monaldeschi of Orvieto (14th century) should indicate a form of speech of which Muratori remarks: "Romanis tunc familiaris, nimirum quae in nonnullis accedabat ad Neapolitanam seu vocibus seu pronuntiatione." The _alt_ into _ait_, &c. (_aitro_, _moito_), which occur in the well-known _Vita di Cola di Rienzo_, examples of which can also be found in some corners of the Marches, and of which there are also a few traces in Latium, also shows Abruzzan affinity. The phenomenon occurs also, however, in Emilian and Tuscan.

[16] A distinction between the masculine and the neuter article can also be noticed at Naples and elsewhere in the southern region, where it sometimes occurs that the initial consonant of the substantive is differently determined according as the substantive itself is conceived as masculine or neuter; thus at Naples, neut. _lo bero_, masc. _lo vero_, "il vero," &c.; at Cerignola (Capitanata), _u mmegghie_, "il meglio," side by side with _u moise_ "il mese." The difference is evidently to be explained by the fact that the neuter article originally ended in a consonant (-_d_ or -_c_?; see Merlo, _Zeitschrift fur roman. Philol._ xxx. 449), which was then assimilated to the initial letter of the substantive, while the masculine article ended in a vowel.

[17] This second prefix is common to the opposite valley of the Metauro, and appears farther south in the form of _me_,--Camerino: _me lu pettu_, nel petto, _me lu Seppurgru_, al Sepolcro.

[18] A complete analogy is afforded by the history of the Aryan or Sanskrit language in India, which in space and time shows always more and more strongly the reaction of the oral tendencies of the aboriginal races on whom it has been imposed. Thus the Pali presents the ancient Aryan organism in a condition analogous to that of the oldest French, and the Prakrit of the Dramas, on the other hand, in a condition like that of modern French.

ITALIAN LITERATURE. 1. _Origins._--One characteristic fact distinguishes the Italy of the middle ages with regard to its intellectual conditions--the tenacity with which the Latin tradition clung to life (see LATIN). At the end of the 5th century the northern conquerors invaded Italy. The Roman world crumbled to pieces. A new kingdom arose at Ravenna under Theodoric, and there learning was not extinguished. The liberal arts flourished, the very Gothic kings surrounded themselves with masters of rhetoric and of grammar. The names of Cassiodorus, of Boetius, of Symmachus, are enough to show how Latin thought maintained its power amidst the political effacement of the Roman empire. And this thought held its ground throughout the subsequent ages and events. Thus, while elsewhere all culture had died out, there still remained in Italy some schools of laymen,[1] and some really extraordinary men were educated in them, such as Ennodius, a poet more pagan than Christian, Arator, Fortunatus, Venantius Jovannicius, Felix the grammarian, Peter of Pisa, Paulinus of Aquileia and many others, in all of whom we notice a contrast between the barbarous age they lived in and their aspiration towards a culture that should reunite them to the classical literature of Rome. The Italians never had much love for theological studies, and those who were addicted to them preferred Paris to Italy. It was something more practical, more positive, that had attraction for the Italians, and especially the study of Roman law. This zeal for the study of jurisprudence furthered the establishment of the medieval universities of Bologna, Padua, Vicenza, Naples, Salerno, Modena and Parma; and these, in their turn, helped to spread culture, and to prepare the ground in which the new vernacular literature was afterwards to be developed. The tenacity of classical traditions, the affection for the memories of Rome, the preoccupation with political interests, particularly shown in the wars of the Lombard communes against the empire of the Hohenstaufens, a spirit more naturally inclined to practice than to theory--all this had a powerful influence on the fate of Italian literature. Italy was wanting in that combination of conditions from which the spontaneous life of a people springs. This was chiefly owing to the fact that the history of the Italians never underwent interruption,--no foreign nation having come in to change them and make them young again. That childlike state of mind and heart, which in other Latin races, as well as in the Germanic, was such a deep source of poetic inspiration, was almost utterly wanting in the Italians, who were always much drawn to history and very little to nature; so, while legends, tales, epic poems, satires, were appearing and spreading on all sides, Italy was either quite a stranger to this movement or took a peculiar part in it. We know, for example, what the Trojan traditions were in the middle ages; and we should have thought that in Italy--in the country of Rome, retaining the memory of Aeneas and Virgil--they would have been specially developed, for it was from Virgil that the medieval sympathy for the conquered of Troy was derived. In fact, however, it was not so. A strange book made its appearance in Europe, no one quite knows when, the _Historia de excidio Trojae_, which purported to have been written by a certain Dares the Phrygian, an eye-witness of the Trojan war. In the middle ages this book was the basis of many literary labours. Benoit de Sainte-More composed an interminable French poem founded on it, which afterwards in its turn became a source for other poets to draw from, such as Herbort of Fritzlar and Conrad of Wurzburg. Now for the curious phenomenon displayed by Italy. Whilst Benoit de Sainte-More wrote his poem in French, taking his material from a Latin history, whilst the two German writers, from a French source, made an almost original work in their own language--an Italian, on the other hand, taking Benoit for his model, composed in Latin the _Historia destructionis Trojae_; and this Italian was Guido delle Colonne of Messina, one of the vernacular poets of the Sicilian school, who must accordingly have known well how to use his own language. Guido was an imitator of the Provencals; he understood French, and yet wrote his own book in Latin, nay, changed the romance of the Troubadour into serious history. Much the same thing occurred with the other great legends. That of Alexander the Great (q.v.) gave rise to many French, German and Spanish poems,--in Italy, only to the Latin distichs of Qualichino of Arezzo. The whole of Europe was full of the legend of Arthur (q.v.). The Italians contented themselves with translating and with abridging the French romances, without adding anything of their own. The Italian writer could neither appropriate the legend nor colour it with his own tints. Even religious legend, so widely spread in the middle ages, and springing up so naturally as it did from the heart of that society, only put out a few roots in Italy. Jacopo di Voragine, while collecting his lives of the saints, remained only an historian, a man of learning, almost a critic who seemed doubtful about the things he related. Italy had none of those books in which the middle age, whether in its ascetic or its chivalrous character, is so strangely depicted. The intellectual life of Italy showed itself in an altogether special, positive, almost scientific, form, in the study of Roman law, in the chronicles of Farfa, of Marsicano and of many others, in translations from Aristotle, in the precepts of the school of Salerno, in the travels of Marco Polo--in short, in a long series of facts which seem to detach themselves from the surroundings of the middle age, and to be united on the one side with classical Rome and on the other with the Renaissance.

Provencal and French preparatory periods.

The necessary consequence of all this was that the Latin language was most tenacious in Italy, and that the elaboration of the new vulgar tongue was very slow,--being in fact preceded by two periods of Italian literature in foreign languages. That is to say, there were many Italians who wrote Provencal poems, such as the Marchese Alberto Malaspina (12th century), Maestro Ferrari of Ferrara, Cigala of Genoa, Zorzi of Venice, Sordello of Mantua, Buvarello of Bologna, Nicoletto of Turin and others, who sang of love and of war, who haunted the courts, or lived in the midst of the people, accustoming them to new sounds and new harmonies. At the same time there was other poetry of an epic kind, written in a mixed language, of which French was the basis, but in which forms and words belonging to the Italian dialects were continually mingling. We find in it hybrid words exhibiting a treatment of sounds according to the rules of both languages,--French words with Italian terminations, a system of vocalization within the words approaching the Italo-Latin usage,--in short, something belonging at once to both tongues, as it were an attempt at interpenetration, at fusion. Such were the _Chansons de Geste_, _Macaire_, the _Entree en Espagne_ written by Niccola of Padua, the _Prise de Pampelune_ and some others. All this preceded the appearance of a purely Italian literature.

Dialect.

In the Franco-Italian poems there was, as it were, a clashing, a struggle between the two languages, the French, however, gaining the upper hand. This supremacy became gradually less and less. As the struggle continued between French and Italian, the former by degrees lost as much as the latter gained. The hybridism recurred, but it no longer predominated. In the _Bovo d' Antona_ and the _Rainardo e Lesengrino_ the Venetian dialect makes itself clearly felt, although the language is influenced by French forms. Thus these writings, which G. I. Ascoli has called "miste" (mixed), immediately preceded the appearance of purely Italian works.

North Italy.

It is now an established historical fact that there existed no writing in Italian before the 13th century. It was in the course of that century, and especially from 1250 onwards, that the new literature largely unfolded and developed itself. This development was simultaneous in the whole peninsula, only there was a difference in the subject-matter of the art. In the north, the poems of Giacomino of Verona and Bonvecino of Riva were specially religious, and were intended to be recited to the people. They were written in a dialect partaking of the Milanese and the Venetian; and in their style they strongly bore the mark of the influence of French narrative poetry. They may be considered as belonging to the popular kind of poetry, taking the word, however, in a broad sense. Perhaps this sort of composition was encouraged by the old custom in the north of Italy of listening in the piazzas and on the highways to the songs of the jongleurs. To the very same crowds who had been delighted with the stories of romance, and who had listened to the story of the wickedness of _Macaire_ and the misfortunes of _Blanciflor_, another jongleur would sing of the terrors of the _Babilonia Infernale_ and the blessedness of the _Gerusalemme celeste_, and the singers of religious poetry vied with those of the _Chansons de Geste_.

South Italy.

In the south of Italy, on the other hand, the love-song prevailed, of which we have an interesting specimen in the Contrasto attributed to Ciullo d' Alcamo, about which modern Italian critics have much exercised themselves. This "contrasto" (dispute) between a man and a woman in Sicilian dialect certainly must not be considered as the most ancient or as the only southern poem of a popular kind. It belongs without doubt to the time of the emperor Frederick II., and is important as a proof that there existed a popular poetry independent of literary poetry. The _Contrasto_ of Ciullo d'Alcamo is the most remarkable relic of a kind of poetry that has perished or which perhaps was smothered by the ancient Sicilian literature. Its distinguishing point was its possessing all the opposite qualities to the poetry of the rhymers of what we shall call the Sicilian school. Vigorous in the expression of feelings, it seems to come from a real sentiment. The conceits, which are sometimes most bold and very coarse, show that it proceeded from the lowest grades of society. Everything is original in Ciullo's _Contrasto_. Conventionality has no place in it. It is marked by the sensuality characteristic of the people of the South.

Siculo-Provencal School.

The reverse of all this happened in the Siculo-Provencal school, at the head of which was Frederick II. Imitation was the fundamental characteristic of this school, to which belonged Enzio, king of Sardinia, Pier delle Vigne, Inghilfredi, Guido and Odo delle Colonne, Jacopo d' Aquino, Rugieri Pugliese, Giacomo da Lentino, Arrigo Testa and others. These rhymers never moved a step beyond the ideas of chivalry; they had no originality; they did not sing of what they felt in their heart; they abhorred the true and the real. They only aimed at copying as closely as they could the poetry of the Provencal troubadours.[2] The art of the Siculo-Provencal school was born decrepit, and there were many reasons for this--first, because the chivalrous spirit, from which the poetry of the troubadours was derived, was now old and on its death-bed; next, because the Provencal art itself, which the Sicilians took as their model, was in its decadence. It may seem strange, but it is true, that when the emperor Frederick II., a philosopher, a statesman, a very original legislator, took to writing poetry, he could only copy and amuse himself with absolute puerilities. His art, like that of all the other poets of his court, was wholly conventional, mechanical, affected. It was completely wanting in what constitutes poetry--ideality, feeling, sentiment, inspiration. The Italians have had great disputes among themselves about the original form of the poems of the Sicilian school, that is to say, whether they were written in Sicilian dialect, or in that language which Dante called "volgare, illustre, aulico, cortigiano." But the critics of most authority hold that the primitive form of these poems was the Sicilian dialect, modified for literary purposes with the help of Provencal and Latin; the theory of the "lingua illustre" has been almost entirely rejected, since we cannot say on what rules it could have been founded, when literature was in its infancy trying its feet, and lisping its first words. The Sicilian certainly, in accordance with a tendency common to all dialects, in passing from the spoken to the written form, must have gained in dignity; but this was not enough to create the so-called "lingua illustre," which was upheld by Perticari and others on grounds rather political than literary.

Religious lyric poetry in Umbria.

In the 13th century a mighty religious movement took place in Italy, of which the rise of the two great orders of Saint Francis and Saint Dominic was at once the cause and the effect. Around Francis of Assisi a legend has grown up in which naturally the imaginative element prevails. Yet from some points in it we seem to be able to infer that its hero had a strong feeling for nature, and a heart open to the most lively impressions. Many poems are attributed to him. The legend relates that in the eighteenth year of his penance, when almost rapt in ecstasy, he dictated the _Cantico del Sole_. Even if this hymn be really his, it cannot be considered as a poetical work, being written in a kind of prose simply marked by assonances. As for the other poems, which for a long time were believed to be by Saint Francis, their spuriousness is now generally recognized. The true poet who represented in all its strength and breadth the religious feeling that had made special progress in Umbria was Jacopo dei Benedetti of Todi, known as Jacopone. The story is that sorrow at the sudden death of his wife had disordered his mind, and that, having sold all he possessed and given it to the poor, he covered himself with rags, and took pleasure in being laughed at, and followed by a crowd of people who mocked him and called after him "Jacopone, Jacopone." We do not know whether this be true. What we do know is that a vehement passion must have stirred his heart and maintained a despotic hold over him, the passion of divine love. Under its influence Jacopone went on raving for years and years, subjecting himself to the severest sufferings, and giving vent to his religious intoxication in his poems. There is no art in him, there is not the slightest indication of deliberate effort; there is only feeling, a feeling that absorbed him, fascinated him, penetrated him through and through. His poetry was all inside him, and burst out, not so much in words as in sighs, in groans, in cries that often seem really to come from a monomaniac. But Jacopone was a mystic, who from his hermit's cell looked out into the world and specially watched the papacy, scourging with his words Celestine V. and Boniface VIII. He was put in prison and laden with chains, but his spirit lifted itself up to God, and that was enough for him. The same feeling that prompted him to pour out in song ecstasies of divine love, and to despise and trample on himself, moved him to reprove those who forsook the heavenly road, whether they were popes, prelates or monks. In Jacopone there was a strong originality, and in the period of the origins of Italian literature he was one of the most characteristic writers.

The religious drama.

The religious movement in Umbria was followed by another literary phenomenon, that of the religious drama. In 1258 an old hermit, Raniero Fasani, leaving the cavern in which he had lived for many years, suddenly appeared at Perugia. These were very sad times for Italy. The quarrels in the cities, the factions of the Ghibellines and the Guelphs, the interdicts and excommunications issued by the popes, the reprisals of the imperial party, the cruelty and tyranny of the nobles, the plagues and famines, kept the people in constant agitation, and spread abroad mysterious fears. The commotion was increased in Perugia by Fasani, who represented himself as sent by God to disclose mysterious visions, and to announce to the world terrible visitations. Under the influence of fear there were formed "Compagnie di Disciplinanti," who, for a penance, scourged themselves till they drew blood, and sang "Laudi" in dialogue in their confraternities. These "Laudi," closely connected with the liturgy, were the first example of the drama in the vulgar tongue of Italy. They were written in the Umbrian dialect, in verses of eight syllables, and of course they have not any artistic value. Their development, however, was rapid. As early as the end of the same 13th century we have the _Devozioni del Giovedi e Venerdi Santo_, which have some dramatic elements in them, though they are still connected with the liturgical office. Then we have the representation _di un Monaco che ando al servizio di Dio_ ("of a monk who entered the service of God"), in which there is already an approach to the definite form which this kind of literary work assumed in the following centuries.

Tuscan poetry.

In the 13th century Tuscany was peculiarly circumstanced both as regards its literary condition and its political life. The Tuscans spoke a dialect which most closely resembled the mother-tongue, Latin--one which afterwards became almost exclusively the language of literature, and which was already regarded at the end of the 13th century as surpassing the others; "Lingua Tusca magis apta est ad literam sive literaturam": thus writes Antonio da Tempo of Padua, born about 1275. Being very little or not at all affected by the Germanic invasion, Tuscany was never subjected to the feudal system. It had fierce internal struggles, but they did not weaken its life; on the contrary, they rather gave it fresh vigour and strengthened it, and (especially after the final fall of the Hohenstaufens at the battle of Benevento in 1266) made it the first province of Italy. From 1266 onwards Florence was in a position to begin that movement of political reform which in 1282 resulted in the appointment of the Priori delle Arti, and the establishment of the Arti Minori. This was afterwards copied by Siena with the Magistrato dei Nove, by Lucca, by Pistoia, and by other Guelph cities in Tuscany with similar popular institutions. In this way the gilds had taken the government into their hands, and it was a time of both social and political prosperity. It was no wonder that literature also rose to an unlooked-for height. In Tuscany, too, there was some popular love poetry; there was a school of imitators of the Sicilians, their chief being Dante of Majano; but its literary originality took another line--that of humorous and satirical poetry. The entirely democratic form of government created a style of poetry which stood in the strongest antithesis to the medieval mystic and chivalrous style. Devout invocation of God or of a lady came from the cloister and the castle; in the streets of the cities everything that had gone before was treated with ridicule or biting sarcasm. Folgore of San Gimignano laughs when in his sonnets he tells a party of Sienese youths what are the occupations of every month in the year, or when he teaches a party of Florentine lads the pleasures of every day in the week. Cene della Chitarra laughs when he parodies Folgore's sonnets. The sonnets of Rustico di Filippo are half fun and half satire; laughing and crying, joking and satire, are all to be found in Cecco Angiolieri of Siena, the oldest "humorist" we know, a far-off precursor of Rabelais, of Montaigne, of Jean Paul Richter, of Sydney Smith. But another kind of poetry also began in Tuscany. Guittone d' Arezzo made art quit chivalrous for national motives, Provencal forms for Latin. He attempted political poetry, and, although his work is full of the strangest obscurities, he prepared the way for the Bolognese school. In the 13th century Bologna was the city of science, and philosophical poetry appeared there. Guido Guinicelli was the poet after the new fashion of the art. In him the ideas of chivalry are changed and enlarged; he sings of love and, together with it, of the nobility of the mind. The reigning thought in Guinicelli's Canzoni is nothing external to his own subjectivity. His speculative mind, accustomed to wandering in the field of philosophy, transfuses its lucubrations into his art. Guinicelli's poetry has some of the faults of the school of Guittone d'Arezzo: he reasons too much; he is wanting in imagination; his poetry is a product of the intellect rather than of the fancy and the heart. Nevertheless he marks a great development in the history of Italian art, especially because of his close connexion with Dante's lyric poetry.

Allegorical poetry.

But before we come to Dante, certain other facts, not, however, unconnected with his history, must be noticed. In the 13th century, there were several poems in the allegorical style. One of these is by Brunetto Latini, who, it is well known, was attached by ties of strong affection to Alighieri. His _Tesoretto_ is a short poem, in seven-syllable verses, rhyming in couplets, in which the author professes to be lost in a wilderness and to meet with a lady, who is Nature, from whom he receives much instruction. We see here the vision, the allegory, the instruction with a moral object--three elements which we shall find again in the _Divina Commedia_. Francesco da Barberino, a learned lawyer who was secretary to bishops, a judge, a notary, wrote two little allegorical poems--the _Documenti d' amore_ and _Del reggimento e dei costumi delle donne_. Like the _Tesoretto_, these poems are of no value as works of art, but are, on the other hand, of importance in the history of manners. A fourth allegorical work was the _Intelligenza_, by some attributed to Dino Compagni, but probably not his, and only a version of French poems.

Prose in 13th century.

While the production of Italian poetry in the 13th century was abundant and varied, that of prose was scanty. The oldest specimen dates from 1231, and consists of short notices of entries and expenses by Mattasala di Spinello dei Lambertini of Siena. In 1253 and 1260 there are some commercial letters of other Sienese. But there is no sign of literary prose. Before we come to any, we meet with a phenomenon like that we noticed in regard to poetry. Here again we find a period of Italian literature in French. Halfway on in the century a certain Aldobrando or Aldobrandino (it is not known whether he was of Florence or of Siena) wrote a book for Beatrice of Savoy, countess of Provence, called _Le Regime du corps_. In 1267 Martino da Canale wrote in the same "langue d'oil" a chronicle of Venice. Rusticiano of Pisa, who was for a long while at the court of Edward I. of England, composed many chivalrous romances, derived from the Arthurian cycle, and subsequently wrote the travels of Marco Polo, which may perhaps have been dictated by the great traveller himself. And finally Brunetto Latini wrote his _Tesoro_ in French.

