Positivized diminutives. Corbeau, corbin from corvus [crow]. (11 Dec. 1823.)
Greek positivized diminutives. θηρίον [animal], βιβλίον [book], σιτίον [corn, bread] with their derivations. See others which perhaps are also, at least sometimes, positivized, in Weller’s Grammar, Leipzig 1756, p. 82, with their derivatives or compounds, etc. (12 Dec. 1823.)
In Homer everything is vague,2 everything is supremely poetic, using the term in its fullest truth and rightness and force and extent, starting from the person and his history, all of which is enveloped and buried in mystery, as well as the supreme antiquity and distance and difference between his times and later ones and especially our own, and becoming greater by degrees (since he is not only the most ancient writer who has come down to us, but the most ancient monument of profane antiquity, the most ancient part of antiquity that survives), which in itself contributes so much to stimulate the imagination. Homer himself is a vague, and hence poetic, idea. So much so that there have been doubts and still are as to whether he has ever truly been anything other than an idea. (12 Dec. 1823.) Which doubt, [3976] a very foolish one though held by very serious men,1 I mention only as an indication of what I am saying. (12 Dec. 1823.)
There is no poetry proper to our times but the melancholic, nor any other tone of poetry but this, whatever the poem is about.2 If there is any true poet today, if he ever truly feels some poetic inspiration, and composes poetry in his head, or decides to write on some subject or other, whatever the cause of the inspiration mentioned is, it is certainly melancholic, and the tone which the poet naturally takes either with himself or with others in following this inspiration (and without inspiration there is no poetry worthy of the name) is melancholic. Whatever the poet’s practice, nature, circumstances, etc., as long as he is part of a civilized nation, this is what happens, and as it happens to him so it does to another who may have nothing else in common with him than this alone, etc. The exact opposite was the case among the ancients. The natural tone which their lyre produced was that of joy or strength, solemnity, etc. Their poetry was dressed for the feast, even, in a way, when the subject obliged it to be sad. What does this mean? Either that the ancients had fewer real misfortunes than we do (and this may not be true),3 or that they felt them less and recognized them less, which means much the same, and gives the same result, that is that the ancients were therefore less unhappy than the moderns. And among the ancients I also place Ariosto, in due proportion, etc.4 (12 Dec. 1823.)
[3977] For p. 3927. This incalculable multiplicity of causes and effects, etc., in the moral world should neither appear absurd or difficult to admit nor astonish anyone who considers how it is evidently and equally infinite and incalculable in the physical world. Neither medicine, nor physiology, nor physics, nor chemistry, nor any other even more exact and more material science which deals with the more tangible and less abstruse parts and effects of nature (see the following page) can ever specify or calculate even approximately, except in a very broad way, either the number or level and the greater or lesser quantity, or all the relationships, etc., between the infinite differences of effects which according to the infinite combinations and mutual relations, etc., and mutual influences and passions, etc., which can and effectively do take place, result from causes, even the most simple, the fewest and most limited, which the said sciences assign; or the infinite modifications to which the said causes, according to those combinations, are susceptible, and to which they are effectively subject. And this notwithstanding, at least in very great part, doubt cannot be cast on those causes, and from the stated impossibility of specifying and calculating exactly and fully no one can decide that these causes are not the true ones, and very many of them are evident and before our very eyes, and so also their mode of action, their relationships with their effects, etc., which however are no more calculable nor countable. It is sufficient to observe the causes and effects which act and take place in the human body, the infinite diversities and also the contradictions that through often imperceptible differences of combinations take place in the accidents and passions of the body itself even in individuals who are very similar, at the same time, in circumstances which can appear greatly similar, [3978] in the same individual, etc. See p. 3990. Nor for all that can one cast doubt on those causes, as long however, etc., nor does one cast doubt on, nor condemn those systems and those methods, etc., than which, insofar as this particular is concerned, no better one could be thought of or used. (12 Dec. 1823.)
For the preceding page. —no part, no system of those sciences, even the most proven, no order, no method of writing about them, however effective, careful, meticulous, highly ordered, and diligent, can do so if those sciences or systems do not figure to themselves and assume, determine, fashion, and circumscribe their subjects and their true and imaginary qualities in their own way, as do the mathematical sciences and, e.g., mechanics in the consideration of their physical forces and their effects.
