“Nam si quis minorem gloriae fructum putat ex graecis versibus percipi, quam ex latinis, vehementer errat; propterea, quod graeca leguntur in omnibus fere gentibus, latina suis finibus, exiguis sane, continentur. Quare si res hae, quas gessimus, orbis terrae regionibus definiuntur, cupere debemus, quo manuum nostrarum tela pervenerint, eodem gloriam, famamque penetrare” [“For if any one thinks that there is a smaller gain of glory derived from Greek verses than from Latin ones, he is greatly mistaken, because what is Greek is read among almost all nations, what is Latin is confined within its own borders, which are narrow enough. Wherefore, if those achievements which we have performed are limited only by the bounds of the whole world, we ought to desire that, wherever our vigor and our arms have penetrated, our glory and our fame should likewise extend”] Cicero, Oratio pro Archia poeta, ch. 10. Therefore if Latin things continebantur suis finibus [were confined within their own borders], Greek things legebantur [were read] also extra suos fines [beyond their borders], therefore also by those who did not naturally speak Greek, therefore if they legebantur in omnibus fere gentibus [were read among almost all nations], almost all nations understood Greek although they were not [2736] Greek, therefore the world was δίγλωσσος [bilingual], therefore the Greek language was universal with that sort of universality which French has today. Nor with suis finibus can we take it to mean the limits of the Latin empire, which were certainly not narrow in Cicero’s day, and this is shown by what follows in the same passage cited. (31 May 1823.)
It is something beyond doubt that the young, at least in the present state of men, of the human spirit, and of nations, not only suffer more than the old (I mean in relation to the soul), but even (contrary to what may appear to be the case, and what has always been said and what is commonly believed), they become bored more than the old, and are much more aware than they are of the weight of life, and the labor and torment and difficulty in bearing it and dragging it along. And this is indeed a consequence of the principles laid down in my theory of pleasure. Because in the young there is [2737] more life or more vitality than in the old, that is, greater consciousness of existence and of oneself. And where there is more life, there is a higher level of self-love, or higher intensity and consciousness and stimulus and vivacity and force of the same, and where there is a higher level or efficacy of self-love, there is a greater desire and need of happiness, and where there is greater desire of happiness, there is a greater appetite and craving and avidity and hunger and need of pleasure. And when this pleasure is not found in human things it is inevitable that where there is a greater desire for it, there is greater unhappiness, or greater consciousness of unhappiness, therefore a greater sense of privation and lack and emptiness, therefore greater boredom, greater vexation in life, greater difficulty and torment in bearing it, greater scorn and indifference toward the same. Therefore all these things must be at a higher level in the young than in the old. As [2738] they are, especially in this present mortification and monotony of human life, which are at odds with the vitality and energy of youth, in this lack of violent distractions to tear the young person away from himself and draw him out of himself, in this impossibility of sufficiently adopting the vital force, of giving it release and outlet from the individual, of pouring it out, and freeing it as much as possible, in short, in this stagnation of life in the heart and in the mind and in the internal faculties of man, and especially of the young.
And this stagnation is lethal to happiness for the reasons stated above. Now this is the effect proper to the modern way of living, and the character that distinguishes it from the ancient, and the one that, observed by Chateaubriand when he wished to write a novel that is essentially modern in character, and one which was unknown and incapable of having been written or conceived by the [2739] ancients, gave him the inspiration for René,1 which is entirely centered on describing and determining this stagnation, and its effects. From that alone let conclusions be drawn about whether the ancient or the modern life is more conducive to happiness, or else which of the two is less conducive to unhappiness. And since Chateaubriand considers this stagnation to be the precise and proper effect of Christianity, let him see what consequence one must draw about this religion, in relation to that which belongs to the temporal. In truth at every step one finds that his most astute, profound, new, and true observations and his arguments about Christianity, and its effects, and modern civilization, and the character and spirit of the Christian, or modern and civilized man, prove exactly the opposite of what he proposes. And it can be said that every time he brings forward new observations, he is working for the opinion which is contrary to his own, he increases the arguments which fortify it, and provides new weapons for his own adversaries, while believing he is fighting them. (1 June, Sunday, 1823.) See p. 2752.