Next in order to the original compositions in the langue d'oil come the translations or adaptations from the same. There are some moral narratives taken from religious legends; a romance of Julius Caesar; some short histories of ancient knights; the _Tavola rotonda_; translations of the _Viaggi_ of Marco Polo and of the _Tesoro_ of Latini. At the same time there appeared translations from Latin of moral and ascetic works, of histories and of treatises on rhetoric and oratory. Up to very recent times it was still possible to reckon as the most ancient works in Italian prose the _Cronaca_ of Matteo Spinello da Giovenazzo, and the _Cronaca_ of Ricordano Malespini. But now both of them have been shown to be forgeries of a much later time. Therefore the oldest prose writing is a scientific book--the _Composizione del mondo_ by Ristoro d' Arezzo, who lived about the middle of the 13th century. This work is a copious treatise on astronomy and geography. Ristoro was superior to the other writers of the time on these subjects, because he seems to have been a careful observer of natural phenomena, and consequently many of the things he relates were the result of his personal investigations. There is also another short treatise, _De regimine rectoris_, by Fra Paolino, a Minorite friar of Venice, who was probably bishop of Pozzuoli, and who also wrote a Latin chronicle. His treatise stands in close relation to that of Egidio Colonna, _De regimine principum_. It is written in the Venetian dialect.

The 13th century was very rich in tales. There is a collection called the _Cento Novelle antiche_, which contains stories drawn from Oriental, Greek and Trojan traditions, from ancient and medieval history, from the legends of Brittany, Provence and Italy, and from the Bible, from the local tradition of Italy as well as from histories of animals and old mythology. This book has a distant resemblance to the Spanish collection known as _El Conde Lucanor_. The peculiarity of the Italian book is that the stories are very short, and that they seem to be mere outlines to be filled in by the narrator as he goes along. Other prose novels were inserted by Francesco Barberino in his work _Del reggimento e dei costumi delle donne_, but they are of much less importance than the others. On the whole the Italian novels of the 13th century have little originality, and are only a faint reflection of the very rich legendary literature of France. Some attention should be paid to the _Lettere_ of Fra Guittone d'Arezzo, who wrote many poems and also some letters in prose, the subjects of which are moral and religious. Love of antiquity, of the traditions of Rome and of its language, was so strong in Guittone that he tried to write Italian in a Latin style, and it turned out obscure, involved and altogether barbarous. He took as his special model Seneca, and hence his prose assumed a bombastic style, which, according to his views, was very artistic, but which in fact was alien to the true spirit of art, and resulted in the extravagant and grotesque.

New Tuscan School of lyric poetry.

2. _The Spontaneous Development of Italian Literature._--In the year 1282, the year in which the new Florentine constitution of the "Arti minori" was completed, a period of literature began that does not belong to the age of first beginnings, but to that of development. With the school of Lapo Gianni, of Guido Cavalcanti, of Cino da Pistoia and Dante Alighieri, lyric poetry became exclusively Tuscan. The whole novelty and poetic power of this school, which really was the beginning of Italian art, consist in what Dante expresses so happily--

"Quando Amore spira, noto, ed a quel modo Ch' ei detta dentro, vo significando"--

that is to say, in a power of expressing the feelings of the soul in the way in which love inspires them, in an appropriate and graceful manner, fitting form to matter, and by art fusing one with the other. The Tuscan lyric poetry, the first true Italian art, is pre-eminent in this artistic fusion, in the spontaneous and at the same time deliberate action of the mind. In Lapo Gianni the new style is not free from some admixture of the old associations of the Siculo-Provencal school. He wavered as it were between two manners. The empty and involved phraseology of the Sicilians is absent, but the poet does not always rid himself of their influence. Sometimes, however, he draws freely from his own heart, and then the subtleties and obscurities disappear, and his verse becomes clear, flowing and elegant.

Guido Cavalcanti.

Guido Cavalcanti was a learned man with a high conception of his art. He felt the value of it, and adapted his learning to it. Cavalcanti was already a good deal out of sympathy with the medieval spirit; he reflected deeply on his own work, and from this reflection he derived his poetical conception. His poems may be divided into two classes--those which portray the philosopher, "il sottilissimo dialettico," as Lorenzo the Magnificent called him, and those which are more directly the product of his poetic nature imbued with mysticism and metaphysics. To the first set belongs the famous poem _Sulla natura d'amore_, which in fact is a treatise on amorous metaphysics, and was annotated later in a learned way by the most renowned Platonic philosophers of the 15th century, such as Marsilius Ficinus and others. In other poems of Cavalcanti's besides this we see a tendency to subtilize and to stifle the poetic imagery under a dead weight of philosophy. But there are many of his sonnets in which the truth of the images and the elegance and simplicity of the style are admirable, and make us feel that we are in quite a new period of art. This is particularly felt in Cavalcanti's _Ballate_, for in them he pours himself out ingenuously and without affectation, but with an invariable and profound consciousness of his art. Far above all the others for the reality of the sorrow and the love displayed, for the melancholy longing expressed for the distant home, for the calm and solemn yearning of his heart for the lady of his love, for a deep subjectivity which is never troubled by metaphysical subtleties, is the ballata composed by Cavalcanti when he was banished from Florence with the party of the Bianchi in 1300, and took refuge at Sarzana.

Cino da Pistoia.

The third poet among the followers of the new school was Cino da Pistoia, of the family of the Sinibuldi. His love poems are so sweet, so mellow and so musical that they are only surpassed by Dante. The pains of love are described by him with vigorous touches; it is easy to see that they are not feigned but real. The psychology of love and of sorrow nearly reaches perfection.

Dante (1265-1321).

As the author of the _Vita nuova_, the greatest of all Italian poets, Dante also belongs to the same lyric school. In the lyrics of the _Vita nuova_ (so called by its author to indicate that his first meeting with Beatrice was the beginning for him of a life entirely different from that he had hitherto led) there is a high idealization of love. It seems as if there were in it nothing earthly or human, and that the poet had his eyes constantly fixed on heaven while singing of his lady. Everything is supersensual, aerial, heavenly, and the real Beatrice is always gradually melting more and more into the symbolical one--passing out of her human nature and into the divine. Several of the lyrics of the _Canzoniere_ deal with the theme of the "new life"; but all the love poems do not refer to Beatrice, while other pieces are philosophical and bridge over to the _Convito_.

The work which made Dante immortal, and raised him above all other men of genius in Italy, was his _Divina Commedia_. An allegorical meaning is hidden under the literal one of this great epic. Dante travelling through Hell, Purgatory and Paradise, is a symbol of mankind aiming at the double object of temporal and eternal happiness. By the forest in which the poet loses himself is meant the civil and religious confusion of society, deprived of its two guides, the emperor and the pope. The mountain illuminated by the sun is universal monarchy. The three beasts are the three vices and the three powers which offered the greatest obstacles to Dante's designs: envy is Florence, light, fickle and divided by the Bianchi and Neri; pride is the house of France; avarice is the papal court; Virgil represents reason and the empire. Beatrice is the symbol of the supernatural aid without which man cannot attain the supreme end, which is God.

But the merit of the poem does not lie in the allegory, which still connects it with medieval literature. What is new in it is the individual art of the poet, the classic art transfused for the first time into a Romance form. Dante is above all a great artist. Whether he describes nature, analyzes passions, curses the vices or sings hymns to the virtues, he is always wonderful for the grandeur and delicacy of his art. Out of the rude medieval vision he has made the greatest work of art of modern times. He took the materials for his poem from theology, from philosophy, from history, from mythology--but more especially from his own passions, from hatred and love; and he has breathed the breath of genius into all these materials. Under the pen of the poet, the dead come to life again; they become men again, and speak the language of their time, of their passions. Farinata degli Uberti, Boniface VIII., Count Ugolino, Manfred, Sordello, Hugh Capet, St Thomas Aquinas, Cacciaguida, St Benedict, St Peter, are all so many objective creations; they stand before us in all the life of their characters, their feelings, their habits.

Yet this world of fancy in which the poet moves is not only made living by the power of his genius, but it is changed by his consciousness. The real chastizer of the sins, the rewarder of the virtues, is Dante himself. The personal interest which he brings to bear on the historical representation of the three worlds is what most interests us and stirs us. Dante remakes history after his own passions. Thus the _Divina Commedia_ can fairly be called, not only the most life-like drama of the thoughts and feelings that moved men at that time, but also the most clear and spontaneous reflection of the individual feelings of the poet, from the indignation of the citizen and the exile to the faith of the believer and the ardour of the philosopher. The _Divina Commedia_ fixed and clearly defined the destiny of Italian literature, to give artistic lustre, and hence immortality, to all the forms of literature which the middle ages had produced. Dante begins the great era of the Renaissance.

Petrarch (1304-1374).

Two facts characterize the literary life of Petrarch--classical research and the new human feeling introduced into his lyric poetry. Nor are these two facts separate; rather is the one the result of the other. The Petrarch who travelled about unearthing the works of the great Latin writers helps us to understand the Petrarch who, having completely detached himself from the middle ages, loved a real lady with a human love, and celebrated her in her life and after her death in poems full of studied elegance. Petrarch was the first humanist, and he was at the same time the first lyric poet of the modern school. His career was long and tempestuous. He lived for many years at Avignon, cursing the corruption of the papal court; he travelled through nearly the whole of Europe; he corresponded with emperors and popes; he was considered the first man of letters of his time; he had honours and riches; and he always bore about within him discontent, melancholy and incapacity for satisfaction--three characteristics of the modern man.

His _Canzoniere_ is divided into three parts--the first containing the poems written during Laura's lifetime, the second the poems written after her death, the third the _Trionfi_. The one and only subject of these poems is love; but the treatment is full of variety in conception, in imagery and in sentiment, derived from the most varied impressions of nature. Petrarch's love is real and deep, and to this is due the merit of his lyric verse, which is quite different, not only from that of the Provencal troubadours and of the Italian poets before him, but also from the lyrics of Dante. Petrarch is a psychological poet, who dives down into his own soul, examines all his feelings, and knows how to render them with an art of exquisite sweetness. The lyrics of Petrarch are no longer transcendental like Dante's, but on the contrary keep entirely within human limits. In struggles, in doubts, in fears, in disappointments, in griefs, in joys, in fact in everything, the poet finds material for his poetry. The second part of the _Canzoniere_ is the more passionate. The _Trionfi_ are inferior; it is clear that in them Petrarch tried to imitate the _Divina Commedia_, but never came near it. The _Canzoniere_ includes also a few political poems--a canzone to Italy, one supposed to be addressed to Cola di Rienzi and several sonnets against the court of Avignon. These are remarkable for their vigour of feeling, and also for showing that Petrarch had formed the idea of _Italianita_ better even than Alighieri. The Italy which he wooed was different from any conceived by the men of the middle ages, and in this also he was a precursor of modern times and of modern aspirations. Petrarch had no decided political idea. He exalted Cola di Rienzi, invoked the emperor Charles IV., praised the Visconti; in fact, his politics were affected more by impressions than by principles; but above all this reigned constantly the love of Italy, his ancient and glorious country, which in his mind is reunited with Rome, the great city of his heroes Cicero and Scipio.

Boccaccio (1313-1375).

Boccaccio had the same enthusiastic love of antiquity and the same worship for the new Italian literature as Petrarch. He was the first, with the help of a Greek born in Calabria, to put together a Latin translation of the _Iliad_ and the _Odyssey_. His vast classical learning was shown specially in the work _De genealogia deorum_, in which he enumerates the gods according to genealogical trees constructed on the authority of the various authors who wrote about the pagan divinities. This work marked an era in studies preparatory to the revival of classical learning. And at the same time it opened the way for the modern criticism, because Boccaccio in his researches, and in his own judgment was always independent of the authors whom he most esteemed. The _Genealogia deorum_ is, as A. H. Heeren said, an encyclopaedia of mythological knowledge; and it was the precursor of the great humanistic movement which was developed in the 15th century. Boccaccio was also the first historian of women in his _De claris mulieribus_, and the first to undertake to tell the story of the great unfortunate in his _De casibus virorum illustrium_. He continued and perfected former geographical investigations in his interesting book _De montibus, silvis, fontibus, lacubus, fluminibus, stagnis, et paludibus, et de nominibus maris_, for which he made use of Vibius Sequester, but which contains also many new and valuable observations. Of his Italian works his lyrics do not come anywhere near to the perfection of Petrarch's. His sonnets, mostly about love, are quite mediocre. His narrative poetry is better. Although now he can no longer claim the distinction long conceded to him of having invented the octave stanza (which afterwards became the metre of the poems of Boiardo, of Ariosto and of Tasso), yet he was certainly the first to use it in a work of some length and written with artistic skill, such as is his _Teseide_, the oldest Italian romantic poem. The _Filostrato_ relates the loves of Troiolo and Griseida (Troilus and Cressida). It may be that Boccaccio knew the French poem of the Trojan war by Benoit de Sainte-More; but the interest of the Italian work lies in the analysis of the passion of love, which is treated with a masterly hand. The _Ninfale fiesolano_ tells the love story of the nymph Mesola and the shepherd Africo. The _Amorosa Visione_, a poem in triplets, doubtless owed its origin to the _Divina Commedia_. The _Ameto_ is a mixture of prose and poetry, and is the first Italian pastoral romance.

The _Filocopo_ takes the earliest place among prose romances. In it Boccaccio tells in a laborious style, and in the most prolix way, the loves of Florio and Biancafiore. Probably for this work he drew materials from a popular source or from a Byzantine romance, which Leonzio Pilato may have mentioned to him. In the _Filocopo_ there is a remarkable exuberance in the mythological part, which damages the romance as an artistic work, but which contributes to the history of Boccaccio's mind. The _Fiammetta_ is another romance, about the loves of Boccaccio and Maria d'Aquino, a supposed natural daughter of King Robert, whom he always called by this name of Fiammetta.

The Italian work which principally made Boccaccio famous was the _Decamerone_, a collection of a hundred novels, related by a party of men and women, who had retired to a villa near Florence to escape from the plague in 1348. Novel-writing, so abundant in the preceding centuries, especially in France, now for the first time assumed an artistic shape. The style of Boccaccio tends to the imitation of Latin, but in him prose first took the form of elaborated art. The rudeness of the old _fabliaux_ gives place to the careful and conscientious work of a mind that has a feeling for what is beautiful, that has studied the classic authors, and that strives to imitate them as much as possible. Over and above this, in the _Decamerone_, Boccaccio is a delineator of character and an observer of passions. In this lies his novelty. Much has been written about the sources of the novels of the _Decamerone_. Probably Boccaccio made use both of written and of oral sources. Popular tradition must have furnished him with the materials of many stories, as, for example, that of Griselda.

Unlike Petrarch, who was always discontented, preoccupied, wearied with life, disturbed by disappointments, we find Boccaccio calm, serene, satisfied with himself and with his surroundings. Notwithstanding these fundamental differences in their characters, the two great authors were old and warm friends. But their affection for Dante was not equal. Petrarch, who says that he saw him once in his childhood, did not preserve a pleasant recollection of him, and it would be useless to deny that he was jealous of his renown. The _Divina Commedia_ was sent him by Boccaccio, when he was an old man, and he confessed that he never read it. On the other hand, Boccaccio felt for Dante something more than love--enthusiasm. He wrote a biography of him, of which the accuracy is now unfairly depreciated by some critics, and he gave public critical lectures on the poem in Santa Maria del Fiore at Florence.

Imitators of the Commedia.

Fazio degli Uberti and Federigo Frezzi were imitators of the _Divina Commedia_, but only in its external form. The former wrote the _Dittamondo_, a long poem, in which the author supposes that he was taken by the geographer Solinus into different parts of the world, and that his guide related the history of them. The legends of the rise of the different Italian cities have some importance historically. Frezzi, bishop of his native town Foligno, wrote the _Quadriregio_, a poem of the four kingdoms--Love, Satan, the Vices and the Virtues. This poem has many points of resemblance with the _Divina Commedia_. Frezzi pictures the condition of man who rises from a state of vice to one of virtue, and describes hell, the limbo, purgatory and heaven. The poet has Pallas for a companion.

Novelists.

Ser Giovanni Fiorentino wrote, under the title of _Pecorone_, a collection of tales, which are supposed to have been related by a monk and a nun in the parlour of the monastery of Forli. He closely imitated Boccaccio, and drew on Villani's chronicle for his historical stories. Franco Sacchetti wrote tales too, for the most part on subjects taken from Florentine history. His book gives a life-like picture of Florentine society at the end of the 14th century. The subjects are almost always improper; but it is evident that Sacchetti collected all these anecdotes in order to draw from them his own conclusions and moral reflections, which are to be found at the end of every story. From this point of view Sacchetti's work comes near to the _Monalisationes_ of the middle ages. A third novelist was Giovanni Sercambi of Lucca, who after 1374 wrote a book, in imitation of Boccaccio, about a party of people who were supposed to fly from a plague and to go travelling about in different Italian cities, stopping here and there telling stories. Later, but important, names are those of Massuccio Salernitano (Tommaso Guardato), who wrote the _Novellino_, and Antonio Cornazzano whose _Proverbii_ became extremely popular.

The chroniclers.

It has already been said that the Chronicles formerly believed to have been of the 13th century are now regarded as forgeries of later times. At the end of the 13th century, however, we find a _chronicle_ by Dino Compagni, which, notwithstanding the unfavourable opinion of it entertained especially by some German writers, is in all probability authentic. Little is known about the life of Compagni. Noble by birth, he was democratic in feeling, and was a supporter of the new ordinances of Giano della Bella. As prior and gonfalonier of justice he always had the public welfare at heart. When Charles of Valois, the nominee of Boniface VIII., was expected in Florence, Compagni, foreseeing the evils of civil discord, assembled a number of citizens in the church of San Giovanni, and tried to quiet their excited spirits. His chronicle relates the events that came under his own notice from 1280 to 1312. It bears the stamp of a strong subjectivity. The narrative is constantly personal. It often rises to the finest dramatic style. A strong patriotic feeling and an exalted desire for what is right pervade the book. Compagni is more an historian than a chronicler, because he looks for the reasons of events, and makes profound reflections on them. According to our judgment he is one of the most important authorities for that period of Florentine history, notwithstanding the not insignificant mistakes in fact which are to be found in his writings. On the contrary, Giovanni Villani, born in 1300, was more of a chronicler than an historian. He relates the events up to 1347. The journeys that he made in Italy and France, and the information thus acquired, account for the fact that his chronicle, called by him _Istorie fiorentine_, comprises events that occurred all over Europe. What specially distinguishes the work of Villani is that he speaks at length, not only of events in politics and war, but also of the stipends of public officials, of the sums of money used for paying soldiers and for public festivals, and of many other things of which the knowledge is very valuable. With such an abundance of information it is not to be wondered at that Villani's narrative is often encumbered with fables and errors, particularly when he speaks of things that happened before his own time. Matteo was the brother of Giovanni Villani, and continued the chronicle up to 1363. It was again continued by Filippo Villani. Gino Capponi, author of the _Commentari dell' acquisto di Pisa_ and of the narration of the _Tumulto dei ciompi_, belonged to both the 14th and the 15th centuries.

Ascetic writers.

The _Divina Commedia_ is ascetic in its conception, and in a good many points of its execution. To a large extent similar is the genius of Petrarch; yet neither Petrarch nor Dante could be classified among the pure ascetics of their time. But many other writers come under this head. St Catherine of Siena's mysticism was political. She was a really extraordinary woman, who aspired to bring back the Church of Rome to evangelical virtue, and who has left a collection of letters written in a high and lofty tone to all kinds of people, including popes. She joins hands on the one side with Jacopone of Todi, on the other with Savonarola. Hers is the strongest, clearest, most exalted religious utterance that made itself heard in Italy in the 14th century. It is not to be thought that precise ideas of reformation entered into her head, but the want of a great moral reform was felt in her heart. And she spoke indeed _ex abundantia cordis_. Anyhow the daughter of Jacopo Benincasa must take her place among those who from afar off prepared the way for the religious movement which took effect, especially in Germany and England, in the 16th century.