Sciences and systems can only proceed by means of paradigms and examples, by assuming such and such subjects of such and such qualities in such and such circumstances, etc., or else by generalizing, whether by passing from these particular examples to the universality of the subjects which are in some way different, and of the different combinations, both in causes and in effects; or whether in some other guise. And they are all obliged to behave more or less as mathematical sciences do, which in order to consider the effects of forces, assume bodies which are perfectly hard, and perfectly smooth, and the absence of the medium, that is, the vacuum, etc.; and likewise the indivisible point, etc. (12 Dec. 1823.) See Thomas, Éloge de Descartes, Oeuvres, Amsterdam 1774, tome 4, pp. 47–48.1
Positivized diminutives. Grappo–grappolo [bunch]. French grappe. (13 Dec. 1823.)
Fusa and fusi [spindles] plural Latin substantives of which elsewhere [→Z 1180–82]. So locus–loci and loca [places]. Which is a sign of an ancient locum. So fusa from a fusum. [3979] So, I believe, other nouns exist which have different genders either in both singular and plural or in just one of them, with no difference in meaning. So caelus from which caeli, and caelum which today has no plural since the singular of caelus is obsolete. (14 Dec. 1823.)
On how many men in the sixteenth century, though learned and serious, believed that Italian language and literature should not and could not go beyond the bounds fixed for them by the 3 famous writers of the fourteenth century, or rather by just Petrarch and Boccaccio, nor beyond their words and phrases and devices and styles, and the garb which they had given to both the language and the literature, etc., on which elsewhere [→Z 2515–17, 2533–40, 2723–24], see Speroni’s “Dialogo della retorica,” Dialoghi, Venice 1596, pp. 147–50, pp. 157, end–158, beginning, p. 162, near the end. (14 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3940. It does not always use the i, however. Sometimes it uses the same vowel which is the first one of the doubled word, as in κάρχαρος [jagged] from χαράσσω [to sharpen] (where there is also the ρ added, καρ), and I think in many other cases. Perhaps it uses other vowels too, and other ways of duplication. But one such way is certainly the one above, that is the first consonant of the doubled word, and an i, and this is regular, and perhaps the most frequent and regular and uniform, etc. (14 Dec. 1823.) And who can say as well whether that κάρχαρος actually has the etymology which they attribute to it, etc. And the form of the doubled word, that is χάρος is very irregular as far as its derivation from χαράσσω is concerned, if this is true, etc. Whereas the forms of words that are doubled with i (like τιτρώσκω [to damage]) are regular, etc. (14 Dec. 1823.) See pp. 3989, 3994, 4009, paragraph 8.
In relation to the negative or privative particle ne or nec for non, on which elsewhere [→Z 2306ff., 3897], examine all the words in Forcellini [3980] beginning especially with ne, and so also in Scapula the words beginning especially with νη and νε. (14 Dec. 1823.)
Genou seems to be from genu [knee], as elsewhere [→Z 3617–18].
But agenouiller is from a diminutive genouille. Not diminutive in French but made from a Latin diminutive form. But see p. 3991, paragraph 1 and p. 3985, beginning. See p. 3955. I find in Don Quixote finojo for ginocchio, a word which seems to me antiquated in an affected way, like many others, to counterfeit the language of the ancient books of Chivalry, and it is placed in the mouth of Sancho. Anyway it shows that ancient Spanish too (unless of course the word is taken from Italian) used the diminutive of genu in a positive sense and instead of the Latin positive. The word referred to is in Part 1 of Don Quixote, bk. 4, ch. 31, p. 343, Antwerp edition, 1697, tome 1. (14 Dec. 1823.) See p. 3983.
For p. 3964, beginning. Catar from which comes recatar (to hide), if it is not in fact from captare [to strive to seize], which I do not believe, will be from catus, which is from caveo [to be on one’s guard], and therefore almost cautar and a continuative of caveo. Cata (gare, watch out!) is properly equivalent to cave. (14 Dec. 1823.)
