Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In Book VI of the Elegantiae Valla treats topics explicitly drawn from ancient
grammatical sources, which he further explicates and clarifies. Moreover, man
of the topics of Books I-III are drawn from these same sources, as Valla's fre
quent citation of them indicates. In contrast with ancient and imperial gram
marians, Isidore of Seville is named only twice in the Elegantiae. In the prefac
to Book II (II. praef. 41). Valla brands him 'indoctorum arrogantissimus, qui
quum nihil sciat, omnia praecipit. ' He mentions Isidore once more when re
jecting an 'inept' etymology of oratio from oris ratio (VI. 36.217).2 Despite
the paucity of explicit references to Isidore in the Elegantiae, however, a com
parison of Valla's and Isidore's linguistic discussions suggests that Valla intend
a direct response to Isidore's verbal distinctions (differentiae), definitions, and
etymologies in his own section on signification, Books IV and V of the E
gantiae.
Goetz in the introductory volume to the Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum
states that Valla was exceptional among fifteenth-century lexicographers, who
in general relied heavily on medieval compilations.3 Valla himself claims in the
preface to Book IV that his treatment of signification will concentrate on those
words neglected by other writers on the subject:
Yet as this paper will attempt to show, his revision of chapters from Isidore's
Etymologiae and Differentiae indicates that Valla was indebted to Isidore for
suggesting topics discussed especially in sections of the fourth book of the Ele
gantiae; Isidore, however, unlike Valla's other sources in his treatise, remains
anonymous.
In the preface to Book II of the Elegantiae Valla criticizes, along with Isidore,
three medieval Latin lexicographers from northern Italy: Papias, from Lom
bardy, author of the so-called Vocabularium; Hugutio, from Pisa, author of the
Magnae derivationes; and the thirteenth-century Johannes Balbus from Genoa,
author of the Catholicon. Many of the entries in these vocabularies are indebted
to Isidore's etymologies or differentiae. Consequently, several of the terms
treated together in a single chapter of the Elegantiae appear not only in Isidore's
text, but also in the medieval l?xica, arranged alphabetically.4 Some of Valla's
observations, such as the 'illiterate' substitution of guerra for bellum (IV.64.144),
probably arise in direct response to entries in these later l?xica (s.v. bellum
in the Catholicon). Likewise, Valla's treatment of related compound verbs
may derive from the method employed in the Catholicon of including compounds
within the same entry as that of the main verb: e.g. appendo, suspendo, compendo,
expendo, impendo under pendo, which is similar to Valla's discussion (V.82.190)
of perpendo, expendo, appendo, impendo and impendeo. Occasionally the medieval
vocabularies preserve under a single entry a differentia. Such are the sections
on pupillus and orphanus, and utor and fruor in the Catholicon (s.v. pupillus,
fruor; cf. IV.33.133, V.5.162; Isidore, Etym. 11.2.12, Diff. 1 225).
More often, however, Valla's arrangement of such near-synonyms indicates
the direct influence of Isidore. At IV.27.131, for example, Valla treats arbor
and frutex in a differentia, mentioning also the term herba. Herba occurs in the
entry under arbor in the Catholicon as well as at Isidore, Etym. 17.6.1. In Isi
dore's text (Etym. 17.6.3-4), however, arbor and frutex appear together as in
the Elegantiae, but these words are separated in the alphabetical arrangement
of the vocabularies, which nevertheless preserve Isidore's definitions: 4 Arbor . . .
et fruct?fera et sterilis. . . . Frutex . . . appellatus quod terram fronde tegat. '
The following passages are examples of Valla's revision of Isidore's, and his
followers,' definitions.
3. In two separate places within a single chapter, Isidore offers different ety
mologies for frondes, one from fero and the other from folia, a 'derivation' of
the Greek a {Etym. 17.6.13, 20; cf. CGL VI 460, 470, Papias s.v. frondes).
Valla combines the two terms into a differentia, disregarding Isidore's deriva
tions:
Frondes arborum sunt tantum. Folia autem et arborum, et herbarum, et florum quoque
(IV.68.145).
Valla redefines each term, forming a differentia which retains Isidore's main
point about orbus:
Orbus est quicunque aliqua re chara privatus est. Proprie autem parens amissis liberis,
quasi amissa luce oculorum .... Coelebs, tarn qui caruit semper uxore, quam qui nunc
caret, et inde coelibatus (IV.106.156).