Another Sienese, Giovanni Colombini, founder of the order of Jesuati, preached poverty by precept and example, going back to the religious idea of St Francis of Assisi. His letters are among the most remarkable in the category of ascetic works in the 14th century. Passavanti, in his _Specchio della vera penitenza_, attached instruction to narrative. Cavalca translated from the Latin the _Vite dei santi padri_. Rivalta left behind him many sermons, and Franco Sacchetti (the famous novelist) many discourses. On the whole, there is no doubt that one of the most important productions of the Italian spirit of the 14th century was the religious literature.

Comic poetry.

In direct antithesis with this is a kind of literature which has a strong popular element. Humorous poetry, the poetry of laughter and jest, which as we saw was largely developed in the 13th century, was carried on in the 14th by Bindo Bonichi, Arrigo di Castruccio, Cecco Nuccoli, Andrea Orgagna, Filippo de' Bardi, Adriano de' Rossi, Antonio Pucci and other lesser writers. Orgagna was specially comic; Bonichi was comic with a satirical and moral purpose. Antonio Pucci was superior to all of them for the variety of his production. He put into triplets the _chronicle_ of Giovanni Villani (_Centiloquio_), and wrote many historical poems called _Serventesi_, many comic poems, and not a few epico-popular compositions on various subjects. A little poem of his in seven cantos treats of the war between the Florentines and the Pisans from 1362 to 1365. Other poems drawn from a legendary source celebrate the _Reina d' Oriente_, _Apollonio di Tiro_, the _Bel Gherardino_, &c. These poems, meant to be recited to the people, are the remote ancestors of the romantic epic, which was developed in the 16th century, and the first representatives of which were Boiardo and Ariosto.

Political and amatory poetry.

Histories in verse.

Many poets of the 14th century have left us political works. Of these Fazio degli Uberti, the author of _Dittamondo_, who wrote a _Serventese_ to the lords and people of Italy, a poem on Rome, a fierce invective against Charles IV. of Luxemburg, deserves notice, and Francesco di Vannozzo, Frate Stoppa and Matteo Frescobaldi. It may be said in general that following the example of Petrarch many writers devoted themselves to patriotic poetry. From this period also dates that literary phenomenon known under the name of Petrarchism. The Petrarchists, or those who sang of love, imitating Petrarch's manner, were found already in the 14th century. But others treated the same subject with more originality, in a manner that might be called semi-popular. Such were the _Ballate_ of Ser Giovanni Fiorentino, of Franco Sacchetti, of Niccolo Soldanieri, of Guido and Bindo Donati. Ballate were poems sung to dancing, and we have very many songs for music of the 14th century. We have already stated that Antonio Pucci versified Villani's _Chronicle_. This instance of versified history is not unique, and it is evidently connected with the precisely similar phenomenon offered by the "vulgar Latin" literature. It is enough to notice a chronicle of Arezzo in terza rima by Gorello de' Sinigardi, and the history, also in terza rima, of the journey of Pope Alexander III. to Venice by Pier de' Natali. Besides this, every kind of subject, whether history, tragedy or husbandry, was treated in verse. Neri di Landocio wrote a life of St Catherine; Jacopo Gradenigo put the gospels into triplets; Paganino Bonafede in the _Tesoro dei rustici_ gave many precepts in agriculture, beginning that kind of Georgic poetry which was fully developed later by Alamanni in his _Coltivazione_, by Girolamo Baruffaldi in the _Canapajo_, by Rucellai in the _Api_, by Bartolommeo Lorenzi in the _Coltivazione dei monti_, by Giambattista Spolverini in the _Coltivazione del riso_, &c.

Drama.

There cannot have been an entire absence of dramatic literature in Italy in the 14th century, but traces of it are wanting, although we find them again in great abundance in the 15th century. The 14th century had, however, one drama unique of its kind. In the sixty years (1250 to 1310) which ran from the death of the emperor Frederick II. to the expedition of Henry VII., no emperor had come into Italy. In the north of Italy, Ezzelino da Romano, with the title of imperial vicar, had taken possession of almost the whole of the March of Treviso, and threatened Lombardy. The popes proclaimed a crusade against him, and, crushed by it, the Ezzelini fell. Padua then began to breathe again, and took to extending its dominion. There was living at Padua Albertino Mussato, born in 1261, a year after the catastrophe of the Ezzelini; he grew up among the survivors of a generation that hated the name of the tyrant. After having written in Latin a history of Henry VII. he devoted himself to a dramatic work on Ezzelino, and wrote it also in Latin. The _Eccerinus_, which was probably never represented on the stage, has been by some critics compared to the great tragic works of Greece. It would probably be nearer the truth to say that it has nothing in common with the works of Aeschylus; but certainly the dramatic strength, the delineation of certain situations, and the narration of certain events are very original. Mussato's work stands alone in the history of Italian dramatic literature. Perhaps this would not have been the case if he had written it in Italian.

In the last years of the 14th century we find the struggle that was soon to break out between the indigenous literary tradition and the reviving classicism already alive in spirit. As representatives of this struggle, of this antagonism, we may consider Luigi Marsilio and Coluccio Salutati, both learned men who spoke and wrote Latin, who aspired to be humanists, but who meanwhile also loved Dante, Petrarch and Boccaccio, and felt and celebrated in their writings the beauty of Italian literature.

Graeco-Latin learning.

3. _The Renaissance._--A great intellectual movement, which had been gathering for a long time, made itself felt in Italy in the 15th century. A number of men arose, all learned, laborious, indefatigable, and all intent on one great work. Such were Niccolo Niccoli, Giannozzo Manetti, Palla Strozzi, Leonardo Bruni, Francesco Filelfo, Poggio Bracciolini, Carlo d'Arezzo, Lorenzo Valla. Manetti buried himself in his books, slept only for a few hours in the night, never went out of doors, and spent his time in translating from Greek, studying Hebrew, and commenting on Aristotle. Palla Strozzi sent into Greece at his own expense to search for ancient books, and had Plutarch and Plato brought for him. Poggio Bracciolini went to the Council of Constance, and found in a monastery in the dust-hole Cicero's _Orations_. He copied Quintilian with his own hand, discovered Lucretius, Plautus, Pliny and many other Latin authors. Guarino went through the East in search of codices. Giovanni Aurispa returned to Venice with many hundreds of manuscripts. What was the passion that excited all these men? What did they search after? What did they look to? These Italians were but handing on the solemn tradition which, although partly latent, was the informing principle of Italian medieval history, and now at length came out triumphant. This tradition was that same tenacious and sacred memory of Rome, that same worship of its language and institutions, which at one time had retarded the development of Italian literature, and now grafted the old Latin branch of ancient classicism on the flourishing stock of Italian literature. All this is but the continuation of a phenomenon that has existed for ages. It is the thought of Rome that always dominates Italians, the thought that keeps appearing from Boetius to Dante Alighieri, from Arnold of Brescia to Cola di Rienzi, which gathers strength with Petrarch and Boccaccio, and finally becomes triumphant in literature and life--in life, because the modern spirit is fed on the works of the ancients. Men come to have a more just idea of nature: the world is no longer cursed or despised; truth and beauty join hands; man is born again; and human reason resumes its rights. Everything, the individual and society, are changed under the influence of new facts.

New social conditions.

First of all there was formed a human individuality, which was wanting in the middle ages. As J. Burckhardt has said, the man was changed into the individual. He began to feel and assert his own personality, which was constantly attaining a fuller realization. As a consequence of this, the idea of fame and the desire for it arose. A really cultured class was formed, in the modern meaning of the word, and the conception was arrived at (completely unknown in former times) that the worth of a man did not depend at all on his birth but on his personal qualities. Poggio in his dialogue _De nobilitate_ declares that he entirely agreed with his interlocutors Niccolo Niccoli and Lorenzo de' Medici in the opinion that there is no other nobility but that of personal merit. External life was growing more refined in all particulars; the man of society was created; rules for civilized life were made; there was an increasing desire for sumptuous and artistic entertainments. The medieval idea of existence was turned upside down; men who had hitherto turned their thoughts exclusively to heavenly things, and believed exclusively in the divine right, now began to think of beautifying their earthly existence, of making it happy and gay, and returned to a belief in their human rights. This was a great advance, but one which carried with it the seeds of many dangers. The conception of morality became gradually weaker. The "fay ce que vouldras" of Rabelais became the first principle of life. Religious feeling was blunted, was weakened, was changed, became pagan again. Finally the Italian of the Renaissance, in his qualities and his passions, became the most remarkable representative of the heights and depths, of the virtues and faults, of humanity. Corruption was associated with all that is most ideal in life; a profound scepticism took hold of people's minds; indifference to good and evil reached its highest point.

Literary dangers of Latinism.

Besides this, a great literary danger was hanging over Italy. Humanism threatened to submerge its youthful national literature. There were authors who laboriously tried to give Italian Latin forms, to do again, after Dante's time, what Guittone d'Arezzo had so unhappily done in the 13th century. Provincial dialects tried to reassert themselves in literature. The great authors of the 14th century, Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio, were by many people forgotten or despised.

Influence of Florence.

It was Florence that saved literature by reconciling the classical models to modern feeling, Florence that succeeded in assimilating classical forms to the "vulgar" art. Still gathering vigour and elegance from classicism, still drawing from the ancient fountains all that they could supply of good and useful, it was able to preserve its real life, to keep its national traditions, and to guide literature along the way that had been opened to it by the writers of the preceding century. At Florence the most celebrated humanists wrote also in the vulgar tongue, and commented on Dante and Petrarch, and defended them from their enemies. Leone Battista Alberti, the learned Greek and Latin scholar, wrote in the vernacular, and Vespasiano da Bisticci, whilst he was constantly absorbed in Greek and Latin manuscripts, wrote the _Vite di uomini illustri_, valuable for their historical contents, and rivalling the best works of the 14th century in their candour and simplicity. Andrea da Barberino wrote the beautiful prose of the _Reali di Francia_, giving a colouring of "romanita" to the chivalrous romances. Belcari and Benivieni carry us back to the mystic idealism of earlier times.

Lorenzo de' Medici.

But it is in Lorenzo de' Medici that the influence of Florence on the Renaissance is particularly seen. His mind was formed by the ancients: he attended the class of the Greek Argyropulos, sat at Platonic banquets, took pains to collect codices, sculptures, vases, pictures, gems and drawings to ornament the gardens of San Marco and to form the library afterwards called by his name. In the saloons of his Florentine palace, in his villas at Careggi, Fiesole and Ambra, stood the wonderful chests painted by Dello with stories from Ovid, the Hercules of Pollajuolo, the Pallas of Botticelli, the works of Filippino and Verrocchio. Lorenzo de' Medici lived entirely in the classical world; and yet if we read his poems we only see the man of his time, the admirer of Dante and of the old Tuscan poets, who takes inspiration from the popular muse, and who succeeds in giving to his poetry the colours of the most pronounced realism as well as of the loftiest idealism, who passes from the Platonic sonnet to the impassioned triplets of the _Amori di Venere_, from the grandiosity of the _Salve_ to _Nencia_ and to _Beoni_, from the _Canto carnascialesco_ to the _Lauda_. The feeling of nature is strong in him--at one time sweet and melancholy, at another vigorous and deep, as if an echo of the feelings, the sorrows, the ambitions of that deeply agitated life. He liked to look into his own heart with a severe eye, but he was also able to pour himself out with tumultuous fulness. He described with the art of a sculptor; he satirized, laughed, prayed, sighed, always elegant, always a Florentine, but a Florentine who read Anacreon, Ovid and Tibullus, who wished to enjoy life, but also to taste of the refinements of art.

Poliziano.

Next to Lorenzo comes Poliziano, who also united, and with greater art, the ancient and the modern, the popular and the classical style. In his _Rispetti_ and in his _Ballate_ the freshness of imagery and the plasticity of form are inimitable. He, a great Greek scholar, wrote Italian verses with dazzling colours; the purest elegance of the Greek sources pervaded his art in all its varieties, in the _Orfeo_ as well as the _Stanze per la giostra_.

The Academies.

As a consequence of the intellectual movement towards the Renaissance, there arose in Italy in the 15th century three academies, those of Florence, of Naples and of Rome. The Florentine academy was founded by Cosmo I. de' Medici. Having heard the praises of Platonic philosophy sung by Gemistus Pletho, who in 1439 was at the council of Florence, he took such a liking for those opinions that he soon made a plan for a literary congress which was especially to discuss them. Marsilius Ficinus has described the occupations and the entertainments of these academicians. Here, he said, the young men learnt, by way of pastime, precepts of conduct and the practice of eloquence; here grown-up men studied the government of the republic and the family; here the aged consoled themselves with the belief in a future world. The academy was divided into three classes: that of patrons, who were members of the Medici family; that of hearers, among whom sat the most famous men of that age, such as Pico della Mirandola, Angelo Poliziano, Leon Battista Alberti; that of disciples, who were youths anxious to distinguish themselves in philosophical pursuits. It is known that the Platonic academy endeavoured to promote, with regard to art, a second and a more exalted revival of antiquity. The Roman academy was founded by Giulio Pomponio Leto, with the object of promoting the discovery and the investigation of ancient monuments and books. It was a sort of religion of classicism, mixed with learning and philosophy. Platina, the celebrated author of the lives of the first hundred popes, belonged to it. At Naples, the academy known as the Pontaniana was instituted. The founder of it was Antonio Beccadelli, surnamed Il Panormita, and after his death the head was Il Pontano, who gave his name to it, and whose mind animated it.

Romantic poetry.

Romantic poems were the product of the moral scepticism and the artistic taste of the 15th century. Italy never had any true epic poetry in its period of literary birth. Still less could it have any in the Renaissance. It had, however, many poems called _Cantari_, because they contained stories that were sung to the people; and besides there were romantic poems, such as the _Buovo d' Antona_, the _Regina Ancroja_ and others. But the first to introduce elegance and a new life into this style was Luigi Pulci, who grew up in the house of the Medici, and who wrote the _Morgante Maggiore_ at the request of Lucrezia Tornabuoni, mother of Lorenzo the Magnificent. The material of the _Morgante_ is almost completely taken from an obscure chivalrous poem of the 15th century recently discovered by Professor Pio Rajna. On this foundation Pulci erected a structure of his own, often turning the subject into ridicule, burlesquing the characters, introducing many digressions, now capricious, now scientific, now theological. Pulci's merit consists in having been the first to raise the romantic epic which had been for two centuries in the hands of story-tellers into a work of art, and in having united the serious and the comic, thus happily depicting the manners and feelings of the time. With a more serious intention Matteo Boiardo, count of Scandiano, wrote his _Orlando innamorato_, in which he seems to have aspired to embrace the whole range of Carlovingian legends; but he did not complete his task. We find here too a large vein of humour and burlesque. Still the Ferrarese poet is drawn to the world of romance by a profound sympathy for chivalrous manners and feelings--that is to say, for love, courtesy, valour and generosity. A third romantic poem of the 15th century was the _Mambriano_ by Francesco Bello (Cieco of Ferrara). He drew from the Carlovingian cycle, from the romances of the Round Table, from classical antiquity. He was a poet of no common genius, and of ready imagination. He showed the influence of Boiardo, especially in something of the fantastic which he introduced into his work.

Drama.

The development of the drama in the 15th century was very great. This kind of semi-popular literature was born in Florence, and attached itself to certain popular festivities that were usually held in honour of St John the Baptist, patron saint of the city. The _Sacra Rappresentazione_ is in substance nothing more than the development of the medieval _Mistero_ ("mystery-play"). Although it belonged to popular poetry, some of its authors were literary men of much renown. It is enough to notice Lorenzo de' Medici, who wrote _San Giovanni e Paolo_, and Feo Belcari, author of the _San Panunzio_, the _Abramo ed Isac_, &c. From the 15th century, some element of the comic-profane found its way into the _Sacra Rappresentazione_. From its Biblical and legendary conventionalism Poliziano emancipated himself in his _Orfeo_, which, although in its exterior form belonging to the sacred representations, yet substantially detaches itself from them in its contents and in the artistic element introduced.

Pastoral poetry.

From Petrarch onwards the eclogue was a kind of literature that much pleased the Italians. In it, however, the pastoral element is only apparent, for there is nothing really rural in it. Such is the _Arcadia_ of Jacopo Sannazzaro of Naples, author of a wearisome Latin poem _De Partu Virginis_, and of some piscatorial eclogues. The _Arcadia_ is divided into ten eclogues, in which the festivities, the games, the sacrifices, the manners of a colony of shepherds are described. They are written in elegant verses, but it would be vain to look in them for the remotest feeling of country life. On the other hand, even in this style, Lorenzo de' Medici was superior. His _Nencia da Barberino_, as a modern writer says, is as it were the new and clear reproduction of the popular songs of the environs of Florence, melted into one majestic wave of octave stanzas. Lorenzo threw himself into the spirit of the bare realism of country life. There is a marked contrast between this work and the conventional bucolic of Sannazzaro and other writers. A rival of the Medici in this style, but always inferior to him, was Luigi Pulci in his _Beca da Dicomano_.

Lyric poetry.

The lyric love poetry of this century was unimportant. In its stead we see a completely new style arise, the _Canto carnascialesco_. These were a kind of choral songs, which were accompanied with symbolical masquerades, common in Florence at the carnival. They were written in a metre like that of the ballate; and for the most part they were put into the mouth of a party of workmen and tradesmen, who, with not very chaste allusions, sang the praises of their art. These triumphs and masquerades were directed by Lorenzo himself. At eventide there set out into the city large companies on horseback, playing and singing these songs. There are some by Lorenzo himself, which surpass all the others in their mastery of art. That entitled _Bacco ed Arianna_ is the most famous.

Religious reaction. Savonarola.

Girolamo Savonarola, who came to Florence in 1489, arose to fight against the literary and social movement of the Renaissance. Some have tried to make out that Savonarola was an apostle of liberty, others that he was a precursor of the Reformation. In truth, however, he was neither the one nor the other. In his struggle with Lorenzo de' Medici, he directed his attack against the promoter of classical studies, the patron of pagan literature, rather than against the political tyrant. Animated by mystic zeal, he took the line of a prophet, preaching against reading voluptuous authors, against the tyranny of the Medici, and calling for popular government. This, however, was not done from a desire for civil liberty, but because Savonarola saw in Lorenzo and his court the greatest obstacle to that return to Catholic doctrine which was his heart's desire; while he thought this return would be easily accomplished if, on the fall of the Medici, the Florentine republic should come into the hands of his supporters. There may be more justice in looking on Savonarola as the forerunner of the Reformation. If he was so, it was more than he intended. The friar of Ferrara never thought of attacking the papal dogma, and always maintained that he wished to remain within the church of Rome. He had none of the great aspirations of Luther. He only repeated the complaints and the exhortations of St Catherine of Siena; he desired a reform of manners, entirely of manners, not of doctrine. He prepared the ground for the German and English religious movement of the 16th century, but unconsciously. In the history of Italian civilization he represents retrogression, that is to say, the cancelling of the great fact of the Renaissance, and return to medieval ideas. His attempt to put himself in opposition to his time, to arrest the course of events, to bring the people back to the faith of the past, the belief that all the social evils came from a Medici and a Borgia, his not seeing the historical reality, as it was, his aspiring to found a republic with Jesus Christ for its king--all these things show that Savonarola was more of a fanatic than a thinker. Nor has he any great merit as a writer. He wrote Italian sermons, hymns (laudi), ascetic and political treatises, but they are roughly executed, and only important as throwing light on the history of his ideas. The religious poems of Girolamo Benivieni are better than his, and are drawn from the same inspirations. In these lyrics, sometimes sweet, always warm with religious feeling, Benivieni and with him Feo Belcari carry us back to the literature of the 14th century.

Histories, &c.

History had neither many nor very good students in the 15th century. Its revival belonged to the following age. It was mostly written in Latin. Leonardo Bruni of Arezzo wrote the history of Florence, Gioviano Pontano that of Naples, in Latin. Bernardino Corio wrote the history of Milan in Italian, but in a rude way.

Leonardo da Vinci wrote a treatise on painting, Leon Battista Alberti one on sculpture and architecture. But the names of these two men are important, not so much as authors of these treatises, but as being embodiments of another characteristic of the age of the Renaissance--versatility of genius, power of application along many and varied lines, and of being excellent in all. Leonardo was an architect, a poet, a painter, an hydraulic engineer and a distinguished mathematician. Alberti was a musician, studied jurisprudence, was an architect and a draughtsman, and had great fame in literature. He had a deep feeling for nature, an almost unique faculty of assimilating all that he saw and heard. Leonardo and Alberti are representatives and almost a compendium in themselves of all that intellectual vigour of the Renaissance age, which in the 16th century took to developing itself in its individual parts, making way for what has by some been called the golden age of Italian literature.