Participles used as adjectives. Catus, cautus [careful]. See Forcellini (14 Dec. 1823.)
French orthography was from the beginning and for a long time proportionately much more similar to Latin writing than it is today, and indeed it is getting ever and ever further away from it and becoming closer to the pronunciation. It was, I say, much more similar, both because so was pronunciation, and because of the inexactness and Latinism which are common to all modern orthographies, as elsewhere in several places [→Z 1659–60, 2458–63, 2884–85, 3683, 3959–60]. Now, if by altering its pronunciation and correcting the barbarous Latinism of its orthography, French writing has changed [3981] not insignificantly, why should it not be completely changed so that it conforms in every way to current French pronunciation as it actually is, and give up completely the Latin form of written words insofar as it is different from the form of those words as pronounced, and also give up taking any heed of Latin at all? If that has not already happened, and will not happen, it means that French orthography is not yet nor ever will be perfect, nor entirely rectified, and on the contrary is very imperfect and incorrect. But in Spanish and especially Italian orthography the opposite has happened and continues to happen (always conforming to the new way of pronunciation, or conforming to the pronunciation where ancient orthography did not so conform, as, e.g., today everyone writes ispirare [to inspire] and the like, where all the ancients wrote inspirare, whether they pronounced it like that, or they were Latinizing in this way of writing), and these orthographies are therefore perfect, or almost so, and certainly nearer to perfection than French is. It is not the same in English, in German, etc., which are therefore imperfect like French, but perhaps less so, because from the beginning they did not have the opportunity nor the means of looking to Latin, with which their languages have no connection, especially German, or certainly they looked to it less, and therefore had less cause to separate themselves from the pronunciation and real form of words which is proper to their language, and to go beyond the bounds and true propriety of the latter, etc. (14 Dec. 1823.)
[3982] For p. 3964. The Ionian Anacreon wrote in Ionic, mingled however, according to the common way of speech of the learned, and tempered with other dialects (especially Doric), in the same way as Homer. See Fabricius and the preface to Anacreon by De Rogati,1 etc. (14 Dec. 1823.) See the following page.
For p. 3965. Although the common dialect and national literature had come into being and been established and formed and Attic had in fact been given preeminence, those who came later (such as Abydenus, Arrian in the Indica, Theocritus, etc.)2 wrote in their own particular dialects or foreign ones, because they had been ennobled by celebrated authors who had used them when there was not yet a common dialect, or one that was not well formed or firmly applied and adequately adjusted to literature. This bad habit never took hold in Italy, with the exception of a few minor writers who (like Theocritus, etc.) never became national, and whose judgment was poor, because good writers were not given to writing in any but the common language. And this was so because the particular dialects had not had the good fortune to be ennobled by any outstanding author (although they had many authors) before the formation, etc., of the common language and literature. (In any case it does not appear that serious works written in particular dialects, except in Attic, after the coming into being, etc., of the common language, had much fortune or fame even in Greece, nor that the authors were truly great or outstanding. Lucian, De scribenda historia, mocks one of his contemporaries3 who had written in Ionic dialect, as he also mocked the affected Atticism of others. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a compatriot of Herodotus, wrote both history and other things in the Attic or common dialect.) [3983] Rather, regarding Tuscan considered as a particular dialect, Italy is like Greece and its proper Attic, by reason of the use made of it by authors, including famous ones, whether native Tuscan and native Attic or foreigners who adopted it for the most part or exclusively, etc. So too in Greece as in Italy this use of a particular dialect, even though ennobled by many writers, etc., and prevalent, etc., instead of the common one, and especially its abuse and affectations, and especially in the non-natives, was derided by the wisest people, etc., although that was more legitimate in Greece than in Italy for many reasons, among which is that Attic dialect properly so called had been used, and was used from time to time by authors who were truly outstanding and supreme, such as Plato, etc. It is not the same, strictly speaking, with proper Tuscan, etc., which is not truly the language even of the great Italian writers, native Tuscans, Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, nor of other great Tuscans, etc. (14 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3980. Ancient genouil can be found. See the Dictionaries and see its different derivatives, of which there are many beginning with genouill–, in addition to agenouiller. (14 Dec. 1823.)
