I. Our vernacular, most explored and perfected at Florence, is more intimate to us than Latin, as to the Romans Latin was than Greek (i-iv). Yes, but as Greek was then superior, so Latin is now. Answer (v): if that implied that the superior should always be cultivated, nobody would ever have written well in his own language. As Cicero sought to augment the authority of his own Latin, so did Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio for Italian. Greek (vi) we may dismiss, since it is not a medium for us; we study it not to use it, but the better to explore Latin. Provençal (vii-xi), though once an important language of literature and very influential in our early poetry, has been superseded by Italian.
But if we are to use the vernacular for literature, which vernacular? (xii) Italian is not uniform. Shall we adopt the language of the Papal Court? No; it has not writers enough to constitute literary authority. Tuscan (xiii-xv) is best, as having shown amplest capacity, and as actually holding the literary leadership.
Shall we incline, then, to its older usage, or to current popular speech? Answer (xvi-xvii): we are not limited to this dilemma. We may cultivate a diction that remains acceptable. Cicero or Demosthenes made himself entirely intelligible to the populace without speaking as the populace would have spoken to him.
II. An historical review (xx) of Italian poetry to and from Dante finds all its graces united in Petrarch. So (xxi) all previous prose writers were surpassed by Boccaccio. No subsequent writers have equalled these two. Meantime Latin has been so freed from the rust of ignorant centuries that today it has regained its ancient splendor and charm.
In an analysis (xxiii-xxviii) of style under the classical headings, Dante (xxiv) is rebuked for base words. He might better have left out the things.
The qualities of vowels and of consonants (xxvii-xxviii), and the three kinds of rhyme (xxix), with examples from Petrarch, lead to a discussion of rhythm (numero, xxxii-xxxiii), quantity (tempo, xxxv), and variation. The conclusion reaffirms the preëminence of Petrarch and Boccaccio.
III. The noble works of Michael Angelo and of Raphael should spur us to a like achievement in literature. This final section discusses Tuscan in detail: word-forms, inflection, syntax, and especially usage.
The dialogue opens a vista into contemporary thought about style. The objection to Dante’s base words, startling to us now, was made frequently then. No less characteristic of the time is the homage to Petrarch as great poet and as master of style. Giraldi Cinthio expressed the common view in a flowery simile.
But the law is not so strict for romances as not to permit more license in words than is customary for sonnets and canzoni. Long and serious subjects, if the conception is not to be warped, need such latitude, which must nevertheless be limited. Petrarch shows this clearly in his Trionfi. I will not cite Dante; for whether through the fault of his age, or because of his own nature, he took so many liberties that his liberty became a fault. Therefore I find quite judicious that painter who, to show us in a fair scene the literary value of the one poet and the other, imagined both in a green and flowery mead on the slopes of Helicon, and put into Dante’s hand a scythe, which, with his gown tucked up to his knees, he was wielding in circles, cutting every plant that the scythe struck. Behind Dante he painted Petrarch, in senatorial robe, stooping to select the noble plants and the well-bred flowers—all this to show us the liberty of the one and the judgment and observance of the other (Discorsi, Venice, 1554, pp. 133-134).