4. _Development of the Renaissance._--The fundamental characteristic of the literary epoch following that of the Renaissance is that it perfected itself in every kind of art, in particular uniting the essentially Italian character of its language with classicism of style. This period lasted from about 1494 to about 1560; and, strange to say, this very period of greater fruitfulness and literary greatness began from the year 1494, which with Charles VIII.'s descent into Italy marked the beginning of its political decadence and of foreign domination over it. But this is not hard to explain. All the most famous men of the first half of the 16th had been educated in the preceding century. Pietro Pomponazzi was born in 1462, Marcello Virgilio Adriani in 1464, Castiglione in 1468, Machiavelli in 1469, Bembo in 1470, Michelangelo Buonarroti and Ariosto in 1474, Nardi in 1476, Trissino in 1478, Guicciardini in 1482. Thus it is easy to understand how the literary activity which showed itself from the end of the 15th century to the middle of the following one was the product of the political and social conditions of the age in which these minds were formed, not of that in which their powers were displayed.

History.

Niccolo Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini were the chief originators of the science of history. Machiavelli's principal works are the _Istorie fiorentine_, the _Discorsi sulla prima deca di Tito Livio_, the _Arte della guerra_ and the _Principe_. His merit consists in having been the creator of the experimental science of politics--in having observed facts, studied histories and drawn consequences from them. His history is sometimes inexact in facts; it is rather a political than an historical work. The peculiarity of Machiavelli's genius lay, as has been said, in his artistic feeling for the treatment and discussion of politics in and for themselves, without regard to an immediate end--in his power of abstracting himself from the partial appearances of the transitory present, in order more thoroughly to possess himself of the eternal and inborn kingdom, and to bring it into subjection to himself.

Next to Machiavelli both as an historian and a statesman comes Francesco Guicciardini. Guicciardini was very observant, and endeavoured to reduce his observations to a science. His _Storia d' Italia_, which extends from the death of Lorenzo de' Medici to 1534, is full of political wisdom, is skilfully arranged in its parts, gives a lively picture of the character of the persons it treats of, and is written in a grand style. He shows a profound knowledge of the human heart, and depicts with truth the temperaments, the capabilities and the habits of the different European nations. Going back to the causes of events, he looked for the explanation of the divergent interests of princes and of their reciprocal jealousies. The fact of his having witnessed many of the events he related, and having taken part in them, adds authority to his words. The political reflections are always deep; in the _Pensieri_, as G. Capponi[3] says, he seems to aim at extracting through self-examination a quintessence, as it were, of the things observed and done by him--thus endeavouring to form a political doctrine as adequate as possible in all its parts. Machiavelli and Guicciardini may be considered, not only as distinguished historians, but as originators of the science of history founded on observation.

Inferior to them, but still always worthy of note, were Jacopo Nardi (a just and faithful historian and a virtuous man, who defended the rights of Florence against the Medici before Charles V.), Benedetto Varchi, Giambattista Adriani, Bernardo Segni; and, outside Tuscany, Camillo Porzio, who related the _Congiura de' baroni_ and the history of Italy from 1547 to 1552, Angelo di Costanza, Pietro Bembo, Paolo Paruta and others.

Romantic epic. Ariosto (1474-1533).

Ariosto's _Orlando furioso_ was a continuation of Boiardo's _Innamorato_. His characteristic is that he assimilated the romance of chivalry to the style and models of classicism. Ariosto was an artist only for the love of his art; his sole aim was to make a romance that should please the generation in which he lived. His Orlando has no grave and serious purpose; on the contrary it creates a fantastic world, in which the poet rambles, indulging his caprice, and sometimes smiling at his own work. His great desire is to depict everything with the greatest possible perfection; the cultivation of style is what occupies him most. In his hands the style becomes wonderfully plastic to every conception, whether high or low, serious or sportive. The octave stanza reached in him the highest perfection of grace, variety and harmony.

Heroic epic.

Meanwhile, side by side with the romantic, there was an attempt at the historical epic. Gian Giorgio Trissino of Vicenza composed a poem called _Italia liberata dai Goti_. Full of learning and of the rules of the ancients, he formed himself on the latter, in order to sing of the campaigns of Belisarius; he said that he had forced himself to observe all the rules of Aristotle, and that he had imitated Homer. In this again, we see one of the products of the Renaissance; and, although Trissino's work is poor in invention and without any original poetical colouring, yet it helps one to understand better what were the conditions of mind in the 16th century.

Lyric poetry.

Lyric poetry was certainly not one of the kinds that rose to any great height in the 16th century. Originality was entirely wanting, since it seemed in that century as if nothing better could be done than to copy Petrarch. Still, even in this style there were some vigorous poets. Monsignore Giovanni Guidiccioni of Lucca (1500-1541) showed that he had a generous heart. In fine sonnets he gave expression to his grief for the sad state to which his country was reduced. Francesco Molza of Modena (1489-1544), learned in Greek, Latin and Hebrew, wrote in a graceful style and with spirit. Giovanni della Casa (1503-1556) and Pietro Bembo (1470-1547), although Petrarchists, were elegant. Even Michelangelo Buonarroti was at times a Petrarchist, but his poems bear the stamp of his extraordinary and original genius. And a good many ladies are to be placed near these poets, such as Vittoria Colonna (loved by Michelangelo), Veronica Gambara, Tullia d' Aragona, Giulia Gonzaga, poetesses of great delicacy, and superior in genius to many literary men of their time.

Tragedy.

The 16th century had not a few tragedies, but they are all weak. The cause of this was the moral and religious indifference of the Italians, the lack of strong passions and vigorous characters. The first to occupy the tragic stage was Trissino with his _Sofonisba_, following the rules of the art most scrupulously, but written in sickly verses, and without warmth of feeling. The _Oreste_ and the _Rosmunda_ of Giovanni Rucellai were no better, nor Luigi Alamanni's _Antigone_. Sperone Speroni in his Canace and Giraldi Cintio in his _Orbecche_ tried to become innovators in tragic literature, but they only succeeded in making it grotesque. Decidedly superior to these was the _Torrismondo_ of Torquato Tasso, specially remarkable for the choruses, which sometimes remind one of the chorus of the Greek tragedies.

Comedy.

The Italian comedy of the 16th century was almost entirely modelled on the Latin comedy. They were almost always alike in the plot, in the characters of the old man, of the servant, of the waiting-maid; and the argument was often the same. Thus the _Lucidi_ of Agnolo Firenzuola, and the _Vecchio amoroso_ of Donato Giannotti were modelled on comedies by Plautus, as were the _Sporta_ by Gelli, the _Marito_ by Dolce, and others. There appear to be only three writers who should be distinguished among the many who wrote comedies--Machiavelli, Ariosto and Giovan Maria Cecchi. In his _Mandragora_ Machiavelli, unlike all the others, composed a comedy of character, creating types which seem living even now, because they were copied from reality seen with a finely observant eye. Ariosto, on the other hand, was distinguished for his picture of the habits of his time, and especially of those of the Ferrarese nobles, rather than for the objective delineation of character. Lastly, Cecchi left in his comedies a treasure of spoken language, which nowadays enables us in a wonderful way to make ourselves acquainted with that age. The notorious Pietro Aretino might also be included in the list of the best writers of comedy.

Burlesque and satire.

The 15th century was not without humorous poetry; Antonio Cammelli, surnamed the Pistoian, is specially deserving of notice, because of his "pungent _bonhomie_," as Sainte-Beuve called it. But it was Francesco Berni who carried this kind of literature to perfection in the 16th century. From him the style has been called "bernesque" poetry. In the "Berneschi" we find nearly the same phenomenon that we already noticed with regard to _Orlando furioso_. It was art for art's sake that inspired and moved Berni to write, as well as Anton Francesco Grazzini, called Il Lasca, and other lesser writers. It may be said that there is nothing in their poetry; and it is true that they specially delight in praising low and disgusting things and in jeering at what is noble and serious. Bernesque poetry is the clearest reflection of that religious and moral scepticism which was one of the characteristics of Italian social life in the 16th century, and which showed itself more or less in all the works of that period, that scepticism which stopped the religious Reformation in Italy, and which in its turn was an effect of historical conditions. The Berneschi, and especially Berni himself, sometimes assumed a satirical tone. But theirs could not be called true satire. Pure satirists, on the other hand, were Antonio Vinciguerra, a Venetian, Lodovico Alamanni and Ariosto, the last superior to the others for the Attic elegance of his style, and for a certain frankness, passing into malice, which is particularly interesting when the poet talks of himself.

Didactic works.

In the 16th century there were not a few didactic works. In his poem of the _Api_ Giovanni Rucellai approaches to the perfection of Virgil. His style is clear and light, and he adds interest to his book by frequent allusions to the events of the time. But of the didactic works that which surpasses all the others in importance is Baldassare Castiglione's _Cortigiano_, in which he imagines a discussion in the palace of the dukes of Urbino between knights and ladies as to what are the gifts required in a perfect courtier. This book is valuable as an illustration of the intellectual and moral state of the highest Italian society in the first half of the 16th century.

Fiction.

Of the novelists of the 16th century, the two most important were Anton Francesco Grazzini and Matteo Bandello--the former as playful and bizarre as the latter is grave and solemn. As part of the history of the times, we must not forget that Bandello was a Dominican friar and a bishop, but that notwithstanding his novels were very loose in subject, and that he often holds up the ecclesiastics of his time to ridicule.

Translations.

At a time when admiration for qualities of style, the desire for classical elegance, was so strong as in the 16th century, much attention was naturally paid to translating Latin and Greek authors. Among the very numerous translations of the time those of the _Aeneid_ and of the _Pastorals_ of Longus the Sophist by Annibal Caro are still famous; as are also the translations of Ovid's _Metamorphoses_ by Giovanni Andrea dell' Anguillare, of Apuleius's _Golden Ass_ by Firenzuola, and of Plutarch's _Lives_ and _Moralia_ by Marcello Adriani.

Tasso (1544-1595).

The historians of Italian literature are in doubt whether Tasso should be placed in the period of the highest development of the Renaissance, or whether he should form a period by himself, intermediate between that and the one following. Certainly he was profoundly out of harmony with the century in which he lived. His religious faith, the seriousness of his character, the deep melancholy settled in his heart, his continued aspiration after an ideal perfection, all place him as it were outside the literary epoch represented by Machiavelli, by Ariosto, by Berni. As Carducci has well said, Tasso "is the legitimate heir of Dante Alighieri: he believes, and reasons on his faith by philosophy; he loves, and comments on his love in a learned style; he is an artist, and writes dialogues of scholastic speculation that would fain be Platonic." He was only eighteen years old when, in 1562, he tried his hand at epic poetry, and wrote _Rinaldo_, in which he said that he had tried to reconcile the Aristotelian rules with the variety of Ariosto. He afterwards wrote the _Aminta_, a pastoral drama of exquisite grace. But the work to which he had long turned his thoughts was an heroic poem, and that absorbed all his powers. He himself explains what his intention was in the three _Discorsi_ written whilst he was composing the _Gerusalemme_: he would choose a great and wonderful subject, not so ancient as to have lost all interest, nor so recent as to prevent the poet from embellishing it with invented circumstances; he meant to treat it rigorously according to the rules of the unity of action observed in Greek and Latin poems, but with a far greater variety and splendour of episodes, so that in this point it should not fall short of the romantic poem; and finally, he would write it in a lofty and ornate style. This is what Tasso has done in the _Gerusalemme liberata_, the subject of which is the liberation of the sepulchre of Jesus Christ in the 11th century by Godfrey of Bouillon. The poet does not follow faithfully all the historical facts, but sets before us the principal causes of them, bringing in the supernatural agency of God and Satan. The _Gerusalemme_ is the best heroic poem that Italy can show. It approaches to classical perfection. Its episodes above all are most beautiful. There is profound feeling in it, and everything reflects the melancholy soul of the poet. As regards the style, however, although Tasso studiously endeavoured to keep close to the classical models, one cannot help noticing that he makes excessive use of metaphor, of antithesis, of far-fetched conceits; and it is specially from this point of view that some historians have placed Tasso in the literary period generally known under the name of "Secentismo," and that others, more moderate in their criticism, have said that he prepared the way for it.

The Secentismo.

5. _Period of Decadence._--From about 1559 began a period of decadence in Italian literature. The Spanish rule oppressed and corrupted the peninsula. The minds of men were day by day gradually losing their force; every high aspiration was quenched. No love of country could any longer be felt when the country was enslaved to a stranger. The suspicious rulers fettered all freedom of thought and word; they tortured Campanella, burned Bruno, made every effort to extinguish all high sentiment, all desire for good. Cesare Balbo says, "if the happiness of the masses consists in peace without industry, if the nobility's consists in titles without power, if princes are satisfied by acquiescence in their rule without real independence, without sovereignty, if literary men and artists are content to write, paint and build with the approbation of their contemporaries, but to the contempt of posterity, if a whole nation is happy in ease without dignity and the tranquil progress of corruption,--then no period ever was so happy for Italy as the hundred and forty years from the treaty of Cateau Cambresis to the war of the Spanish succession." This period is known in the history of Italian literature as the Secentismo. Its writers, devoid of sentiment, of passion, of thoughts, resorted to exaggeration; they tried to produce effect with every kind of affectation, with bombast, with the strangest metaphors, in fact, with what in art is called mannerism, "barocchism." The utter poverty of the matter tried to cloak itself under exuberance of forms. It seemed as if the writers vied with one another as to who could best burden his art with useless metaphors, with phrases, with big-sounding words, with affectations, with hyperbole, with oddities, with everything that could fix attention on the outer form and draw it off from the substantial element of thought.

Marini.

At the head of the school of the "Secentisti" comes Giovan Battista Marini of Naples, born in 1569, especially known by a poem called _L' Adone_. His aim was to excite wonder by novelties; hence the most extravagant metaphors, the most forced antitheses, the most far-fetched conceits, are to be found in his book. It was especially by antitheses that he thought he could produce the greatest effect. Sometimes he strings them together one after the other, so that they fill up whole stanzas without a break. Achillini of Bologna followed in Marini's steps. He had less genius, however, and hence his peculiarities were more extravagant, becoming indeed absolutely ridiculous. In general, we may say that all the poets of the 17th century were more or less infected with "Marinism." Thus Alessandro Guidi, although he does not attain to the exaggeration of his master, is emptily bombastic, inflated, turgid, while Fulvio Testi is artificial and affected. Yet Guidi as well as Testi felt the influence of another poet, Gabriello Chiabrera, born at Savona in 1552. In him the Secentismo took another character. Enamoured as he said he was of the Greeks, he made new metres, especially in imitation of Pindar, treating of religious, moral, historical and amatory subjects. It is easy to understand that a Pindaric style of poetry in the 17th century in Italy could not but end in being altogether artificial, without anything of those qualities which constitute the greatness of the Greek poet. Chiabrera, though elegant enough in form, proves empty of matter, and, in his vain attempt to hide this vacuity, has recourse to poetical ornaments of every kind. These again, in their turn, become in him a fresh defect. Nevertheless, Chiabrera's school, in the decadence of the 17th century, marks an improvement; and sometimes he showed that he had lyrical capacities, which in better literary surroundings would have brought forth excellent fruit. When he sings, for example, of the victories of the Tuscan galleys against the Turks and the pirates of the Mediterranean, he rises to grand imagery, and seems quite another poet.

Filicaja the Florentine has a certain lyric _elan_, particularly in the songs about Vienna besieged by the Turks, which seems to raise him more than the others above the vices of the time; but even in him we see clearly the rhetorical artifice and the falseness of the conceits. And in general all the lyric poetry of the 17th century may be said to have had the same defects, but in different degrees--defects which may be summed up as absence of feeling and exaggeration of form. There was no faith; there was no love; and thus art became an exercise, a pastime, a luxury, for a servile and corrupt people.

The Arcadia.

The belief then arose that it would be sufficient to change the form in order to restore literature, in forgetfulness that every reform must be the effect of a change in social and moral conditions. Weary of the bombastic style of the 17th century, full of conceits and antithesis, men said--let us follow an entirely different line, let us fight the turgid style with simplicity. In 1690 the "Academy of Arcadia" was instituted. Its founders were Giovan Maria Crescimbeni and Gian Vincenzo Gravina. The Arcadia was so called because its chief aim and intention were to imitate in literature the simplicity of the ancient shepherds, who were fabulously supposed to have lived in Arcadia in the golden age. As the "Secentisti" erred by an overweening desire for novelty, which made them always go beyond the truth, so the Arcadians proposed to themselves to return to the fields of truth, always singing of subjects of pastoral simplicity. This was obviously nothing else than the substitution of a new artifice for the old one; and they fell from bombast into effeminacy, from the hyperbolical into the petty, from the turgid into the over-refined. The Arcadia was a reaction against Secentismo, but a reaction which, reversing the movement of that earlier epoch, only succeeded in impoverishing still further and completely withering up the literature. The poems of the "Arcadians" fill many volumes, and are made up of sonnets, madrigals, canzonets and blank verse. The one who most distinguished himself among the sonneteers was Felice Zappi. Among the authors of songs Paolo Rolli was illustrious. Innocenzo Frugoni was more famous than all the others, a man of fruitful imagination but of shallow intellect, whose wordy verses nobody now reads.

Symptoms of revival. Scientific prose.

Whilst the political and social conditions in Italy in the 17th century were such as to make it appear that every light of intelligence, all spirit of liberty, was extinguished, there appeared in the peninsula, by that law of reaction which in great part governs human events, some strong and independent thinkers, such as Bernardino Telesio, Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Lucilio Vanini, who turned philosophical inquiry into fresh channels, and opened the way for the scientific conquests of Galileo Galilei, the great contemporary of Descartes in France and of Bacon in England. Galileo was not only a great man of science, but also occupied a conspicuous place in the history of letters. A devoted student of Ariosto, he seemed to transfuse into his prose the qualities of that great poet--a clear and frank freedom of expression, a wonderful art of knowing how to say everything with precision and ease, and at the same time with elegance. Galileo's prose is in perfect antithesis to the poetry of his time. Perhaps it is the best prose that Italy has ever had; it is clear, goes straight to the point, is without rhetorical ornaments and without vulgar slips, artistic without appearing to be so.

Another symptom of revival, a sign of rebellion against the vileness of Italian social life, is given us in satire and in particular in that of Salvator Rosa and Alessandro Tassoni. Salvator Rosa, born in 1615, near Naples, was a painter, a musician and a poet. As a poet he showed that he felt the sad condition of his country, showed that he mourned over it, and gave vent to his feeling (as another satire-writer, Giuseppe Giusti, said) in _generosi rabbuffi_. His exhortation to Italian poets to turn their thoughts to the miseries of their country as a subject for their song--their country languishing under the tyrant's hands--certain passages where he deplores the effeminacy of Italian habits, a strong apostrophe against Rome, make Salvator Rosa a precursor of the patriotic literature which inaugurated the revival of the 18th century. Tassoni, a man really quite exceptional in this century, was superior to Rosa. He showed independent judgment in the midst of universal servility, and his _Secchia Rapita_ proved that he was an eminent writer. This is an heroic comic poem, which is at the same time an epic and a personal satire. He was bold enough to attack the Spaniards in his _Filippiche_, in which he urged Duke Carlo Emanuele of Savoy to persist in the war against them.

New Political conditions.

6. _The Revival in the 18th Century._--Having for the most part freed itself from the Spanish dominion in the 18th century, the political condition of Italy began to improve. Promoters of this improvement, which was shown in many civil reforms, were Joseph II., Leopold I. and Charles I. The work of these princes was copied from the philosophers, who in their turn felt the influence of a general movement of ideas, which was quietly working in many parts of Europe, and which came to a head in the French encyclopedists.

Historical works.

Giambattista Vico was a token of the awakening of historical consciousness in Italy. In his _Scienza nuova_ he applied himself to the investigation of the laws governing the progress of the human race, and according to which events are developed. From the psychological study of man he endeavoured to infer the "comune natura delle nazioni," i.e. the universal laws of history, or the laws by which civilizations rise, flourish and fall.

