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.*)