Chapter VI: Book I: At the outset Dante strikes a slightly different note from

that of the _Convivio_, by boldly asserting that vernacular in general (as the natural speech of man) is nobler than “grammar,” literary languages like Latin or Greek, which he regards as artificially formed (_V. E._ i. 1). To discover the noblest form of the Italian vernacular, the poet starts from the very origin of language itself. To man alone of creatures has the intercourse of speech been given: speech, the rational and sensible sign needed for the intercommunication of ideas. Adam and his descendants spoke Hebrew until the confusion of Babel (_cf._ the totally different theory in _Par._ xxvi. 124), after which this sacred speech remained only with the children of Heber (i. 2-7). From this point onwards the work becomes amazingly modern. Of the threefold language brought to Europe after the dispersion, the southernmost idiom has varied into three forms of vernacular speech--the language of those who in affirmation say _oc_ (Spanish and Provençal), the language of _oil_ (French), the language of _sì_ (Italian).[20] And this Italian vulgar tongue has itself varied into a number of dialects, of which Dante distinguishes fourteen groups, none of which represent the illustrious Italian language which he is seeking. “He attacks,” wrote Mazzini, “all the Italian dialects, but it is because he intends to found a language common to all Italy, to create a form worthy of representing the national idea.” The Roman is worst of all (i. 11). A certain ideal language was indeed employed by the poets at the Sicilian court of Frederick and Manfred, but it was not the Sicilian dialect (i. 12). The Tuscans speak a degraded vernacular, although Guido Cavalcanti, Lapo Gianni and another Florentine (Dante himself), and Cino da Pistoia have recognised the excellence of the ideal vulgar tongue (i. 13). Bologna alone has a “locution tempered to a laudable suavity”; but which, nevertheless, cannot be the ideal language, or Guido Guinizelli and other Bolognese poets would not have written their poems in a form of speech quite different from the special dialect of their city (i. 15). “The illustrious, cardinal, courtly, and curial vulgar tongue in Italy is that which belongs to every Italian city, and yet seems to belong to none, and by which all the local dialects of the Italians are measured, weighed, and compared” (i. 16). This is that ideal Italian which has been artistically developed by Cino and his friend (Dante himself) in their canzoni, and which makes its familiars so glorious that “in the sweetness of this glory we cast our exile behind our back” (_V. E._ i. 17). Such should be the language of the imperial Italian court of justice, and, although as far as Italy is concerned there is no prince, and that court is scattered in body, its members are united by the gracious light of reason (i. 18). This standard language belongs to the whole of Italy, and is called the Italian vernacular (_latinum vulgare_); “for this has been used by the illustrious writers who have written poetry in the vernacular throughout Italy, as Sicilians, Apulians, Tuscans, natives of Romagna, and men of both the Marches” (i. 19).

The examination of the dialects is perhaps the most original feature in the book; that Dante did not recognise that what was destined to be the literary language of Italy was, in reality, the Tuscan dialect, but adopted instead the theory of a conventional or artificial Italian, was largely due to his theories being based upon the lyrical poetry of his predecessors, in which he seemed to find this abstraction realised; for, though natives of different regions of Italy, they used--or, in the form in which their poems came to him, appeared to have used--a common literary language. Nevertheless in the _Divina Commedia_, which was to codify the national language, Dante recognised that he himself was speaking Tuscan (_Inf._ xxiii. 76, _Purg._ xvi. 137).