From the same scientific spirit which animated the philosophical investigation of Vico, there was born a different kind of investigation, that of the sources of Italian civil and literary history. Lodovico Antonio Muratori, after having collected in one entire body (_Rerum Italicarum scriptores_) the chronicles, the biographies, the letters and the diaries of Italian history from 500 to 1500, after having discussed the most obscure historical questions in the _Antiquitates Italicae medii aevi_, wrote the _Annali d' Italia_, minutely narrating facts derived from authentic sources. Muratori's associates in his historical researches were Scipione Maffei of Verona and Apostolo Zeno of Venice. In his _Verona illustrata_ the former left, not only a treasure of learning, but an excellent specimen of historical monograph. The latter added much to the erudition of literary history, both in his _Dissertazioni Vossiane_ and in his notes to the _Biblioteca dell' eloquenza italiana_ of Monsignore Giusto Fontanini. Girolamo Tiraboschi and Count Giovanni Maria Mazzuchelli of Brescia devoted themselves to literary history.

Social science.

While the new spirit of the times led men to the investigation of historical sources, it also led them to inquire into the mechanism of economical and social laws. Francesco Galiani wrote on currency; Gaetano Filangieri wrote a _Scienza della legislazione_. Cesare Beccaria, in his treatise _Dei delitti e delle pene_, made a contribution to the reform of the penal system and promoted the abolition of torture.

Satire: Parini.

The man in whom above all others the literary revival of the 18th century was most conspicuously embodied was Giuseppe Parini. He was born in a Lombard village in 1729, was mostly educated at Milan, and as a youth was known among the Arcadian poets by the name of Darisbo Elidonio. Even as an Arcadian, however, Parini showed signs of departing from the common type. In a collection of poems that he published at twenty-three years of age, under the name of Ripano Eupilino, there are some pastoral sonnets in which the poet shows that he had the faculty of taking his scenes from real life, and also some satirical pieces in which he exhibits a spirit of somewhat rude opposition to his own times. These poems are perhaps based on reminiscences of Berni, but at any rate they indicate a resolute determination to assail boldly all the literary conventionalities that surrounded the author. This, however, was only the beginning of the battle. Parini lived in times of great social prostration. The nobles and the rich, all given up to ease and to silly gallantry, consumed their lives in ridiculous trifles or in shameless self-indulgence, wasting themselves on immoral "Cicisbeismo," and offering the most miserable spectacle of feebleness of mind and character. It was against this social condition that Parini's muse was directed. Already, improving on the poems of his youth, he had proved himself an innovator in his lyrics, rejecting at once Petrarchism, Secentismo and Arcadia, the three maladies that had weakened Italian art in the centuries preceding his own, and choosing subjects taken from real life, such as might help in the instruction of his contemporaries. In the _Odi_ the satirical note is already heard. But it came out more strongly in the poem _Del giorno_, in which he imagines himself to be teaching a young Milanese patrician all the habits and ways of gallant life; he shows up all its ridiculous frivolities, and with delicate irony unmasks the futilities of aristocratic habits. Dividing the day into four parts, the Mattino, the Mezzogiorno, the Vespero, the Notte, by means of each of these he describes the trifles of which they were made up, and the book thus assumes a social and historical value of the highest importance. Parini, satirizing his time, fell back upon truth, and finally made art serve the purpose of civil morality. As an artist, going straight back to classical forms, aspiring to imitate Virgil and Dante, he opened the way to the fine school that we shall soon see rise, that of Alfieri, Foscolo and Monti. As a work of art, the _Giorno_ is wonderful for the Socratic skill with which that delicate irony is constantly kept up by which he seems to praise what he effectually blames. The verse has new harmonies; sometimes it is a little hard and broken, not by accident, but as a protest against the Arcadian monotony. Generally it flows majestically, but without that Frugonian droning that deafens the ears and leaves the heart cold.

Gozzi; Baretti.

Gasparo Gozzi's satire was less elevated, but directed towards the same end as Parini's. In his _Osservatore_, something like Addison's _Spectator_, in his _Gazzetta veneta_, in the _Mondo morale_, by means of allegories and novelties he hit the vices with a delicate touch, and inculcated a practical moral with much good sense. Gozzi's satire has some slight resemblance in style to Lucian's. It is smooth and light, but withal it does not go less straight to its aim, which is to point out the defects of society and to correct them. Gozzi's prose is very graceful and lively. It only errs by its overweening affectation of imitating the writers of the 14th century. Another satirical writer of the first half of the 18th century was Giuseppe Baretti of Turin. In a journal called the _Frusta letteraria_ he took to lashing without mercy the works which were then being published in Italy. He had learnt much by travelling; and especially his long stay in England had contributed to give an independent character to his mind, and made him judge of men and things with much good sense. It is true that his judgments are not always right, but the _Frusta letteraria_ was the first book of independent criticism directed particularly against the Arcadians and the pedants.

Dramatic reform.

Everything tended to improvement, and the character of the reform was to throw off the conventional, the false, the artificial, and to return to truth. The drama felt this influence of the times. Apostolo Zeno and Metastasio (the Arcadian name for Pietro Trapassi, a native of Rome) had endeavoured to make "melodrama and reason compatible." The latter in particular succeeded in giving fresh expression to the affections, a natural turn to the dialogue and some interest to the plot; and if he had not fallen into constant unnatural over-refinement and unseasonable mawkishness, and into frequent anachronisms, he might have been considered as the first dramatic reformer of the 18th century. That honour belongs to Carlo Goldoni, a Venetian. He found comedy either entirely devoted to classical imitation or given up to extravagance, to _coups de theatre_, to the most boisterous succession of unlikely situations, or else treated by comic actors who recited impromptu on a given subject, of which they followed the outline. In this old popular form of comedy, with the masks of pantaloon, of the doctor, of harlequin, of Brighella, &c., Goldoni found the strongest obstacles to his reform. But at last he conquered, creating the comedy of character. No doubt Moliere's example helped him in this. Goldoni's characters are always true, but often a little superficial. He studied nature, but he did not plunge into psychological depths. In most of his creations, the external rather than the internal part is depicted. In this respect he is much inferior to Moliere. But on the other hand he surpasses him in the liveliness of the dialogue, and in the facility with which he finds his dramatic situations. Goldoni wrote much, in fact too much (more than one hundred and fifty comedies), and had no time to correct, to polish, to perfect his works, which are all rough cast. But for a comedy of character we must go straight from Machiavelli's _Mandragora_ to him. Goldoni's dramatic aptitude is curiously illustrated by the fact that he took nearly all his types from Venetian society, and yet managed to give them an inexhaustible variety. A good many of his comedies were written in Venetian dialect, and these are perhaps the best.

Patriotic literature and return to classicism.

The ideas that were making their way in French society in the 18th century, and afterwards brought about the Revolution of 1789, gave a special direction to Italian literature of the second half of the 18th century. Love of ideal liberty, desire for equality, hatred of tyranny, created in Italy a literature which aimed at national objects, seeking to improve the condition of the country by freeing it from the double yoke of political and religious despotism. But all this was associated with another tendency. The Italians who aspired to a political redemption believed that it was inseparable from an intellectual revival, and it seemed to them that this could only be effected by a reunion with ancient classicism--in other words, by putting themselves in more direct communication with ancient Greek and Latin writers. This was a repetition of what had occurred in the first half of the 15th century. The 17th century might in fact be considered as a new Italian Middle Age without the hardness of that iron time, but corrupted, enervated, overrun by Spaniards and French, an age in which previous civilization was cancelled. A reaction was necessary against that period of history, and a construction on its ruins of a new country and a new civilization. There had already been forerunners of this movement; at the head of them the revered Parini. Now the work must be completed, and the necessary force must once more be sought for in the ancient literature of the two classic nations.

Alfieri (1749-1803).

Patriotism and classicism then were the two principles that inspired the literature which began with Alfieri. He worshipped the Greek and Roman idea of popular liberty in arms against the tyrant. He took the subjects of his tragedies almost invariably from the history of these nations, made continual apostrophes against the despots, made his ancient characters talk like revolutionists of his time; he did not trouble himself with, nor think about, the truth of the characters; it was enough for him that his hero was Roman in name, that there was a tyrant to be killed, that liberty should triumph in the end. But even this did not satisfy Alfieri. Before his time and all about him there was the Arcadian school, with its foolish verbosity, its empty abundance of epithets, its nauseous pastoralizing on subjects of no civil importance. It was necessary to arm the patriotic muse also against all this. If the Arcadians, not excluding the hated Metastasio, diluted their poetry with languishing tenderness, if they poured themselves out in so many words, if they made such set phrases, it behoved the others to do just the contrary--to be brief, concise, strong, bitter, to aim at the sublime as opposed to the lowly and pastoral. Having said this, we have told the good and evil of Alfieri. He desired a political reform by means of letters; he saved literature from Arcadian vacuities, leading it towards a national end; he armed himself with patriotism and classicism in order to drive the profaners out of the temple of art. But in substance he was rather a patriot than an artist. In any case the results of the new literary movement were copious.

Foscolo.

Ugo Foscolo was an eager patriot, who carried into life the heat of the most unbridled passion, and into his art a rather rhetorical manner, but always one inspired by classical models. The _Lettere di Jacopo Ortis_, inspired by Goethe's _Werther_, are a love story with a mixture of patriotism; they contain a violent protest against the treaty of Campo Formio, and an outburst from Foscolo's own heart about an unhappy love-affair of his. His passions were sudden and violent; they came to an end as abruptly as they began; they were whirlwinds that were over in a quarter of an hour. To one of these passions _Ortis_ owed its origin, and it is perhaps the best, the most sincere, of all his writings. Even in it he is sometimes pompous and rhetorical, but much less so than he is, for example, in the lectures _Dell' origine e dell' ufficio della letteratura_. On the whole, Foscolo's prose is turgid and affected, and reflects the character of the man who always tried to pose, even before himself, in dramatic attitudes. This was indeed the defect of the Napoleonic epoch; there was a horror of anything common, simple, natural; everything must be after the model of the hero who made all the world gaze with wonder at him; everything must assume some heroic shape. In Foscolo this tendency was excessive; and it not seldom happened that, in wishing to play the hero, the exceptional man, the little Napoleon of ladies' drawing-rooms, he became false and bad, false in his art, bad in his life. The _Sepolcri_, which is his best poem, was prompted by high feeling, and the mastery of versification shows wonderful art. Perhaps it is to this mastery more than to anything else that the admiration the _Sepolcri_ excites is due. There are most obscure passages in it, as to the meaning of which it would seem as if even the author himself had not formed a clear idea. He left incomplete three hymns to the Graces, in which he sang of beauty as the source of courtesy, of all high qualities and of happiness. Here again what most excites our admiration is the harmonious and easy versification. Among his prose works a high place belongs to his translation of the _Sentimental Journey_ of Sterne, a writer by whom one can easily understand how Foscolo should have been deeply affected. He went as an exile to England, and died there. He wrote for English readers some _Essays_ on Petrarch and on the texts of the _Decamerone_ and of Dante, which are remarkable for the time at which they were written, and which may be said to have initiated a new kind of literary criticism in Italy. Foscolo is still greatly admired, and not without reason. His writings stimulate the love of fatherland, and the men that made the revolution of 1848 were largely brought up on them.

Monti.

If in Foscolo patriotism and classicism were united, and formed almost one passion, so much cannot be said of Vincenzo Monti, in whom the artist was absolutely predominant. Yet Monti was a patriot too, but in his own way. He had no one deep feeling that ruled him, or rather the mobility of his feelings is his characteristic; but each of these was a new form of patriotism, that took the place of an old one. He saw danger to his country in the French Revolution, and wrote the _Pellegrino apostolico_, the _Bassvilliana_ and the _Feroniade_; Napoleon's victories caused him to write the _Prometeo_ and the _Musagonia_; in his _Fanatismo_ and his _Superstizione_ he attacked the papacy; afterwards he sang the praises of the Austrians. Thus every great event made him change his mind, with a readiness which might seem incredible, but is yet most easily explained. Monti was above everything an artist; art was his real, his only passion; everything else in him was liable to change, that alone was persistent. Fancy was his tyrant, and under its rule he had no time to reason and to see the miserable aspect of his political tergiversation. It was an overbearing deity that moved him, and at its dictation he wrote. Pius VI., Napoleon, Francis II., were to him but passing shadows, to which he hardly gives the attention of an hour; that which endures, which is eternal to him, is art alone. It were unjust to accuse Monti of baseness. If we say that nature in giving him one only faculty had made the poet rich and the man poor, we shall speak the truth. But the poet was indeed rich. Knowing little Greek, he succeeded in making a translation of the _Iliad_ which is remarkable for its Homeric feeling, and in his _Bassvilliana_ he is on a level with Dante. In fine, in him classical poetry seemed to revive in all its florid grandeur.

Niccolini.

Monti was born in 1754, Foscolo in 1778; four years later still was born another poet of the same school, Giambattista Niccolini. In literature he was a classicist; in politics he was a Ghibelline, a rare exception in Guelph Florence, his birthplace. In translating or, if the expression is preferred, imitating Aeschylus, as well as in writing the _Discorsi sulla tragedia greca_, and on the _Sublime e Michelangelo_, Niccolini displayed his passionate devotion to ancient literature. In his tragedies he set himself free from the excessive rigidity of Alfieri, and partly approached the English and German tragic authors. He nearly always chose political subjects, striving to keep alive in his compatriots the love of liberty. Such are _Nabucco_, _Antonio Foscarini_, _Giovanni da Procida_, _Lodovico il Moro_, &c. He assailed papal Rome in _Arnaldo da Brescia_, a long tragic piece, not suited for acting, and epic rather than dramatic. Niccolini's tragedies show a rich lyric vein rather than dramatic genius. At any rate he has the merit of having vindicated liberal ideas, and of having opened a new path to Italian tragedy.

Historians.

The literary period we are dealing with had three writers who are examples of the direction taken by historical study. It seems strange that, after the learned school begun by Muratori, there should have been a backward movement here, but it is clear that this retrogression was due to the influence of classicism and patriotism, which, if they revived poetry, could not but spoil history. Carlo Botta, born in 1766, was a spectator of French spoliation in Italy and of the overbearing rule of Napoleon. Hence, excited by indignation, he wrote a _History of Italy from 1789 to 1814_; and later on he continued Guicciardini's _History_ up to 1789. He wrote after the manner of the Latin authors, trying to imitate Livy, putting together long and sonorous periods in a style that aimed at being like Boccaccio's, caring little about that which constitutes the critical material of history, only intent on declaiming his academic prose for his country's benefit. Botta wanted to be classical in a style that could no longer be so, and hence he failed completely to attain his literary goal. His fame is only that of a man of a noble and patriotic heart. Not so bad as the two histories of Italy is that of the _Guerra dell' indipendenza americana_.

Close to Botta comes Pietro Colletta, a Neapolitan born nine years after him. He also in his _Storia del reame di Napoli dal 1734 al 1825_ had the idea of defending the independence and liberty of Italy in a style borrowed from Tacitus; and he succeeded rather better than Botta. He has a rapid, brief, nervous style, which makes his book attractive reading. But it is said that Pietro Giordani and Gino Capponi corrected it for him. Lazzaro Papi of Lucca, author of the _Commentari della rivoluzione francese dal 1789 al 1814_, was not altogether unlike Botta and Colletta. He also was an historian in the classical style, and treats his subject with patriotic feeling; but as an artist he perhaps excels the other two.

The Purists.

At first sight it seems unnatural that, whilst the most burning political passions were raging, and whilst the most brilliant men of genius in the new classical and patriotic school were at the height of their influence, a question should have arisen about "purism" of language. Yet the phenomenon can be easily accounted for. Purism is another form of classicism and patriotism. In the second half of the 18th century the Italian language was specially full of French expressions. There was great indifference about fitness, still more about elegance of style. Prose then was to be restored for the sake of national dignity, and it was believed that this could not be done except by going back to the writers of the 14th century, to the "aurei trecentisti," as they were called, or else to the classics of Italian literature. One of the promoters of the new school was Antonio Cesari of Verona, who republished ancient authors, and brought out a new edition, with additions, of the _Vocabolario della Crusca_. He wrote a dissertation _Sopra lo stato presente della lingua italiana_, and endeavoured to establish the supremacy of Tuscan and of the three great writers Dante, Petrarch, Boccaccio. And in accordance with that principle he wrote several books, taking pains to copy the "trecentisti" as closely as possible. But patriotism in Italy has always had something municipal in it; so to this Tuscan supremacy, proclaimed and upheld by Cesari, there was opposed a Lombard school, which would know nothing of Tuscan, and with Dante's _De vulgari eloquio_ returned to the idea of the "lingua illustre." This was an old question, largely and bitterly argued in the Cinquecento (16th century) by Varchi, Muzio, Castelvetro, Speroni and others. Now the question came up again quite fresh, as if no one had ever discussed it before. At the head of the Lombard school were Monti and his son-in-law Count Giulio Perticari. This gave Monti an occasion to write _Proposta di alcune correzioni ed aggiunte al vocabolario della Crusca_, in which he attacked the Tuscanism of the _Crusca_, but in a graceful and easy style, such in fact as to form a prose that is one of the most beautiful in Italian literature. Perticari on the other hand, with a very inferior intellect, narrowed and exasperated the question in two treatises, _Degli scrittori del Trecento_ and _Dell' amor patrio di Dante_, in which, often disguising or altering the facts, he only makes confusion where there was none. Meantime, however, the impulse was given. The dispute about language took its place beside literary and political disputes, and all Italy took part in it--Basilio Puoti at Naples, Paolo Costa in the Romagna, Marc' Antonio Parenti at Modena, Salvatore Betti at Rome, Giovanni Gherardini in Lombardy, Luigi Fornaciari at Lucca, Vincenzo Nannucci at Florence.

Giordani.

A patriot, a classicist and a purist all at once was Pietro Giordani, born in 1774; he was almost a compendium of the literary movement of the time. His whole life was a battle fought for liberty. Most learned in Greek and Latin authors, and in the Italian trecentisti, he only left a few writings behind him, but they were carefully elaborated in point of style, and his prose was in his time considered wonderful. Now it is looked on as too majestic, too much laboured in phrases and conceits, too far from nature, too artificial. Giordani closes the literary epoch of the classicists.

Manzoni.

7. _Nineteenth Century and After._--At this point the contemporary period of literature begins. It has been said that the first impulse was given to it by the romantic school, which had as its organ the _Conciliatore_ established in 1818 at Milan, and on the staff of which were Silvio Pellico, Lodovico di Breme, Giovile Scalvini, Tommaso Grossi, Giovanni Berchet, Samuele Biava and lastly Alessandro Manzoni. It need not be denied that all these men were influenced by the ideas that, especially in Germany, at the beginning of the 19th century constituted the movement called Romanticism. Nevertheless, in Italy the course of literary reform took another direction. There is no doubt that the real head of the reform, or at least its most distinguished man, was Alessandro Manzoni. He formulated in a letter of his the objects of the new school, saying that it aspired to try and discover and express "il vero storico" and "il vero morale," not only as an end, but as the widest and eternal source of the beautiful. And it is precisely realism in art that characterizes Italian literature from Manzoni onwards. The _Promessi Sposi_ is the one of his works that has made him immortal. No doubt the idea of the historical novel came to him from Sir Walter Scott, but he succeeded in something more than an historical novel in the narrow meaning of that word; he created an eminently realistic work of art. The romance disappears; no one cares for the plot, which moreover is of very little consequence. The attention is entirely fixed on the powerful objective creation of the characters. From the greatest to the least they have a wonderful verisimilitude; they are living persons standing before us, not with the qualities of one time more than another, but with the human qualities of all time. Manzoni is able to unfold a character in all particulars, to display it in all its aspects, to follow it through its different phases. He is able also to seize one moment, and from that moment to make us guess all the rest. Don Abbondio and Renzo are as perfect as Azzeccagarbugli and Il Sarto. Manzoni dives down into the innermost recesses of the human heart, and draws thence the most subtle psychological reality. In this his greatness lies, which was recognized first by his companion in genius, Goethe. As a poet too he had gleams of genius, especially in the Napoleonic ode, _Il Cinque Maggio_, and where he describes human affections, as in some stanzas of the _Inni_ and in the chorus of the _Adelchi_. But it is on the _Promessi Sposi_ alone that his fame now rests.

Leopardi.

