Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries, Vol. 1Hallam, Henry
History
Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries, Vol. 1
Hallam, Henry
Literature, Modern -- History and criticism
Eichhorn speaks severely, and, I am disposed to think, unjustly, of
the Catholicon, as without order and plan, or any knowledge of
Greek, as the author himself confesses (Gesch. der Litteratur, ii.
238). The order and plan are alphabetical, as usual in a
dictionary; and though Balbi does not lay claim to much Greek, I do
not think he professes entire ignorance of it. Hoc difficile est
scire et minimè mihi non bene scienti linguam Græcam:--apud
Gradenigo, Litteratura Greco-Italianna, p. 104. I have observed
that Balbi calls himself _philocalus_, which indeed is no
evidence of much Greek erudition.
|Imperfection of early dictionaries.|
91. In the dictionary however of John of Genoa, as in those of Papias
and the other glossarists, we find little distinction made between the
different gradations of Latinity. The Latin tongue was to them, except
so far as the ancient grammarians whom they copied might indicate some
to be obsolete, a single body of words; and, ecclesiastics as they were,
they could not understand that Ambrose and Hilary were to be proscribed
in the vocabulary of a language which was chiefly learned for the sake
of reading their works. Nor had they the means of pronouncing, what it
has cost the labour of succeeding centuries to do, that there is no
adequate classical authority for innumerable words and idioms in common
use. Their knowledge of syntax also was very limited. The prejudice of
the church against profane authors had by no means wholly worn away:
much less had they an exclusive possession of the grammar-schools, most
of the books taught in which were modern. Papias, Uguccio, and other
indifferent lexicographers, were of much authority.[182] The general
ignorance in Italy was still very great. In the middle of the fourteenth
century we read of a man, supposed to be learned, who took Plato and
Cicero for poets, and thought Ennius a contemporary of Statius.[183]
[182] Mehus. Muratori, Dissert. 44.
[183] Mehus, p. 211. Tiraboschi, v. 82.
|Restoration of letters due to Petrarch.|
|Character of his style.|
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account