Opra syncope of opera can be found in Ennius (in Forcellini see opera, end), as in our poets opra and [2740] oprare and adoprare, etc. Tan like Spanish for tam in the very ancient codex of Cicero, De re publica, bk. 1, ch. 9, p. 26, Rome 1822, where see Mai’s note.1 (3 June 1823.)
As an example of one of the many ways in which alphabets, which I maintain are all or almost all derived from a single one, multiplied and diversified from the original alphabet, depending on the languages to which they were applied, the following can serve. In the Phoenician, Hebrew, Samaritan, etc., alphabet from which the Greek alphabet developed, there is no ψ, a pointless character because it represents two letters; invented, according to Pliny,2 by Simonides, which the Emperor Claudius vainly attempted to introduce into the Latin alphabet, where it is likewise missing, although Latin derives from the same origin as Greek; and in place of which on ancient Greek monuments are found the two characters π σ. (According to the grammarians the ψ also stands for βσ and φσ; but they deduce this from inflections, etc., such as ἄραψ, ἄραβος, ἄραβɛς ἄραψι, etc. I do not know nor do I believe that they adduce any ancient inscription, etc.) See p. 3080. Now see how this character which distinguishes the Greek alphabet from the Phoenician arose. In Greek, [2741] and typical of it, this ps sound is very frequent, and every language has some of these sounds which in it are more frequent and acceptable than in others. Since scribes therefore were obliged to express it very frequently, they began to link those two characters π σ together in haste every time they were required to write them next to each other. From this use, born from haste, arose a kind of nexus which represented the two characters mentioned; and this which at the beginning must have preserved part of the form of both the characters which composed it, once it was adopted generally because of the ease of use which it brought with it, and because of being able to write more briefly, gradually came to be used so widely that when it was necessary to write next to each other the π and the σ, they now used nothing else but that nexus, and in the end by this means it came to form its own character, distinct from the other [2742] characters of the alphabet, and intended to express in whatever circumstance that particular sound. It was not intended for that purpose in very primitive times, nor at the time of the first invention or adoption of the Greek alphabet, and the first enumeration of the elementary sounds of that language or of speech in general, but was used because of its ease of use for those who already for a long time had been using the said alphabet. In such a way that one can say that this character is not the child of the sound which it expresses, as those which express the elementary sounds do, but the child of two characters preexisting in the Greek alphabet, and therefore almost the grandchild of the sound which is represented by it. Grammar and the rules of orthography, etc., did not yet exist. Once they arrived, and taking on first of all the examination and establishment of the national alphabet, when this nexus was found to be master of common use, and had moved into place as a distinct character and not double [2743] but single, they considered it as such, they gave it a place in the Greek alphabet among the elementary characters, and they established as a rule that the ps sound was to be expressed, as everyone
already did, by the ψ, and not otherwise. And there is this nexus, introduced at the beginning by scribes because of haste and ease of use, no longer admitting its origin, or if it does, it comes to us in the ancient and modern grammars as a character proper to the Greeks, and as one of the elements of their alphabet. The same happened to the ξ, which is not Phoenician, but introduced as a nexus to represent two characters, that is γσ, or κσ or χσ: and that because these sounds are very frequent in Greek, as also in Latin, in whose alphabet therefore this same nexus was also located, considered as a character. In place of which the ancient Greeks wrote γσ, or κσ. The same is to be said [2744] about φ, a character (originally a nexus) which is not part of the Phoenician alphabet (because the or is really the π, Latin P, since the F is the Aeolic digamma), which was introduced instead of the ΠΗ which can be found on ancient Greek monuments, where also can be found KH instead of X, a non-Phoenician character. These two compound sounds, or rather double sounds, ph and ch, very frequent in Greek, were not heard in Latin. The three characters ξ, φ, χ are attributed in Pliny (7, 56)1 to Palamedes, added by him to the Cadmean or Phoenician alphabet. You can say the same of the ω, which is attributed by the same to Simonides, etc.