The great poet of the age was Leopardi, born thirteen years after Manzoni at Recanati, of a patrician family, bigoted and avaricious. He became so familiar with Greek authors that he used afterwards to say that the Greek mode of thought was more clear and living to his mind than the Latin or even the Italian. Solitude, sickness, domestic tyranny, prepared him for profound melancholy. From this he passed into complete religious scepticism, from which he sought rest in art. Everything is terrible and grand in his poems, which are the most agonizing cry in modern literature, uttered with a solemn quietness that at once elevates and terrifies us. But besides being the greatest poet of nature and of sorrow, he was also an admirable prose writer. In his _Operette morali_--dialogues and discourses marked by a cold and bitter smile at human destinies which freezes the reader--the clearness of style, the simplicity of language and the depth of conception are such that perhaps he is not only the greatest lyrical poet since Dante, but also one of the most perfect writers of prose that Italian literature has had.

Political literature.

As realism in art gained ground, the positive method in criticism kept pace with it. From the manner of Botta and Colletta history returned to its spirit of learned research, as is shown in such works as the _Archivio storico italiano_, established at Florence by Giampietro Vieusseux, the _Storia d' Italia nel medio evo_ by Carlo Troya, a remarkable treatise by Manzoni himself, _Sopra alcuni punti della storia longobardica in Italia_, and the very fine history of the _Vespri siciliani_ by Michele Amari. But alongside of the great artists Leopardi and Manzoni, alongside of the learned scholars, there was also in the first half of the 19th century a patriotic literature. To a close observer it will appear that historical learning itself was inspired by the love of Italy. Giampietro Vieusseux had a distinct political object when in 1820 he established the monthly review _Antologia_. And it is equally well known that his _Archivio storico italiano_ (1842) was, under a different form, a continuation of the _Antologia_, which was suppressed in 1833 owing to the action of the Russian government. Florence was in those days the asylum of all the Italian exiles, and these exiles met and shook hands in Vieusseux's rooms, where there was more literary than political talk, but where one thought and one only animated all minds, the thought of Italy.

The literary movement which preceded and was contemporary with the political revolution of 1848 may be said to be represented by four writers--Giuseppe Giusti, Francesco Domenico Guerrazzi, Vincenzo Gioberti and Cesare Balbo. Giusti wrote epigrammatic satires in popular language. In incisive phrase he scourged the enemies of Italy; his manner seemed very original, but it really was partly imitated from Beranger. He was a telling political writer, but a mediocre poet. Guerrazzi had a great reputation and great influence, but his historical novels, though read with ferverish avidity before 1848, are now almost forgotten. Gioberti, a powerful polemical writer, had a noble heart and a great mind; his philosophical works are now as good as dead, but the _Primato morale e civile degli Italiani_ will last as an important document of the times, and the _Gesuita moderno_ will live as the most tremendous indictment ever written against the Jesuits. Balbo was an earnest student of history, and made history useful for politics. Like Gioberti in his first period, Balbo was zealous for the civil papacy, and for a federation of the Italian states presided over by it. His _Sommario della storia d' Italia_ is an excellent epitome. (A. Ba.)

Contemporary literature.

After the year 1850 political literature becomes less important, one of the last poets distinguished in this _genre_ being Francesco dall' Ongaro, with his _stornelli politici_. For details as to the works of recent writers, reference may be made to the separate biographical articles, and here a summary must suffice. Giovanni Prati and Aleardo Aleardi continue romantic traditions. The dominating figure of this later period, however, is Giosue Carducci, the opponent of the Romantics and restorer of the ancient metres and spirit, who, great as a poet, was scarcely less distinguished as a literary critic and historian. Other classical poets are Giuseppe Chiarini, Domenico Guoli, Arturo Graf, Guido Mazzoni and Giovanni Marradi, of whom the two last named may perhaps be regarded as special disciples of Carducci, while another, Giovanni Pascoli, best known by his _Myricae_ and _Poemetti_, only began as such. Enrico Panzacchi (b. 1842) was at heart still a romantic. Olindo Guerrini (who wrote under the pseudonym of Lorenzo Stecchetti) is the chief representative of _veriomo_ in poetry, and, though his early works obtained a _succes de scandale_, he is the author of many lyrics of intrinsic value. Alfredo Baccelli and Mario Rapisardi are epic poets of distinction. Felice Cavallotti is the author of the stirring _Marcia de Leonida_. Among dialect writers, the great Roman poet Giuseppe Gioachino Belli has found numerous successors, such as Renato Fucini (Pisa), Berto Barbarini (Verona) and Cesare Pascarella (Rome). Among the women poets, Ada Negri, with her socialistic _Fatalita_ and _Tempeste_, has achieved a great reputation; and others, such as Vittoria Aganoor, A. Brunacci-Brunamonti and Annie Vivanti, are highly esteemed in Italy.

Among the dramatists, Pietro Cossa in tragedy, Gherardi del Testa, Ferdinando Martini and Paolo Ferrari in comedy, represent the older schools. More modern methods were adopted by Giuseppe Giacosa and Gerolamo Rovetta.

In fiction, the historical romance has fallen into disfavour, though Emilio de Marchi has written some good examples in this genre. The novel of intrigue was cultivated by Anton Giulio Barrili and Salvatore Farina, the psychological novel by Enrico Annibale Butti, the realistic local tale by Giovanni Verga, the mystic philosophical novel by Antonio Fogazzaro. Edmondo de Amicis, perhaps the most widely read of all modern Italians, has written acceptable fiction, though his moral works and travels are more generally known. Of the women novelists, Matilde Serao and Grazia Deledda have become deservedly popular.

Gabriele d' Annunzio has produced original work in poetry, drama and fiction, of extraordinary quality. He began with some lyrics which were distinguished no less by their exquisite beauty of form than by their licence, and these characteristics reappeared in a long series of poems, plays and novels. D' Annunzio's position as a man of the widest literary and artistic culture is undeniable, and even his sternest critics admit his mastery of the Italian tongue, based on a thorough knowledge of Italian literature from the earliest times. But with all his genius, his thought is unhealthy and his pessimism depressing; the beauty of his work is the beauty of decadence.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Among the more aesthetic accounts of Italian literature, those of Emiliano Giudici (Florence, 1855) and Francesco de Sanctis (Naples, 1870) are still the best. Two histories of real scientific value were interrupted by the death of the authors: that of Adolfo Bartoli (Florence, 1879-1899) breaking off in the 14th century, and that of Gaspary (Berlin, 1884-1889; English version, so far only down to the death of Dante, London, 1901) breaking off before Tasso (a completion being undertaken by Wendriner). Bartoli's article in the 9th edition of this encyclopaedia has been reproduced, with some slight revision, above. Among the many recent Italian works, the most important is the elaborate series of volumes contributing the _Storia lett. d' Italia scritta da una societa di professori_ (1900 sqq.): Giussani, _Lett. romana_; Novati, _Origini della lingua_; Zingarelli, _Dante_; Volpi, _Il Trecento_; Rossi, _Il Quattrocento_; Flamini, _Il Cinquecento_; Belloni, _Il Seicento_; Concari, _Il Settecento_; Mazzoni, _L' Ottocento_. Each volume has a full bibliography. Important German works, besides Gaspary, are those of Wilse and Percopo (illustrated; Leipzig, 1899), and of Casini (in Grober's _Grundr. der rom. Phil._, Strassburg, 1896-1899). English students are referred to Symonds's _Renaissance in Italy_ (especially, but not exclusively, vols. iv. and v.; new ed., London, 1902), and to R. Garnett's _History of Italian Literature_ (London, 1898). (H. O.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See Giesebrecht, _De litterarum studiis apud Italos primis mediaevi saeculis_ (Berlin, 1845.)

[2] See Gaspary, _Die sicilianische Dichterschule des 13ten Jahrhunderts_ (Berlin, 1878).

[3] _Storia della repubblica di Firenze_ (Florence, 1876).

ITALIAN WARS (1848-1870), a generic name for the series of wars for Italian unity which began with the Milan insurrection of the 18th of March 1848 and closed with the capture of Rome by the Italians on the 20th of September 1870. For their Italian political interest see ITALY: _History_. The present article deals with certain campaigns of distinctively military importance, viz. 1848-49, 1859 and 1866, in the first and third of which the centre of gravity of the nationalist movement was the Piedmontese regular army, and in the second the French army commanded by Napoleon III. On the other side the Austrian army was throughout the basis of the established order of things, settled at the Congress of Vienna on the theory that Italy was "a geographical expression." Side by side with these regular armies, each of which was a special type, there fought national levies of widely varying kinds, and thus practically every known form of military service, except the fully organized "nation in arms" (then peculiar to Prussia) made its appearance in the field. Further, these wars constitute the greater part of European military history between Waterloo and Koniggratz--a bridge--if a broken one--between Napoleon and Moltke. They therefore present a considerable technical interest, wholly apart from their historical importance and romantic interest.

AUSTRO-SARDINIAN WAR OF 1848-1849

From about 1846 the spirit of revolt against foreign domination had gathered force, and two years later, when Europe was on the verge of a revolutionary outburst, the struggle for Italian unity was initiated by the insurrection at Milan. At this moment the Austrian army in Lombardy, practically a highly-trained force of long-service professional soldiers, was commanded by Radetzky, one of the greatest generals in Austrian history. Being, however, virtually an army of occupation, it was broken up into many garrisons, and in all was not more than 70,000 strong, so that after five days' fighting in the streets of Milan, Radetzky did as Wellington had proposed to do in 1817 when his army of occupation in France was threatened by a national rising, and withdrew to a concentration area to await reinforcements. This area was the famous Quadrilateral, marked by the fortresses of Mantua, Verona, Peschiera and Legnago, and there, in the early days of April, the scattered fractions of the Austrians assembled. Lombardy and Venetia had followed the example of Milan, and King Charles Albert of Sardinia, mobilizing the Piedmontese army in good time, crossed the frontier, with 45,000 regulars two days after the Austrians had withdrawn from Milan. Had the insurrectionary movements and the advance of the Piedmontese been properly co-ordinated, there can be little doubt that some, at any rate, of the Austrian detachments would have been destroyed or injured in their retreat, but as it was they escaped without material losses. The blow given to Austrian prestige by the revolt of the great cities was, however, so severe that the whole peninsula rallied to Charles Albert. Venice, reserving a garrison for her own protection, set on foot an improvised army 11,000 strong on the mainland; some 5000 Lombards and 9000 insurgents from the smaller duchies gathered on both sides of the Po; 15,000 Papal troops under Durando and 13,000 Neapolitans under the old patriot general Pepe moved up to Ferrara and Bologna respectively, and Charles Albert with the Piedmontese advanced to the Mincio at the beginning of April. His motley command totalled 96,000 men, of whom, however, only half were thoroughly trained and disciplined troops. The reinforcements available in Austria were about 25,000 disciplined troops not greatly inferior in quality to Radetzky's own veterans. Charles Albert could call up 45,000 levies at a few weeks' notice, and eventually all the resources of the patriot party.

The regular war began in the second week of April on the Mincio, the passages of which river were forced and the Austrian advanced troops driven back on the 8th (action of Goito) and 9th. Radetzky maintained a careful defensive, and the king's attempts to surprise Peschiera (14th) and Mantua (19th) were unsuccessful. But Peschiera was closely invested, though it was not forced to capitulate until the end of May. Meantime the Piedmontese army advanced towards Verona, and, finding Radetzky with a portion of his army on their left flank near Pastrengo, swung northward and drove him over the Adige above Verona, but on turning towards Verona they were checked (action of Pastrengo 28th-30th April and battle of Santa Lucia di Verona, 6th May).

Meantime the Austrian reinforcements assembled in Carniola under an Irish-born general, Count Nugent von Westmeath (1777-1862) and entered Friuli. Their junction with the field marshal was in the last degree precarious, every step of their march was contested by the levies and the townsmen of Venetia. The days of rifled artillery were not yet come, and a physical obstacle to the combined movements of trained regulars and a well-marked line of defence were all that was necessary to convert even medieval walled towns into centres of effective resistance. When the spirit of resistance was lacking, as it had been for example in 1799 (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS), the importance of the walled towns corresponded simply to their material strength, which was practically negligible. But throughout the campaign of 1848-1849, the essential moral conditions of defence being present, the Austrians were hampered by an endless series of minor sieges, in which the effort expended was out of all proportion to the success achieved.

Radetzky in the Quadrilateral.

Nugent, however, pressed on, though every day weakened by small detachments, and, turning rather than overpowering each obstacle as it was encountered, made his way slowly by Belluno to Vicenza and Treviso and joined Radetzky at Verona on the 25th of May. The latter then for a moment took the offensive, passing around the right flank of the loyal army by way of Mantua (actions of Curtatone, 29th May, and Goito, 30th May), but, failing of the success he expected he turned swiftly round and with 30,000 men attacked the 20,000 Italians (Papal troops, volunteers, Neapolitans) under Durando, who had established themselves across his line of communication at Vicenza, drove them away and reoccupied Vicenza (9th June), where a second body of reinforcements from Trent, clearing the Brenta valley (Val Sugana) as they advanced, joined him, the king meanwhile being held in check by the rest of Radetzky's army.

After beating down resistance in the valleys of the Brenta and Piave, the field marshal returned to Verona. Charles Albert had now some 75,000 men actually in hand on the line of high ground, S. Giustina-Somma Campagna, and made the mistake of extending inordinately so as to cover his proposed siege of Mantua. Napoleon, fifty years before on the same ground (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS), had only with great difficulty solved this same problem by the economical grouping and resolute handling of his forces, and Charles Albert, setting out his forces _en cordon_, was weak at all points of his long front of 45 m. Thus Radetzky, gathering his forces opposite the king's centre (Sona, Somma Campagna), was able to break it (23rd July). The Piedmontese, however, fell back steadily, and 25,000 of them collected at Villafranca, whence on the 24th they counter-attacked and regained the heights at Custozza and Somma Campagna that they had lost. Radetzky, however, took the offensive again next morning and having succeeded in massing half of his army opposite to one quarter of the Piedmontese, was completely victorious (first battle of Custozza, 24th-25th July). Pursuing vigorously, the Austrians drove the king over the Mincio (action of Volta, 26th-27th), the Chiese, the Adda and the Ticino into his own dominions, Milan being reoccupied without fighting. The smaller bands of patriots were one after the other driven over the borders or destroyed. Venice alone held out to the end. Besieged by land and water, and bombarded as well, she prolonged her resistance until October 1849, long after the war had everywhere else come to an end.

The first campaign for unity had ended in complete failure, thanks to the genius of Radetzky and the thorough training, mobility and handiness of his soldiers. During the winter of 1848-1849--for, to avoid unnecessary waste of his precious veterans, Radetzky let the Piedmontese army retire unmolested over the Ticino--Charles Albert took energetic measures to reorganize, refit and augment his army. But his previous career had not fitted him to meet the crisis. With aspirations for unity he sympathized, and to that ideal he was soon to sacrifice his throne, but he had nothing in common with the distinctively revolutionary party, with whom circumstances had allied him. Radicalism, however, was a more obvious if a less real force than nationalism, and Charles Albert made it a fatal concession in appointing the Polish general Albert Chrzanowski (1788-1861) his principal adviser and commander-in-chief--an appointment that alienated the generals and the army, while scarcely modifying the sentiments of distrust with which the Liberal party regarded the king.[1]

Campaign of Novara.

In March the two main armies were grouped in the densely intersected district between Milan, Vercelli and Pavia (see sketch map below), separated by the Ticino, of which the outposts of either side watched the passages. Charles Albert had immediately in hand 65,000 men, some 25,000 more being scattered in various detachments to right and left. Radetzky disposed of 70,000 men for field operations, besides garrisons. The recovery of Milan, the great city that had been the first to revolt, seemed to the Italians the first objective of the campaign. It was easier indeed to raise the whole country in arms than to crush the field-marshal's regulars, and it was hoped that Radetzky would, on losing Milan, either retire to Lodi and perhaps to Mantua (as in 1848), or gather his forces for battle before Milan. Radetzky himself openly announced that he would take the offensive, and the king's plans were framed to meet this case also. Two-thirds of the army, 4 divisions, were grouped in great depth between Novara, Galliate and Castelnuovo. A little to the right, at Vespolate and Vigevano, was one division under Durando, and the remaining division under Ramorino was grouped opposite Pavia with orders to take that place if possible, but if Radetzky advanced thence, to fall back fighting either on Mortara or Lomello,[2] while the main body descended on the Austrian flank. The grouping both of Ramorino and of the main body--as events proved in the case of the latter--cannot be seriously criticized, and indeed one is almost tempted to assume that Chrzanowski considered the case of Radetzky's advance on Mortara more carefully than that of his own advance on Milan. But the seething spirit of revolt did not allow the army that was Italy's hope to stand still at a foreign and untried general's dictation and await Radetzky's coming. On the 19th of March orders were issued to the main body for the advance on Milan and on the 20th one division, led by the king himself, crossed the Ticino at San Martino.

But no Austrians were encountered, and such information as was available indicated that Radetzky was concentrating to his left on the Pavia-Lodi road. Chrzanowski thereupon, abandoning (if indeed he ever entertained) the idea of Radetzky's retirement and his own triumphal march on Milan, suspended the advance. His fears were justified, for that evening he heard that Ramorino had abandoned his post and taken his division across the Po. After the war this general was shot for disobedience, and deservedly, for the covering division, the fighting flank-guard on which Chrzanowski's defensive-offensive depended, was thus withdrawn at the moment when Radetzky's whole army was crossing the Ticino at Pavia and heading for Mortara.[3]

The four Austrian corps began to file across the Ticino at noon on the 20th, and by nightfall the heads of Radetzky's columns were at Zerbolo, Gambolo and La Cava, the reserve at Pavia, a flank-guard holding the Cava-Casatisma road over the Po against the contingency of Ramorino's return, and the two brigades that had furnished the outposts along the Ticino closing on Bereguardo.

Action of Mortara.

Chrzanowski, however, having now to deal with a foreseen case, gave his orders promptly. To replace Ramorino, the 1st division was ordered from Vespolate through Mortara to Trumello; the 2nd division from Cerano to push south on Vigevano; the reserve from Novara to Mortara; the remainder to follow the 2nd division. Had the 1st division been placed at Mortara instead of Vespolate in the first instance the story of the campaign might have been very different, but here again, though to a far less culpable degree, a subordinate general's default imperilled the army. Durando (21st March), instead of pushing on as ordered to Trumello to take contact with the enemy, halted at Mortara. The reserve also halted there and deployed west of Mortara to guard against a possible attack from San Giorgio. The Sardinian advanced guard on the other road reached Borgo San Siro, but there met and was driven back by Radetzky's II. corps under Lieut. Field Marshal d' Aspre (1789-1850), which was supported by the brigades that now crossed at Bereguardo. But the Italians were also supported, the Austrians made little progress, and by nightfall the Sardinian II., III. and IV. divisions had closed up around Vigevano. Radetzky indeed intended his troops on the Vigevano road to act simply as a defensive flank-guard and had ordered the rest of his army by the three roads, Zerbolo-Gambolo, Gropello-Trumello and Lomello-San Giorgio, to converge on Mortara. The rearmost of the two corps on the Gambolo road (the I.) was to serve at need as a support to the flank-guard, and, justly confident in his troops, Radetzky did not hesitate to send a whole corps by the eccentric route of Lomello. And before nightfall an important success had justified him, for the II. corps from Gambolo, meeting Durando outside Mortara had defeated him before the Sardinian reserve, prematurely deployed on the other side of the town, could come to his assistance. The remaining corps of Radetzky's army were still short of Mortara when night came, but this could hardly be well known at the royal headquarters, and, giving up the slight chances of success that a counterstroke from Vigevano on Mortara offered, Chrzanowski ordered a general concentration on Novara. This was effected on the 22nd, on which day Radetzky, pushing out the II. corps towards Vespolate, concentrated the rest at Mortara. That the Italians had retired was clear, but it was not known whither, and, precisely as Napoleon had done before Marengo (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS), he sent one corps to seize the king's potential line of retreat, Novara-Vercelli, kept one back at Mortara--ready, it may be presumed, to grapple an enemy coming from Vigevano--and engaged the other three in a single long column, widely spaced out, on the Novara road. Thus it came about that on the 23rd d' Aspre's II. corps encountered Charles Albert's whole army long before the III. and Reserve could join it. The battle of Novara was, nevertheless, as great an event in the history of the Imperial-Royal Army as Marengo in that of the French.

