|
Thinly veiled fagging cant from BergamoJUST Book Reviews unearths a degenerate bookmaking recipe from a volume on the language of the undergroundBy Domenico Pacitti, JBR Editor The Language of Thieves and Vagabonds: 17th and 18th Century Canting Lexicography in England by Maurizio Gotti. Published in 1999 by Max Niemeyer Verlag, T�bingen, 159 pages, �30, ISBN: 3 484 30994 6. Maurizio Gotti has succeeded in supplying a thinly veiled recipe for students and others in mainstream Italian academia. For he has shown them how to produce a book that will ensure them some degree of prestige despite suffering from the dual handicap of being unable to write and having nothing to say. Obviously this degenerate and typically Italian form of �bookmaking�, as it is known in the trade, cannot be expected to reflect Mr Gotti�s conscious objective. Rather, Mr Gotti is concerned with English jargon known as �cant� as it appears in old dictionaries and glossaries (alphabetically ordered lists of words with definitions). He attempts to summarise the aim of his work in an ominous opening sentence which at the same time illustrates his inability to write comprehensibly: �The volume analyses the main dictionaries and glossaries of the particular jargon spoken by thieves and vagabonds that appeared in the 17th and 18th centuries.� So what is
it that appeared in those two centuries? The main dictionaries and glossaries?
The jargon? The thieves and vagabonds? Or some combination of these? Gotti�s
ambiguous sentence fails to specify which. Moreover, �analyse� turns out to be
the wrong word since the book is, as we shall see, distinctly expository rather
than analytic. The
rudiments of the Gotti bookmaking technique may already be observed in the first
chapter, where Gotti takes himself to be carrying out an �analysis� of the
English underworld. What he actually does is to cram into the chapter�s eleven
pages a barrage of lengthy quotes from no less than eighteen, mainly standard
sources, letting them tell the story as it were. With these quotes occupying
well over half the chapter, deduct the Gotti paraphrase and you are left with
practically nothing. Gotti�s substantive writing is limited to applauding each
of his sources in turn for being right. Gotti�s
residual problem now consists in avoiding repetition of the word �says�. This he
resolves by alternating �asserts�, �points out�, �confirms�, "remarks�, �writes�,
�describes�, etc., a task requiring no more than a dictionary of synonyms or a
cooperative native English speaker from the language centre which Gotti runs at
the University of Bergamo. Students
should take note that heavy first-chapter quoting also allows Gotti to get off
to a racing start in building up back matter (bibliography, index and
appendices), by which academics � and not only in Italy � often superficially
judge a book�s worth. It should
already be fairly obvious that the bookmaking model makes life easier for
everyone and defends the author against possible academic criticism. The basic
idea is that if you do not really say anything, then there is nothing really to
discuss. Chapter 2
deals similarly with early canting literature while each of the following eight
is devoted to a different dictionary or glossary. Roughly the same methods are
used, but with long lists of words now performing the space-filling function of
quotations to the point of
At one point
Gotti cites the interesting word �fagger� from Francis Grose�s dictionary: �fagger
(�a little boy put in at a window to rob the house�, from the verb to fag
�to act as a servant to one of a superior�)� (p.111), It is worth pointing out that, notwithstanding the book�s substandard English, Mr Gotti falls well within the singular Italian tradition of academics who are somehow able to write English with strikingly more skill than one might ever suspect on actually hearing them speak it. This evidently explains why no one is expressly thanked in the book�s acknowledgements for correcting, translating or writing Gotti�s English for him. Gotti ends
most of his chapters with short conclusions which spotlight his intellectual
shallowness and lack of originality. These conclusions, unhampered as they are
by the crutches of copious quotations and endless lists, also prove pivotal in
revealing how little Gotti has to say when writing �on the loose�. Take, for
example, the central point in Gotti�s conclusion to chapter 3 on the new canting
terms which were reported by Richard Head: �The analysis carried out so far has thus highlighted Richard Head�s important contribution to the careful recording of those canting terms which were used in England in the middle of the seventeenth century. Head�s great merit is to have compiled his dictionary not merely deriving his terms from previous publications, but adopting all those expressions which were employed at his time by the English underworld and providing them with appropriate standard equivalents.� (p.48) Here Gotti
again crucially misuses the word �analysis�. His similar misuse of the
expression �a careful analysis shows� just ten lines later further reinforces
suspicion of Gotti�s insistent attempt to convince the reader, and perhaps also
himself, that his work is prestigiously analytic rather than merely expository.
Notice how little Gotti is in fact saying here. He makes much out of praising
Head. For what? For having incorporated some of the cant of his day into a
dictionary largely copied from earlier dictionaries. This same Gotti formula
recurs stubbornly and monotonously in his other end-of-chapter conclusions. So why does
Gotti speak of Head's �great merit� and, 15 lines later, of his �precious work�?
The answer is that what counts in Italian academic bookmaking is the
superficial, formal impression that something profound and incisive is being
said. What counts is the impression that the author is somehow in intellectual
harmony with a worthy subject whom he is capable of evaluating. What counts is
the creation of useless research projects to be undertaken by third-rate
academics in order to obtain the necessary government funding to keep
self-exalting egos and mercenary publishers satisfied. It would be
interesting to explore the extent to which Gotti and colleagues are aware of all
of this and the extent to which they have convinced themselves that they really
are being analytic, profound and incisive. We might ask
to what extent academic colleagues working in the same field at foreign
universities consciously help prop up and reinforce this false impression. To
what extent are they motivated by feelings of human pity, brotherly protection
or being part of the same team? Or by the prospect of advantageous inclusion in
Italian-run international research projects? Or by the prospect of a summer
holiday or two in Italy? To what extent are the foreign counterparts of people
like Gotti working at the same sort of level of mediocrity? And how aware of all
of this are Italian institutions providing the research funding? Meanwhile Mr
Gotti has become the president of the European Confederation of University
Language Centres (CERCLES), the director of a language research centre (CERLIS)
based at the University of Bergamo and the editor of a series of linguistic
studies for Peter Lang publishers in Bern. I am unfamiliar with Mr Gotti�s other publications but am reliably informed that this is his best work to date. If true, it would certainly show just how far a little fagging cant can go in Italy. Mr Gotti teaches English language and translation at the University of Bergamo's faculty of modern languages where he holds a senior post.
Note: This review was first published by JUST Book Reviews on January 2 2004.
Return to "Failing faculties" REVIEWS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||