Rinsing clothes in the Arno: how Manzoni did it…

As we have seen, after the initial publication of I Promessi Sposi in 1827, Alessandro Manzoni was dissatisfied with the language he had employed in his seminal work and dedicated extensive efforts to its revision, a process that stretched over more than a decade until 1840.

Manzoni famously referred to this meticulous refinement as sciacquare i panni in Arno which means rising clothes in Arno, where Arno is the river flowing through Florence. This metaphor encapsulates Manzoni’s commitment to cleansing his language by adopting the language used by cultivated people in Florence as a model.

What did this washing and rinsing do to the text? How did the text change in the two editions?

Manzoni’s commitment to linguistic refinement in the revision of I Promessi Sposi extended to a deliberate effort to eliminate archaisms, Latinisms, and expressions that felt outdated or excessively literary. While the Florentine spoken by the educated class in Florence served as a model, Manzoni did not adopt it verbatim. Instead, he utilized it as a foundation to create what he considered to be a more natural and common language, stripping away elements that might be perceived as too literary or local. The result was a text that resonated with a broader audience, transcending regional borders.

Let’s consider an example of Manzoni’s linguistic revisions, of the changes occurring between the two editions. Let’s focus on the passage in which a monatto, the figure responsible for removing corpses during the plague, arrives to collect the body of a dead child.

In the 1827 version the passage reads ‘‘ed ecco un turpe monatto avvicinarsi alla donna, e far vista di torre il peso dalle sue braccia, ma pure con una specie però d’insolito rispetto, con una esitazione involontaria’.

In the 1840 version instead it says ‘‘un turpe monatto andò per levarle la bambina dalle braccia, con una specie però d’insolito rispetto, con un’esitazione involontaria’.

The two sentences reveal notable changes in both syntax and lexicon. The most evident difference between the two examples is their various lengths, with the later version being shorter; it is indeed not only shorter but also more linear and direct.

The omission of the initial ed ecco in the second version imparts a less literary quality, while the sequence delineating the monatto’s actions, involving avvicinarsi (he got closer) and far vista di torre (and was about to take), is replaced by the straightforward andò per levarle (he went to take). Additionally, the shift in lexicon is evident, with the more literary term torre being replaced by the simpler levare.

These alterations collectively contribute to a more direct and accessible language in the 1840 version, marking an intentional departure from the literary nuances of the original 1827 rendition.