Novara.

First the II. corps, and then the II. and III. together attacked with the utmost resolution, and as the hours went by more and more of the whitecoats came on the field until at last the IV. corps, swinging inward from Robbio, came on to the flank of the defence. This was no mere strategical triumph; the Austrians, regiment for regiment, were more than a match for the Italians and the result was decisive. Charles Albert abdicated, and the young Victor Emmanuel II., his successor, had to make a hasty armistice.

After Novara, the first great struggle for Italian unity was no more than a spasmodic, if often desperate, struggle of small bodies of patriots and citizens of walled towns to avert the inevitable. The principal incidents in the last phase were the siege of Venice, the sack of Brescia by the merciless Haynau and the capture of Rome by a French expeditionary corps under General Oudinot.

THE ITALIAN WAR OF 1859

The campaign of Magenta and Solferino took place ten years later. Napoleon III., himself an ex-_carbonaro_, and the apostle of the theory of "nationalities," had had his attention and his ambitions drawn towards the Italian problem by the attempt upon his life by Orsini. The general political horizon was by no means clear at the end of 1858, and on the 1st of January 1859 the emperor of the French publicly expressed to the Austrian ambassador his regret that "our relations are not so good as heretofore." This was regarded by all concerned as a prelude to war, and within a short time a treaty and a marriage-contract allied Sardinia with the leading European power. In the smaller Italian states, as before, the governments were on the side of Austria and the "settlement of 1815," and the peoples on that of United Italy. The French still maintained a garrison in Rome to support the pope. The thorny question of the temporal power _versus_ the national movement was not yet in the foreground, and though Napoleon's support of the former was later to prove his undoing, in 1859 the main enemy was Austria and the paramount factor was the assistance of 200,000 French regulars in solving the immediate problem.

The Sardinian army, reconstituted by La Marmora with the definite object of a war for union and rehabilitated by its conduct in the Crimea, was eager and willing. The French army, proud of its reputation as the premier army in the world, and composed, three-fourths of it, of professional soldiers whose gospel was the "Legend," welcomed a return to the first Napoleon's battle-grounds, while the emperor's ambitions coincided with his sentiments. Austria, on the other hand, did not desire war. Her only motive of resistance was that it was impossible to cede her Italian possessions in face of a mere threat. To her, even more than to France and infinitely more than to Italy, the war was a political war, a "war with a limited aim" or "stronger form of diplomatic note"; it entirely lacked the national and personal spirit of resistance which makes even a passive defence so powerful.

Events during the period of tension that preceded the actual declaration of war were practically governed by these moral conditions. Such advantages as Austria possessed at the outset could only be turned to account, as will presently appear, by prompt action. But her army system was a combination of conscription and the "nation in arms," which for the diplomatic war on hand proved to be quite inadequate. Whereas the French army was permanently on a two-thirds war footing (400,000 peace, 600,000 war), that of Austria required to be more than doubled on mobilization by calling in reservists. Now, the value of reservists is always conditioned by the temper of the population from which they come, and it is more than probable that the indecision of the Austrian government between January and April 1859 was due not only to its desire on general grounds to avoid war, but also, and perhaps still more, to its hopes of averting it by firmness, without having recourse to the possibly dangerous expedient of a real mobilization. A few years before the method of "bluffing" had been completely successful against Prussia. But the Prussian reservist of 1850 did not want to fight, whereas the French soldier of 1859 desired nothing more ardently.

Mobilization.

In these conditions the Austrian preparations were made sparingly, but with ostentation. The three corps constituting the Army of Italy (commanded since Radetzky's death in 1858 by Feldzeugmeister Count Franz Gyulai (1798-1863)), were maintained at war efficiency, but not at war strength (corps averaging 15,000). Instead, however, of mobilizing them, the Vienna government sent an army corps (III.) from Vienna at peace strength in January. This was followed by the II. corps, also at peace strength, in February, and the available field force, from that point, could have invaded Piedmont at once.[4] The initial military situation was indeed all in favour of Austria. Her mobilization was calculated to take ten weeks, it is true, but her concentration by rail could be much more speedily effected than that of the French, who had either to cross the Alps on foot or to proceed to Genoa by sea and thence by one line of railway to the interior. Further, the demands of Algeria, Rome and other garrisons, the complicated political situation and the consequent necessity of protecting the French coasts against an English attack,[5] and still more the Rhine frontier against Prussia and other German states (a task to which the greatest general in the French army, Pelissier, was assigned), materially reduced the size of the army to be sent to Italy. But the Austrian government held its hand, and the Austrian commander, apparently nonplussed by the alternation of quiescence and boldness at Vienna, asked for full mobilization and turned his thoughts to the Quadrilateral that had served Radetzky so well in gaining time for the reserves to come up. March passed away without an advance, and it was not until the 5th of April that the long-deferred order was issued from Vienna to the reservists to join the II., III., V., VII. and VIII. corps in Italy. And, after all, Gyulai took the field, at the end of April, with most of his units at three-quarters of their war strength.[6] On the side of the allies the Sardinians mobilized 5 infantry and 1 cavalry divisions, totalling 64,000, by the third week in April. A few days later Austria sent an ultimatum to Turin. This was rejected on the 26th, war being thereupon declared. As for the French, the emperor's policy was considerably in advance of his war minister's preparations. The total of about 130,000 men (all that could be spared out of 500,000) for the Italian army was not reached until operations were in progress; and the first troops only entered Savoy or disembarked in Genoa on the 25th and 26th of April.

Austrian movements.

Thus, long as the opening had been delayed, there was still a period after both sides had resolved on and prepared for war, during which the Austrians were free to take the offensive. Had the Austrians crossed the frontier instead of writing an ultimatum on the 19th of April, they would have had from a week to a fortnight to deal with the Sardinians. But even the three or four days that elapsed between the declaration and the arrival of the first French soldiers were wasted. Vienna ordered Gyulai to take the offensive on the 27th, but it was not until the 30th that the Austrian general crossed the Ticino. His movements were unopposed, the whole of the Sardinian army having concentrated (by arrangement between La Marmora and Marshal Canrobert) in a flank position between Casale and Alessandria, where it covered Turin indirectly and Genoa, the French disembarkation port, directly. Gyulai's left was on the 2nd of May opposite the allied centre, and his right stretched as far as Vercelli.[7] On the 3rd he planned a concentric attack on King Victor Emmanuel's position, and parts of his scheme were actually put into execution, but he suspended it owing to news of the approach of the French from Genoa, supply difficulties (Radetzky, the inheritor of the 18th-century traditions, had laid it down that the soldier must be well fed and that the civilian must not be plundered, conditions which were unfavourable to mobility) and the heavy weather and the dangerous state of the rivers.

Austrians grouped at Mortara.

Gyulai then turned his attention to the Sardinian capital. Three more days were spent in a careful flank march to the right, and on the 8th of May the army (III., V. and VII.) was grouped about Vercelli, with outposts 10-14 m. beyond the Sesia towards Turin, reserves (II. and VIII.) round Mortara, and a flank-guard detached from Benedek's VIII. corps watching the Po. The extreme right of the main body skirmished with Garibaldi's volunteers on the edge of the Alpine country. The Turin scheme was, however, soon given up. Bivouacs, cancelled orders and crossings of marching columns all contributed to exhaust the troops needlessly. On the 9th one corps (the V.) had its direction and disposition altered four times, without any change in the general situation to justify this. In fact, the Austrian headquarters were full of able soldiers, each of whom had his own views on the measures to be taken and a certain measure of support from Vienna--Gyulai, Colonel Kuhn his chief of staff, and Feldzeugmeister Hess, who had formerly played Gneisenau to Radetzky's Blucher. But what emerges most clearly from the movements of these days is that Gyulai himself distrusted the offensive projects he had been ordered to execute, and catching apparently at some expression of approval given by the emperor, had determined to imitate Radetzky in "a defensive based on the Quadrilateral." His immediate intention, on abandoning the advance on Turin was to group his army around Mortara and to strike out as opportunity offered against the heads of the allied columns wherever they appeared. Meantime, the IX. corps had been sent to Italy, and the I. and XI. were mobilizing. These were to form the I. Army, Gyulai's the II. The latter was by the 13th of May grouped in the Lomellina, one third (chiefly VII. corps) spread by brigades fanwise from Vercelli along the Sesia and Po to Vaccarizza, two thirds massed in a central position about Mortara. There was still no information of the enemy's distribution, except what was forwarded from Vienna or gathered by the indefatigable Urban's division, which moved from Milan to Biella, thence to Brescia and Parma, and back to Lombardy in search of revolutionary bands, and the latter's doings in the nature of things could not afford any certain inferences as to the enemy's regular armies.

On the side of the allies, the Piedmontese were grouped on the 1st of May in the fortified positions selected for them by Canrobert about Valenza-Casale-Alessandria. The French III. corps arrived on the 2nd and 3rd and the IV. corps on the 7th at Alessandria from Genoa. Unhampered by Gyulai's offensive, though at times and places disquieted by his minor reconnaissances, the allies assembled until on the 16th the French were stationed as follows: I. corps, Voghera and Pontecurone, II., Sale and Bassignana, III., Tortona, IV., Valenza, Guard, Alessandria, and the king's army between Valenza and Casale. The V. French corps under Prince Napoleon had a political mission in the duchies of middle Italy; one division of this corps, however, followed the main army. On the eve of the first collision the emperor Napoleon, commanding in chief, had in hand about 100,000 French and about 60,000 Sardinian troops (not including Garibaldi's enlisted volunteers or the national guard). Gyulai's II. Army was nominally of nearly equal force to that of the allies, but in reality it was only about 106,000 strong in combatants.

Montebello.

The first battle had no relation to the strategy contemplated by the emperor, and was still less a part of the defence scheme framed by Gyulai. The latter, still pivoting on Mortara, had between the 14th and 19th drawn his army somewhat to the left, in proportion as more and more of the French came up from Genoa. He had further ordered a reconnaissance in force in the direction of Voghera by a mixed corps drawn from the V., Urban's division and the IX. (the last belonging to the I. Army). The saying that "he who does not know what he wants, yet feels that he must do something, appeases his conscience by a reconnaissance in force," applies to no episode more forcibly than to the action of Montebello (20th May) where Count Stadion, the commander of the V. corps, not knowing what to reconnoitre, engaged disconnected fractions of his available 24,000 against the French division of Forey (I. corps), 8000 strong, and was boldly attacked and beaten, with a loss of 1400 men against Forey's 700.

Flank march of the Allies.

Montebello had, however, one singular result: both sides fell back and took defensive measures. The French headquarters were already meditating, if they had not actually resolved upon, a transfer of all their forces from right to left, to be followed by a march on Milan (a scheme inspired by Jomini). But the opening of the movement was suspended until it became quite certain that Stadion's advance meant nothing, while Gyulai (impressed by Forey's aggressive tactics) continued to stand fast, and thus it was not until the 28th that the French offensive really began.[8] The infantry of the French III. corps was sent by rail from Pontecurone to Casale, followed by the rest of the army, which marched by road. To cover the movement D'Autemarre's division of Prince Napoleon's corps (V.) was posted at Voghera and one division of the king's army remained at Valenza. The rest of the Piedmontese were pushed northward to join Cialdini's division which was already at Vercelli. The emperor's orders were for Victor Emmanuel to push across the Sesia and to take post at Palestro on the 30th to cover the crossing of the French at Vercelli. This the king carried out, driving back outlying bodies of the enemy in spite of a stubborn resistance and the close and difficult character of the country. Hearing of the fighting, Gyulai ordered the recapture of Palestro by the II. corps, but the Sardinians during the night strengthened their positions and the attack (31st) was repulsed with heavy loss. These two initial successes of the allies, the failures in Austrian tactics and leadership which they revealed, and the fatigues and privation to which indifferent staff work had exposed his troops, combined to confirm Gyulai in his now openly expressed intention of "basing his defensive on the Quadrilateral." And indeed his only alternatives were now to fall back or to concentrate on the heads of the French columns as soon as they had passed the Sesia about Vercelli. Faithful to his view of the situation he adopted the former course (1st June). The retreat began on the 2nd, while the French were still busied in closing up. Equally with the Austrians, the French were the victims of a system of marching and camping that, by requiring the tail of the columns to close up on the head every evening, reduced the day's net progress to 6 or 7 m., although the troops were often under arms for fourteen or fifteen hours. The difference between the supreme commands of the rival armies lay not in the superior generalship of one or the other, but in the fact that Napoleon III. as sovereign knew what he wanted and as general pursued this object with much energy, whereas Gyulai neither knew how far his government would go nor was entire "master in his own house."

Austrian retreat.

French advance to the Ticino.

The latter became very evident in his retreat. Kuhn, the chief of staff, who was understood to represent the views of the general staff in Vienna, had already protested against Gyulai's retrograde movement, and on the 3rd Hess appeared from Vienna as the emperor's direct representative and stopped the movement. It was destined to be resumed after a short interval, but meanwhile the troops suffered from the orders and counter-orders that had marked every stage in the Austrian movements and were now intensified instead of being removed by higher intervention. Meanwhile (June 1-2) the allies had regrouped themselves east of the Sesia for the movement on Milan. The IV. corps, driving out an Austrian detachment at Novara, established itself there, and was joined by the II. and Guard. The king's army, supported by the I. and III. corps, was about Vercelli, with cavalry far out to the front towards Vespolate. From Novara, the emperor, who desired to give his troops a rest-day on the 2nd, pushed out first a mixed reconnaissance and then in the afternoon two divisions to seize the crossing of the Ticino, Camou's of the Guard on Turbigo, Espinasse's of the II. corps on San Martino. Further the whole of the Vercelli group was ordered to advance on the 3rd to Novara and Galliate, where Napoleon would on the 4th have all his forces, except one division, beyond Gyulai's right and in hand for the move on Milan. The division sent to Turbigo bridged the river and crossed in the night of the 2nd/3rd, that at San Martino (on the main road) occupied the bridge-head and also the river bridge itself, though the latter was damaged. Espinasse's division here was during the night replaced by a Guard division and went to join a growing assembly of troops under General MacMahon, which established itself at Turbigo and Robecchetto on the morning of the 3rd. Lastly, in order to make sure that no attack was impending from the direction of Mortara, Napoleon sent General Niel with a mixed reconnoitring force thither, which returned without meeting any Austrian forces--fortunately for itself, if the fate of the "reconnaissance in force" at Montebello proves anything.

The centre of gravity was now at Buffalora, a village on the main Milan road at the point where it crosses the Naviglio Grande. Here, on the night of the 1st, Count Clam-Gallas, commanding the Austrian I. corps (which had just arrived in Italy and was to form part of the future I. Army) had posted a division, with a view to occupying the bridge-head of San Martino. On inspecting the latter Clam-Gallas concluded that it was indefensible, and, ordering the San Martino road and railway bridges to be destroyed (an order which was only partially executed), he called on Gyulai for support, sent out detachments to the right against the French troops reported at Turbigo, and prepared to hold his ground at Buffalora. On receipt of Clam-Gallas's report at the Austrian headquarters, Hess ordered the resumption of the retreat that he had countermanded, but it was already late and many of the troops did not halt for the night till midnight, June 3rd/4th. Gyulai promised them the 4th as a rest-day, but fortune ordered it otherwise. This much at least was in favour of the Austrians, that when the troops at last reached their assigned positions four-fifths of them were within 12 m. of the battlefield. But, as before, the greater part of the army was destined to be chained to "supporting positions" well back from the battlefield.

Battle of Magenta.

When day broke on the 4th, the emperor of the French was still uncertain as to Gyulai's whereabouts, and his intention was therefore no more than to secure the passage of the Ticino and to place his army on both sides of the river, in sufficient strength to make head against Gyulai, whether the latter advanced from Mortara and Vigevano or from Abbiategrasso. He therefore kept back part of the French army and the whole of the Sardinian. But during the morning it became known that Gyulai had passed the Ticino on the evening of the 3rd; and Napoleon then ordered up all his forces to San Martino and Turbigo. The battlefield of Magenta is easily described. It consists of two level plateaux, wholly covered with vineyards, and between them the broad and low-lying valley of the Ticino. This, sharply defined by the bluffs of the adjoining plateaux, is made up of backwaters, channels, water meadows and swampy woods. At Turbigo the band of low ground is 1(1/2) m. wide, at Buffalora 2(1/2). Along the foot of the eastern or Austrian bluffs between Turbigo and Buffalora runs the Grand Canal (Naviglio Grande); this, however, cuts into the plateau itself at the latter place and trending gradually inwards leaves a tongue of high ground separate from the main plateau. The Novara-Milan road and railway, crossing the Ticino by the bridge of San Martino, pass the second obstacle presented by the canal by the New Bridges of Magenta, the Old Bridge being 1000 yards south of these. The canal is bridged at several points between Turbigo and Buffalora, and also at Robecco, 1(1/2) m. to the (Austrian) left of the Old Bridge. Clam-Gallas's main line of defence was the canal between Turbigo and the Old Bridge, skirmishers being posted on the tongue of high ground in front of the New Bridges, which were kept open for their retreat. He had been joined by the II. corps and disposed of 40,000 men, 27,000 more being at Abbiategrasso (2(1/2) m. S. of Robecco). Of his immediate command, he disposed about 12,000 for the defence of the New Bridges, 12,000 for that of Buffalora, 8000 at Magenta and 8000 at Robecco; all bridges, except the New Bridges, were broken. Cavalry played no part whatever, and artillery was only used in small force to fire along roads and paths.

Napoleon, as has been mentioned, spent the morning of the 4th in ascertaining that Gyulai had repassed the Ticino. Being desirous merely of securing the passage and having only a small force available for the moment at San Martino, he kept this back in the hope that MacMahon's advance from Turbigo on Magenta and Buffalora would dislodge the Austrians. MacMahon advanced in two columns, 2 divisions through Cuggiono and 1 through Inveruno. The former drove back the Austrian outposts with ease, but on approaching Buffalora found so serious a resistance that MacMahon broke off the fight in order to close up and deploy his full force. Meantime, however, on hearing the cannonade Napoleon had ordered forward Mellinet's division of the Guard on the New Bridges and Buffalora. The bold advance of this _corps d'elite_ carried both points at once, but the masses of the allies who had been retained to meet a possible attack from Mortara and Vigevano were still far distant and Mellinet was practically unsupported. Thus the French, turning towards the Old Bridge, found themselves (3.30 P.M.) involved in a close fight with some 18,000 Austrians, and meantime Gyulai had begun to bring up his III. and VII. corps towards Robecco and (with Hess) had arrived on the field himself. The VII. corps, on its arrival, drove Mellinet back to and over the New Bridges, but the French, now broken up into dense swarms of individual fighters, held on to the tongue of high ground and prevented the Austrians from destroying the bridges, while the occupants of Buffalora similarly held their own, and beyond them MacMahon, advancing through orchards and vineyards in a line of battle 2 m. long, slowly gained ground towards Magenta. The III. Austrian corps, meanwhile, arriving at Robecco spread out on both sides of the canal and advanced to take the defenders of the New Bridges in rear, but were checked by fresh French troops which arrived from San Martino (4 P.M.). The struggle for the New and Old Bridges continued till 6 P.M., more and more troops being drawn into the vortex, but at last the Austrians, stubbornly defending each vineyard, fell back on Magenta. But while nearly all the Austrian reinforcements from the lower Ticino had successively been directed on the bridges, MacMahon had only had to deal with the 8000 men who had originally formed the garrison of Magenta. The small part of the reinforcing troops that had been directed thither by Gyulai before he was aware of the situation, had in consequence no active role defined in their orders and (initiative being then regarded as a vice) they stood fast while their comrades were beaten. But it was not until after sunset that the thronging French troops at last broke into Magenta and the victory was won. The splendid Austrian cavalry (always at a disadvantage in Italy) found no opportunity to redress the balance, and their slow-moving and over-loaded infantry, in spite of its devotion, was no match in broken country for the swift and eager French. The forces engaged were 54,000 French (one-third of the allied army) to 58,000 Austrians (about half of Gyulai's total force). Thus the fears of Napoleon as regards an Austrian attack from Mortara-Vigevano neutralized the bad distribution of his opponent's force, and Magenta was a fair contest of equal numbers. The victory of the French was palpably the consequence not of luck or generalship but of specific superiority in the soldier. The great result of the battle was therefore a conviction, shared by both sides, that in future encounters nothing but exceptional good fortune or skilful generalship could give the Austrians victory. The respective losses were: French 4000 killed and wounded and 600 missing, Austrians 5700 killed and wounded, 4500 missing.