5. The association of the term orbus with the eyes mentioned above occurs
elsewhere in the Etymologiae:
Pupilli. . . dicti sunt, quasi in oculis, hoc est, a parentibus orbi (11.2.12).
7. Servius defines iugum as cacumen montis (A.2.630; cf. Catholicon s.v. iugum;
Papias s.v. clivus, iugum). Employing an etymology, Isidore distinguishes this
word from co His:
Colles sunt praeeminentiora iuga montium, quasi colla. luga autem montium ex eo appel
lata sunt quod propinquitate sui iungantur (Etym. 14.8.19-20; cf. Catholicon s.v. collis).
Valla, after defining collis in relation to mons, treats iugum and clivus as per
taining to mons and collis respectively:
Collis est (ut ita dicam) monticulus, sive per se, et a monte separatus, sive pars montis.
Iugum (ut etiam ita dicam) ipsa arduitas montis, et proclivis, ac prona supinitas, cui
similis est in colle clivus, tarnen mollis magis, et Clemens. . . (IV.43.138).5
5 In the same chapter Valla presents a derivation of Promontorium ('locus est in mari
prominens'. . .) very similar to Isidore's 'Commune est insulis ut promineant. Inde et
loca earum promuntoria dicuntur' (Etym. 14.7.1).
Valla discusses these terms together, along with the related word certamen,
and adds the non-military meaning of pugna and certamen:
Bellum est tum ipsa pugna, tum totum tempus, quo in militia sumus, quam illiterati
guerram vocant. PraeJium ipsum tantummodo armorum certamen. Nam et pugna,
certamenque etiam citra arma fit. Interdum etiam fit nudis verbis (IV.64.144).
Perhaps we may explain Valla's claim that Books IV and V of the Elegantiae
contain wholly new material as a response to charges of plagiarism levelled at
him by contemporaries. The zeal with which he defends the originality of his
work elsewhere in his treatise may have caused him to exaggerate his claim in
the preface to Book IV. In the prefaces to Books II and V, for example, he
refers to the pilfering of some of his material by students, causing him to publish
his work without delay. Valla's detractors in turn charged him with plagiarism.
Poggio in particular found passages in the Elegantiae which, he claimed, were
flagrantthefts.6 Valla replies to these charges in the preface to Book V, which
alludes metaphorically to his treatise as an unmarried daughter whom the father
must give to her suitor, the coetus literatorum. Although she comes to the union
without a great dowry, i.e. unfinished, she comes a virgin, i.e. unplagiarized.
The relationship between the Elegantiae and Isidore's work then is not so
simple as might be inferred from those passages in which Valla explicitly criti
cizes his predecessor. Solely on the basis of this criticism, one might conclude
that Valla's treatise was entirely free of Isidore's influence. Yet Valla, while
rejecting Isidore's etymological method, has sought to revise several of his
semantic distinctions and definitions, in much the same way as he corrects
perceived errors in the works of other grammarians throughout the Elegantiae.7
Valla's choice of topics to be grouped within single chapters suggests a random
adaptation of sections from Isidore's works. His refusal to identify his source
merely emphasizes a humanist's contempt for Isidore's authority in the field
of Latin lexicography.
Portsmouth Abbey School H. J. Stevens, Jr.
6 In L. V?llam Invectiva prima in Poggii Opera Omnia (Basel: H. P?tri, 1538; repr. with
introd. by R. Fubini [Torino 1964]) 1.194: ' Animadverti furta, cognovi expilationem ex
aliorum supellectili non obscure factam, ut qui repetundarum rerum hunc furem velit
accusare, manifestis testibus uti possit.'
7 Several other passages in Books IV and V of the Elegantiae also seem to be paraphrases
of earlier grammarians' observations: e.g. Servius on fiere, plorare, and piangere (A.11.211),
which has prompted Valla's discussion of these and related words (V. 52.181). Likewise
Valla's chapter (IV.56.142) on sylva, lucus, saltus, and nemus is a conflation of several earlier
sources, including Festus (159, 392f. Lindsay), Servius (A.1.310) and Isidore (Etym. 17.6.5-8).