In later times, as forms of writing multiplied, or rather the necessity of writing in haste because of the shortage of scribes and earnings, and of writing in a limited space because of the shortage of paper, etc., and especially the negligence and deformation and poor taste of writing, and therefore as the forms of the characters became extremely small and hasty, [2745] so there was an excessive multiplication of nexuses, abbreviations, etc., of all types (of which the ancients had been very sparing, and to which the form of their letters lent itself very little), in such a way that there is scarcely a Greek or Latin codex of those periods which does not offer new differences in ligatures and abbreviations, etc. But in addition to this their very number and variety prevented these double or triple or quadruple, etc., characters from being accepted into the alphabet. Grammar and orthographic rules already existed, and the alphabets of the respective languages had been for so long, through such long use, and so fully determined, fixed, and circumscribed, that they allowed no room even to the nexuses which were constantly and universally, and with a more certain meaning adopted in those times.
Except that perhaps in the alphabets of the [2746] languages which were formed after the times mentioned, and especially of the northern ones, there remained some vestige of the barbarous use of compound characters, which is probably the origin of W, of Ç, etc.
In Oriental alphabets, northern ancient, etc. (some of which therefore are enormously abundant in characters, which by our writers are improperly called letters, like Sanskrit, which has more than 50), are found very many characters which represent two, three, four, or even more elementary sounds joined together. Which characters must not be considered synchronous with the invention or adoption of those alphabets, but as nexuses rising out of the haste and ease of use of the scribes, and afterward accepted readily as simple characters (though so numerous) in the alphabets of languages whose grammars and orthographic rules either did not exist, or arose late, or are not sufficiently fixed, firm, certain, established, invariable, or sufficiently precise, detailed, determined, exact, particular, distinct, or sufficiently known and universally adopted [2747] in the respective nation, or have achieved these qualities late. And I say late, with respect to the greater or lesser antiquity of writing and literature in those nations. In some of them they are much more ancient than in the Greek nation, such as Sanskrit writing and literature among the Indians.
Nevertheless this prodigious multiplicity of characters representing compound sounds arises in a number of the alphabets mentioned because of the absence in them, totally or in part, of sounds which represent the simple sounds of speech. Such an absence, which is the greatest imperfection there can be in an alphabet, necessarily and immediately causes an absolute and indeterminate multiplicity of signs in that very alphabet. But this absence and imperfection is not indeed a proof that those alphabets have a different origin from that of European alphabets. That absence and imperfection, and the multiplicity [2748] of characters which derives from it, and the use of signs representing compound sounds, are all qualities which are inevitable in the primitive alphabet. Because man only reaches the simple and the elements by degrees, indeed these are the last things he reaches, and in reaching them he achieves the greatest possible perfection of his ideas in any field. Now no human thing is perfect at its beginning, and especially such a difficult and abstruse invention as was that of the alphabet. It was no small thing, in fact it was supremely wonderful to think up the idea of applying the signs of writing to the sounds of words, instead of applying them to things and ideas, as happened in primitive writing and in hieroglyphics, as the Mexicans did in their picture writings, as savages do, and the Chinese. Once this wonderful thought had been conceived, which was the origin of the alphabet, this thought, which I say has been unique in the world, that is conceived by a single man (and in this sense I maintain [2749] that the origin of all alphabets has a single origin), needed much more time, and a long time had to pass by, and many attempts had to be made, and many alphabets had to come into use among various nations, before man reached the point of being able to distinguish the truly simple sounds of speech, that is those of which were composed all the other sounds which formed words. But in the beginning, and proportionately in successive periods, until that point was reached, many compound sounds must have seemed very simple and incapable of being broken down. The number of these, and of the signs intended to represent them, and therefore of the characters of the alphabet, must have been constantly shrinking as man arrived closer and closer to the discovery of the pure elements of sounds. But in this interval the alphabets being used must have had many characters, because these represented compound sounds. Not all nations were able to profit from the discovery which was eventually made of truly simple sounds. Those in whose usage an alphabet was already [2750] confirmed which was to a greater or lesser degree composed of signs which represented more or less multiple sounds, those where writing was already common, those especially which had a literature, all of these must have preserved their alphabet, either as it was, or somewhat simplified, because usage defeats all reason. (Suffice it to observe that China, where the use of writing was perhaps introduced or widespread first among other nations, could not or would not even accept the use of the alphabet absolutely.) Thus the Phoenician alphabet, and the European alphabets which derived from it, became more perfect, while many Oriental, etc., languages remained in a state of imperfection, and this in them became deep-rooted and stayed so in perpetuity until the modern day.