For the preceding page, beginning. It is certainly the case, however, that Anacreon comes much closer than Homer, and perhaps more than any other Greek poet, to the common dialect, in fact he departs from it very little either in order to move closer to Ionic (unless his odes have been altered in this matter of the dialects and especially in the orthography proper to them) or to any other dialect. A sign that in his day, although very ancient, the common dialect already existed, through the medium of literature, etc., or rather that the Ionic dialect [3984] (which was probably what later became the common one, and produced Attic, etc., as many learned people believe) was at that period, because the times were closer together (with respect to those of Homer), almost the same as what later became the common dialect, as one can see in Hippocrates, etc. etc. (Except in the resolution of diphthongs, which however are rarely resolved in Anacreon, and when they are resolved, it is clearly for the necessity or the ease of the meter, in which case it is quite natural, and in other similar things that one can describe as having to do with pronunciation. And here too Anacreon is very sparing, except where the use of the verse requires it, so that he makes use of his own dialect and moves away from the common one rather as a poet than as a writer, and as language and poetic license, not as dialect.) (15 Dec. 1823.)
Commeto as [to go to and fro] from commeo for commeato. See Forcellini and what is said elsewhere [→Z 2818–19] about hieto [to gape], etc. (15 Dec. 1823.)
The beautiful not absolute. Very different usages, opinions, tastes, etc., on tresses, both on their style, and on whether to wear them or not, to shave them off, to let them grow down to the ground, down to the shoulders, to the neck, to cut them around the head, etc. etc.,1 among the ancients and the moderns and the various nations, savage, barbarous, civilized, etc. etc. etc., at various times, etc., even equally cultured and of equally good taste, etc. etc. (15 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3939. Similarly too verbal substantives formed from supines like those in us us. Similarly adverbs and all the (not a few) words and types of words which are regularly formed from the regular or irregular supines, in use or not, of verbs. (15 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3969, end. Also our diminution in ello ellare, etc., comes from Latin, and is Latin, and so to
o the Spanish in illo, illar (Latin cantillare [to hum], etc.), etc. (15 Dec. 1823.) So too the French in el, eler or eller (feminine elle), etc. (15 Dec. 1823.) See p. 3991, and the following thought.
I say elsewhere [→Z 2986] that all our diminutive, frequentative, pejorative, etc., verbs are [3985] from the 1st conjugation like the majority of such types in Latin. So too the Spanish and French. E.g., many verbs in ailler, such as ferrailler, tirailler, rimailler, grappiller, folâtrer, etc. (see p. 3980, paragraph 1), babiller. See the preceding thought, etc. (15 Dec. 1823), and p. 3991, paragraph 1.
For p. 3970, beginning. There are still in our languages several simple verbs of which known Latin only has the compounds (and these are, more or less, obviously such, that is compound and not simple, and more or less obviously formed from a simple verb such as the one we have, etc.), and many words which are not present in known Latin, where their derivatives, etc., are present (more or less evidently derived, formed, etc., from words such as the ones we have, etc.). The argument in these cases, especially in the first group (because the compound necessarily assumes the simple), is stronger than ever. (15 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3960, end. Such verbs may be either from meno (or from remeno or remino–rementum: see the following page, etc.) or else from miniscor, reminiscor [to remember], etc., which verbs will have very likely borrowed the supine or participle of meno, etc., according to the usage of inchoative verbs on which elsewhere at length [→Z 3687–93, 3827–28]. I think therefore that rammentare is almost rementare from rementus sum part of reminiscor (which verb today does not have a participle or deponent perfect but rammentare can show it to us) in exactly the same way as commento as [to outline] and commentor aris [to meditate, to deliberate] is from commentus sum part of comminiscor [to contrive] (or else from commentum part of ancient commeno, or from mentum part of meno, with the preposition cum added, etc.). See the Glossary. Ammentare [to remember] is from mentar [to mention] (Spanish), in use once perhaps in Italian as in Spanish with the addition of the a following normal practice in our language (see Monti, Proposta, under ascendere);1 or else from an Adminiscor, etc. [3986] See the Glossary. Mentar from meno or from miniscor. See the Glossary.
Zibaldone Page 282