Melegnano.

While the fighting was prolonged to nightfall, the various corps of the Austrian army had approached, and it was Gyulai's intention to resume the battle next day with 100,000 men. But Clam-Gallas reported that the I. and II. corps were fought out, and thereupon Gyulai resolved to retreat on Cremona and Mantua, leaving the great road Milan-Brescia unused, for the townsmen's patriotism was sharpened by the remembrance of Haynau, "the Hyena of Brescia." Milan and Pavia were evacuated on the 5th, Hess departed to meet the emperor Francis Joseph (who was coming to take command of the united I. and II. Armies), and although Kuhn was still in favour of the offensive Gyulai decided that the best service he could render was to deliver up the army intact to his sovereign on the Mincio. On the 8th of June Napoleon and Victor Emmanuel made their triumphal entry into Milan, while their corps followed up rather than pursued the retreating enemy along the Lodi and Cremona roads. On the same day, the 8th of June, the I. and II. French corps, under the general command of Marshal Baraguay d'Hilliers, attacked an Austrian rearguard (part of VIII. corps, Benedek) at the village of Melegnano. MacMahon with the II. corps was to turn the right flank, the IV. the left of the defenders, while Baraguay attacked in front. But MacMahon, as at Magenta, deployed into a formal line of battle before closing on the village, and his progress through the vineyards was correspondingly slow. The IV. corps was similarly involved in intricate country, but Baraguay, whose corps had not been present at Magenta, was burning to attack, and being a man _aussi dur a ses soldats qu'a lui-meme_, he delivered the frontal attack about 6 P.M. without waiting for the others. This attack, as straightforward, as brusque, and as destitute of tactical refinements as that of the Swiss on that very ground in 1515 (Marignan), was carried out, without "preparation," by Bazaine's division _a la baionnette_. Benedek was dislodged, but retreated safely, having inflicted a loss of over 1000 men on the French, as against 360 in his own command.

After Melegnano, as after Magenta, contact with the retiring enemy was lost, and for a fortnight the story of the war is simply that of a triumphal advance of the allies and a quiet retirement and reorganization of the Austrians. Up to Magenta Napoleon had a well-defined scheme and executed it with vigour. But the fierceness of the battle itself had not a little effect on his strange dreamy character, and although it was proved beyond doubt that under reasonable conditions the French must win in every encounter, their emperor turned his attention to dislodging rather than to destroying the enemy. War clouds were gathering elsewhere--on the Rhine above all. The simple brave promise to free Italy "from the Alps to the Adriatic" became complicated by many minor issues, and the emperor was well content to let his enemy retire and to accelerate that retirement by manoeuvre as far as might be necessary. He therefore kept on the left of his adversary's routes as before, and about the 20th of June the whole allied army (less Cialdini's Sardinian division, detached to operate on the fringe of the mountain country) was closely grouped around Montechiaro on the Chiese. It now consisted of 107,000 French and 48,000 Sardinians (combatants only).

Austrians on the Mincio.

The Austrians had disappeared into the Quadrilateral, where the emperor Francis Joseph assumed personal command, with Hess as his chief of staff. Gyulai had resigned the command of the II. Army to Count Schlick, a cavalry general of 70 years of age. The I. Army was under Count Wimpffen. But this partition produced nothing but evil. The imperial headquarters still issued voluminous detailed orders for each corps, and the intervening army staff was a cause not of initiative or of simplification, but of unnecessary delay. The direction of several armies, in fact, is only feasible when general directions (_directives_ as they are technically called) take the place of orders. All the necessary conditions for working such a system--uniformity of training, methods and doctrine in the recipients, abstention from interference in details by the supreme command--were wanting in the Austrian army of 1859. The I. Army consisted of the III., IX. and XI. corps with one cavalry division and details, 67,000 in all; the II. Army of the I., V., VII. and VIII. corps, one cavalry division and details or 90,000 combatants--total 160,000, or practically the same force as the allies. The emperor had made several salutary changes in the administration, notably an order to the infantry to send their heavy equipment and parade full-dress into the fortresses, which enormously lightened the hitherto overburdened infantryman. At this moment the political omens were favourable, and gathering the impression from his outpost reports that the French were in two halves, separated by the river Chiese, the young emperor at last accepted Hess's advice to resume the offensive, in view of which Gyulai had left strong outposts west of the Mincio, when the main armies retired over that river, and had maintained and supplemented the available bridges.

The possibility of such a finale to the campaign had been considered but dismissed at the allied headquarters, where it was thought that if the Austrians took the offensive it would be on their own side, not the enemy's, of the Mincio and in the midst of the Quadrilateral. Thus the advance of the French army on the 24th was simply to be a general move to the line of the Mincio, preparatory to forcing the crossings, coupled with the destruction of the strong outpost bodies that had been left by the Austrians at Solferino, Guidizzolo, &c. The Austrians, who advanced over the Mincio on the 23rd, also thought that the decisive battle would take place on the third or fourth day of their advance. Thus, although both armies moved with all precautions as if a battle was the immediate object, neither expected a collision, and Solferino was consequently a pure encounter-battle.

Battle of Solferino.

Speaking generally, the battlefield falls into two distinct halves, the hilly undulating country, of which the edge (almost everywhere cliff-like) is defined by Lonato, Castiglione, Cavriana and Volta, and the plain of Medole and Guidizzolo. The village of Solferino is within the elevated ground, but close to the edge. Almost in the centre of the plateau is Pozzolengo, and from Solferino and Pozzolengo roads lead to crossing places of the Mincio above Volta (Monzambano-Salionze and Valeggio). These routes were assigned to the Piedmontese (44,000) and the French left wing (I., II. and Guard, 57,000), the plain to the III. and IV. corps and 2 cavalry divisions (50,000). On the other side the Austrians, trusting to the defensive facilities of the plateau, had directed the II. Army and part of the I. (86,000) into the plain, 2 corps of the I. Army (V. and I.) on Solferino-Cavriana (40,000), and only the VIII. corps (Benedek), 25,000 strong, into the heart of the undulating ground. One division was sent from Mantua towards Marcaria. Thus both armies, though disposed in parallel lines, were grouped in very unequal density at different points in these lines.

The French orders for the 24th were--Sardinian army on Pozzolengo, I. corps Esenta to Solferino, II. Castiglione to Cavriana, IV. with two cavalry divisions, Carpenedolo to Guidizzolo, III. Mezzane to Medole by Castel Goffredo; Imperial Guard in reserve at Castiglione. On the other side the VIII. corps from Monzambano was to reach Lonato, the remainder of the II. Army from Cavriana, Solferino and Guidizzolo to Esenta and Castiglione, and the I. Army from Medole, Robecco and Castel Grimaldo towards Carpenedolo. At 8 A.M. the head of the French I. corps encountered several brigades of the I. Army in advance of Solferino. The fighting was severe, but the French made no progress. MacMahon advancing on Guidizzolo came upon a force of the Austrians at Casa Morino and (as on former occasions) immediately set about deploying his whole corps in line of battle. Meanwhile masses of Austrian infantry became visible on the edge of the heights near Cavriana and the firing in the hills grew in intensity. Marshal MacMahon therefore called upon General Niel on his right rear to hasten his march. The latter had already expelled a small body of the Austrians from Medole and had moved forward to Robecco, but there more Austrian masses were found, and Niel, like MacMahon, held his hand until Canrobert (III. corps) should come up on his right. But the latter, after seizing Castel Goffredo, judged it prudent to collect his corps there before actively intervening. Meantime, however, MacMahon had completed his preparations, and capturing Casa Morino with ease, he drove forward to a large open field called the Campo di Medole; this, aided by a heavy cross fire from his artillery and part of Niel's, he carried without great loss, Niel meantime attacking Casa Nuova and Robecco. But the Austrians had not yet developed their full strength, and the initial successes of the French, won against isolated brigades and battalions, were a mere prelude to the real struggle. Meanwhile the stern Baraguay d'Hilliers had made ceaseless attacks on the V. corps at Solferino, where, on a steep hill surmounted by a tower, the Austrian guns fired with great effect on the attacking masses. It was not until after midday, and then only because it attacked at the moment when, in accordance with an often fatal practice of those days, the Austrian V. corps was being relieved and replaced by the I., that Forey's division of the I. corps, assisted by part of the Imperial Guard, succeeded in reaching the hill, whereupon Baraguay stormed the village and cemetery of Solferino with the masses of infantry that had gradually gathered opposite this point. By 2 P.M. Solferino was definitively lost to the Austrians.

During this time MacMahon had taken, as ordered, the direction of Cavriana, and was by degrees drawn into the fighting on the heights. Pending the arrival of Canrobert--who had been alarmed by the reported movement of an Austrian force on his rear (the division from Mantua above mentioned) and having given up his cavalry to Niel was unable to explore for himself--Niel alone was left to face the I. Army. But Count Wimpffen, having been ordered at 11 to change direction towards Castiglione, employed the morning in redistributing his intact troops in various "mutually supporting positions," and thus the forces opposing Niel at Robecco never outnumbered him by more than 3 to 2. Niel, therefore, attacking again and again and from time to time supported by a brigade or a regiment sent by Canrobert, not only held his own but actually captured Robecco. About the same time MacMahon gained a foothold on the heights between Solferino and Cavriana, and as above mentioned, Baraguay had stormed Solferino and the tower hill. The greater part of the II. Austrian Army was beaten and in retreat on Valeggio before 3 P.M. But the Austrian emperor had not lost hope, and it was only a despairing message from Wimpffen, who had suffered least in the battle, that finally induced him to order the retreat over the Mincio. On the extreme right Benedek and the VIII. corps had fought successfully all day against the Sardinians, this engagement being often known by the separate name of the battle of San Martino. On the left Wimpffen, after sending his despondent message, plucked up heart afresh and, for a moment, took the offensive against Niel, who at last, supported by the most part of Canrobert's corps, had reached Guidizzolo. In the centre the Austrian rearguard held out for two hours in several successive positions against the attacks of MacMahon and the Guard. But the battle was decided. A violent storm, the exhaustion of the assailants, and the firm countenance of Benedek, who, retiring from San Martino, covered the retreat of the rest of the II. Army over the Mincio, precluded an effective pursuit.

The losses on either side had been: Allies, 14,415 killed and wounded and 2776 missing, total 17,191; Austrians, 13,317 killed and wounded, 9220 missing, total 22,537. The heaviest losses in the French army were in Niel's corps (IV.), which lost 4483, and in Baraguay d'Hilliers' (I.), which lost 4431. Of the total of 17,191, 5521 was the share of the Sardinian army, which in the battle of San Martino had had as resolute an enemy, and as formidable a position to attack, as had Baraguay at Solferino. On the Austrian side the IX. corps, which bore the brunt of the fighting on the plain, lost 4349 and the V. corps, that had defended Solferino, 4442. Solferino, in the first instance an encounter-battle in which each corps fought whatever enemy it found in its path, became after a time a decisive trial of strength. In the true sense of the word, it was a soldier's battle, and the now doubly-proved superiority of the French soldier being reinforced by the conviction that the Austrian leaders were incapable of neutralizing it by superior strategy, the war ended without further fighting. The peace of Villafranca was signed on the 11th of July.

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1866

In the seven years that elapsed between Solferino and the second battle of Custozza the political unification of Italy had proceeded rapidly, although the price of the union of Italy had been the cession of Savoy and Nice to Napoleon III. Garibaldi's irregulars had in 1860 overrun Sicily, and regular battles, inspired by the same great leader, had destroyed the kingdom of Naples on the mainland (Volturno, 1st-2nd October 1860). At Castelfidardo near Ancona on the 18th of September in the same year Cialdini won another victory over the Papal troops commanded by Lamoriciere. In 1866, then, Italy was no longer a "geographical expression," but a recognized kingdom. Only Rome and Venetia remained of the numerous, disunited and reactionary states set up by the congress of Vienna. The former, still held by a French garrison, was for the moment an unattainable aim of the liberators, but the moment for reclaiming Venetia, the last relic of the Austrian dominions in Italy, came when Austria and Prussia in the spring of 1866 prepared to fight for the hegemony of the future united Germany (see SEVEN WEEKS' WAR).

The new Italian army, formed on the nucleus of the Sardinian army and led by veterans of Novara and Solferino, was as strong as the whole allied army of 1859, but in absorbing so many recruits it had temporarily lost much of its efficiency. It was organized in four corps, of which one, under Cialdini, was detached from the main body. Garibaldi, as before, commanded a semi-regular corps in the Alpine valleys, but being steadily and skilfully opposed by Kuhn, Gyulai's former chief of staff, he made little or no progress during the brief campaign, on which indeed his operations had no influence. The main Austrian army, still the best-trained part of the emperor's forces, had been, up to the verge of the war, commanded by Benedek, but Benedek was induced to give up his place to the archduke Albert, and to take up the far harder task of commanding against the Prussians in Bohemia. It was in fact a practically foregone conclusion that in Italy the Austrians would win, whereas in Bohemia it was more than feared that the Prussians would carry all before them. But Prussia and Italy were allied, and whatever the result of a battle in Venetia, that province would have to be ceded in the negotiations for peace with a victorious Prussia. Thus on the Austrian side the war of 1866 in Italy was, even more than the former war, simply an armed protest against the march of events.

Second Battle of Custozza.

The part of Hess in the campaign of Solferino was played with more success in that of Custozza by Major-General Franz, Freiherr von John (1815-1876). On this officer's advice the Austrian army, instead of remaining behind the Adige, crossed that river on the 23rd of June and took up a position on the hills around Pastrengo on the flank of the presumed advance of Victor Emmanuel's army. The latter, crossing the Mincio the same day, headed by Villafranca for Verona, part of it in the hills about Custozza, Somma-Campagna and Castelnuovo, partly on the plain. The object of the king and of La Marmora, who was his adviser, was by advancing on Verona to occupy the Austrian army (which was only about 80,000 strong as against the king's 120,000), while Cialdini's corps from the Ferrara region crossed the lower Po and operated against the Austrian rear. The archduke's staff, believing that the enemy was making for the lower Adige in order to co-operate directly with Cialdini's detachment, issued orders for the advance on the 24th so as to reach the southern edge of the hilly country, preparatory to descending upon the flank of the Italians next day. However, the latter were nearer than was supposed, and an encounter-battle promptly began for the possession of Somma-Campagna and Custozza. The king's army was unable to use its superior numbers and, brigade for brigade, was much inferior to its opponents. The columns on the right, attempting in succession to debouch from Villafranca in the direction of Verona, were checked by two improvised cavalry brigades under Colonel Pulz, which charged repeatedly, with the old-fashioned cavalry spirit that Europe had almost forgotten, and broke up one battalion after another. In the centre the leading brigades fought in vain for the possession of Custozza and the edge of the plateau, and on the left the divisions that had turned northward from Valeggio into the hills were also met and defeated. About 5 P.M. the Italians, checked and in great disorder, retreated over the Mincio. The losses were--Austrians, 4600 killed and wounded and 1000 missing; Italians, 3800 killed and wounded and 4300 missing. The archduke was too weak in numbers to pursue, his losses had been considerable, and a resolute offensive, in the existing political conditions, would have been a mere waste of force. The battle necessary to save the honour of Austria had been handsomely won. Ere long the bulk of the army that had fought at Custozza was transported by rail to take part in defending Vienna itself against the victorious Prussians. One month later Cialdini with the re-organized Italian army, 140,000 strong, took the field again, and the 30,000 Austrians left in Venetia retreated to the Isonzo without engaging.

In spite of Custozza and of the great defeat sustained by the Italian navy at the hands of Tegetthof near Lissa on the 20th of July, Venetia was now liberated and incorporated in the kingdom of Italy, and the struggle for unity, that had been for seventeen years a passionate and absorbing drama, and had had amongst its incidents Novara, Magenta, Solferino and the Garibaldian conquest of the Two Sicilies, ended in an anti-climax.

Three years later the cards were shuffled, and Austria, France and Italy were projecting an offensive alliance against Prussia. This scheme came to grief on the Roman question, and the French chassepot was used for the first time in battle against Garibaldi at Mentana, but in 1870 France was compelled to withdraw her Roman garrison, and with the assent of their late enemy Austria, the Italians under Cialdini fought their way into Rome and there established the capital of united Italy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The war of 1848-49 has been somewhat neglected by modern military historians, but the following are useful: _Der Feldzug der osterr. Armee in Italien 1848-49_ (Vienna, 1852); Gavenda, _Sammlung aller Armeebefehle u.s.w. mit Bezug auf die Hauptmomente des Krieges_ 1848-49; Major H. Kunz, _Feldzuge des F. M. Radetzki in Oberitalien_ (Berlin, 1900), and Major Adams, _Great Campaigns_. Both the French and the Austrian governments issued official accounts (_Campagne de Napoleon III en Italie 1859_, _Der Krieg in Italien 1859_) of the war of 1859. The standard critical work is _Der italienische Feldzug 1859_ by the German general staff (practically dictated by Moltke). Prince Kraft zu Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen, who had many friends in the Austrian army, deals with the Magenta campaign in vol. i. of his _Letters on Strategy_. General Silvestre's _Etude sur la campagne de 1859_ was published in 1909. In English, Col. H. C. Wylly, _Magenta and Solferino_ (1906), and in German General Cammerer, _Magenta_, and Major Kunz, _Von Montebello bis Solferino_ should be consulted.

For the Italian campaign of 1866 see the Austrian official history, _Osterreichs Kampfe 1866_ (French translation), and the Italian official account, _La Campagna del 1866_, of which the volume dealing with Custozza was published in 1909. A short account is given in Sir H. Hozier's _Seven Weeks' War_, and tactical studies in v. Verdy's _Custozza_ (tr. Henderson), and Sir Evelyn Wood, _Achievements of Cavalry_. (C. F. A.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Several of the French generals--Lamoriciere, Bedeau, Changarnier and others--who had been prominent in Algeria and in the 1848 revolution in France had been invited to take the command, but had declined it.

[2] Students of Napoleonic strategy will find it interesting to replace Ramorino by, say, Lannes, and to post Durando at Mortara-Vigevano instead of Vespolate-Vigevano, and from these conditions to work out the probable course of events.

[3] Ramorino's defence was that he had received information that the Austrians were advancing on Alessandria by the south bank of the Po. But Alessandria was a fortress, and could be expected to hold out for forty-eight hours; moreover, it could easily have been succoured by way of Valenza if necessary.

[4] The Sardinians, at peace strength, had some 50,000 men, and during January and February the government busied itself chiefly with preparations of supplies and armament. Here the delay in calling out the reserves was due not to their possible ill-will, but to the necessity of waiting on the political situation.

[5] The Volunteer movement in England was the result of this crisis in the relations of England and France.

[6] As far as possible Italian conscripts had been sent elsewhere and replaced by Austrians.

[7] The movements of the division employed in policing Lombardy (Urban's) are not included here, unless specially mentioned.

[8] The advantages and dangers of the flank march are well summarized in Colonel H. C. Wylly's _Magenta and Solferino_, p. 65, where the doctrinaire objections of Hamley and Rustow are set in parallel with the common-sense views of a much-neglected English writer (Major Adams, _Great Campaigns_) and with the clear and simple doctrine of Moltke, that rested on the principle that strategy does not exist to avoid but to give effect to tactics. The waste of time in execution, rather than the scheme, is condemned by General Silvestre.

ITALIC, i.e. Italian, in Roman archaeology, history and law, a term used, as distinct from Roman, of that which belongs to the races, languages, &c., of the non-Roman parts of Italy (see ITALY, _Ancient Languages and Peoples_). In architecture the Italic order is another name for the Composite order (see ORDER). The term was applied to the Pythagorean school of philosophy in Magna Graecia, and to an early Latin version of the Bible, known also as _Itala_, which was superseded by the Vulgate, but its special technical use is of a particular form of type, in which the letters slope to the right. This is used, in present-day printing, chiefly to emphasize words or phrases, to indicate words or sentences in a foreign language, or to mark the titles of books, &c. It was introduced by the Aldine Press (see MANUTIUS and TYPOGRAPHY).