It can be seen from what has been said above, that I distinguish two epochs in which the use of characters representing compound sounds must have been introduced into the various alphabets. The first before the perfecting of the alphabet, the other after its complete perfection. [2751] In one and the other epoch (especially however in the first) these characters greatly contributed to distinguish the alphabet of one nation from that of another, although all alphabets derived from a single origin. Better still, when one speaks of the intrinsic and essential differences of the various alphabets (that is of those that do not exist in the form of characters, etc.), this is perhaps their principal cause. (3–4 June 1823.) It is very easy to recognize the compound characters belonging to the second epoch from those of the first, by examining whether or not they are to be found in the alphabet from which the alphabet in question more or less immediately derives. If they are not found, it is a sign that they belong to the second epoch. Just as, since in the Phoenician alphabet, from which Greek comes, the compound or double ψ, φ, χ, ω, ξ, are not to be found, it is a sign that these belong to the second epoch, in the way which has been demonstrated above. However, this is not always a sure sign, since a nation even in that first stage of imperfection of the alphabet could [2752] have adopt
ed compound characters which are not found in that alphabet from which its own derives, and have adopted them for various reasons, such as particular needs of its language, for which the characters which were enough for the other were not enough, or some of them were superfluous or served no purpose, while others were lacking. The true, intrinsic, and essential difference between the compound characters of the first epoch and those of the second, is that the former are the direct children of the sounds, that is, devised to represent the sounds directly, while the latter are children of other characters, that is, devised to represent two or more already existing and known characters, and thus are the grandchildren of the sounds. (4 June 1823.)
For p. 2739, end. In spring there is no doubt that life in nature is greater, or, if nothing else, the feeling of life is greater, because of the diminution and lethargy of feeling brought on by the cold, and the contrast between the new feeling, or between its return, and the habitual behavior contracted in the winter.1 This increase of life [2753] (let us call it this) is common in that season, both to plants and animals, and to men and especially to young individuals, both in the species mentioned and in the human. Now undoubtedly there is no one, the young if no other, who at that season is not more discontented with his state and with himself than at other times of the year (speaking in the abstract and in general, without respect to particular circumstances, or rather, circumstances being equal). So much so that the feeling of unhappiness increases or lessens in direct proportion to the feeling of life, and the increase of the latter is inseparable from the increase of the former. (4 June 1823.) See p. 2926, end. So a particular misfortune operates with greater effect and a more distressing impression on a strong and lively temperament, and casts it down more than it does a weak temperament, contrary to what may appear to be the case, and what the common people believe and say. And the reason for this is not, as people usually say, the greater resistance which a strong temperament [2754] puts up against misfortune and anguish, but the greater degree of life, and therefore the greater intensity of self-love and the greater desire of happiness, which arises from greater vigor. Resignation has no part to play here, or rather it is no more than feeling suffering less. If suffering brought about something like havoc in ancient man, as it does in the savage, if the ancients, as today the savages, were driven by misfortune to frenzy and fury, to perpetrate cruelty on their own bodies, to swooning, to the complete exhaustion of forces, to the deterioration of health, to infirmity, to voluntary or natural death, this did not proceed, as is said, from not being used to suffering. What living man is not habituated to suffer? But it proceeded from the greater vigor of body which was in the ancients and is in savages, when compared with modern and civilized people. And perhaps this, rather than being less habituated, is the cause of the young being more sensitive [2755] to misfortunes and more susceptible to suffering than the old, or this is certainly in very great part its cause. Especially when one observes that this difference can also be found in young people who are very accustomed to calamities, and extremely well informed, through what they have learned, about how much one has to suffer in this life, and the old, accustomed always to having everything their own way, are most ignorant, and totally convinced that this earth is the most fortunate habitation in the world, and that life is the supreme good of men. (4 June 1823.)
Zibaldone Page 196
