Nascere for accadere [to happen] mentioned elsewhere [→Z 4016, 4018, 4026, 4030]. Guicciardini, 3, 255. (2 May 1824, Sunday.)
[4086] Implicito as [to entwine]. See Forcellini. (2 May 1824.)
That continuatives and frequentatives in itare rather than in atare are formed from past participles of the first conjugation is no surprise when you consider Latin regularly changes a to short i, in so many other cases, such as in the compounds (facio [to do] jacio [to throw]–conficio [to put together], conijcio [to throw together], etc.), etc. Moreover in the first conjugation too there are many supines and past participles in ĭtus, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2192–93], like domitus [tamed], etc. (2 May, Sunday, 1824.) Also ae to i. Ae-quus [even, fair] in-i-quus [uneven, unfair].
En tanto que [Insofar as]. Don Quixote, Madrid 1765, tome 4, pp. 325–34, several times. (4 May 1824.)
The verb stare [to stand] which is so closely related to the verb esse [to be] in usage, in meaning, sometimes synonymous, etc., that in Italian it provides the participle for the defective verb essere, and is often used also, as it is in Spanish as well, in place of this verb, etc., does not have however the slightest grammatical relation to it, except see my observation [→Z 1120–21, 2142–45, 2780ff.], which has it derive from an ancient participle or supine of sum. Similarly in Greek ἵστημι [to cause to stand], στάω, etc., which in themselves and in their compounds and derivatives, and in the Latin sisto which comes from them, and its compounds, like exsisto [to appear suddenly, to spring forth], subsisto [to stand still], exsistentia, etc., and the word ὑπόστασις (substantia, subsistentia, etc.), are closely related to the verb essere, but do not have any grammatical relation to it, with the exception of my observation which has it derive from the Latin sto [to stand], derived from sum. The compounds and the derivatives of sto as well (like exsto, exstantia, substantia, substantivus, substo, etc. etc.) show in their meaning, etc., a very close relation to the verb essere. (4 May 1824.)
[4087] Gomire–Vomire [to vomit]. Crusca. (6 May 1824.) Golpe [blight] with its derivatives, compounds, etc.
Gomita plural of gomito [elbow]. (6 May 1824.)
Fello–fellico as, fellito as [to suck]. (7 May 1824.)
En tanto que [meanwhile]. Don Quixote, Madrid 1765, tome 4, p. 315, title. (9 May, Sunday, 1824.) ᾿Εν τοσούτῳ [meanwhile]. Lucian, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 777, end.
Enquérir [to inquire], s’enquérir (inquirere, enquirir, inchiedere)–enquêter, s’enquêter (like inquisitare, inchiestare), enquête [inquiry] (inchiesta, like requête richiesta), enquêteur [inquirer] (inquisitor, inchieditore) enquérant, participle enquis. Refer to what I said elsewhere [→Z 2200–204, 2893–95] about quaeritare, quaesitus, quisto, etc. (10 May 1824.)
There is perhaps nothing which consumes and shortens or makes our life more unhappy in the future as much as pleasures do. And on the other hand life is meant only for pleasure, since it is meant only for happiness, which consists in pleasure, and without it life is imperfect, because it lacks the fulfillment of its purpose, and is continual suffering, because it is naturally and necessarily one continual and never interrupted desire and need for happiness, that is for pleasure. Who can explain this contradiction in nature to me?1 (11 May 1824.)
The infinitive in place of the imperative, of which I have spoken elsewhere [→Z 2686–87, 3967], is used in Greek principally with the negative, which corresponds to the Italian usage. See for example several pseudo-oracles in lines in Lucian’s Pseudomantis, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 765, lines 14, 28, 778, end, in two of which references note the nominative with the infinitive, as in Italian. (12 May 1824.)
[4088] Bien razonado, that is que razona bien [who argues well]. Cervantes, Novelas exemplares, Milan 1615, p. 2. (13 May 1824.)
Malheureux for scellerato [wicked] and worse still, that is with disdain added. Add to what I said elsewhere on this subject [→Z 3343]. (14 May 1824.)
Affidé that is fidato for fido, fedele [faithful]. Add to what I said elsewhere on adjectival and nominal participles [→Z 3810, 3897, 3938, 3949, 3970–71, 4062], since even affidé is sometimes a noun. (14 May 1824.)
To the frequentatives in esso noted elsewhere [→Z 3869, 3900, 3904] add petesso or petisso from peto, on which see Forcellini adding to his examples two that are found in the long fragment in Cicero’s “De meo consulatu,” which is in the first book of De divinatione,1 which examples show as well the frequentative force of petesso. (15 May 1824.)
In the fragments of poems by Cicero especially in those of his translations from Aratos, which are mostly known to us from his quotations, as in the books of De divinatione, etc., compounds are extremely abundant, particularly those formed from several nouns, in the Greek manner (like mollipes [soft-footed]), many of which, if not most, must be without previous example, and show they were coined by him from the example of the Greek, and perhaps precisely in order to correspond to the ones he was translating. (15 May 1824.)
“Εὐθὺς ἐν ἀρχῇ τοῦ λόγου” [“right at the beginning of the discourse”]. Lucian, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 887. (15 May 1824.)
Positivized diminutives. Ranunculus (hence ranocchio, grénouille [frog], etc., mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2282]). See its definition in Forcellini. (15 May 1824.)
[4089] To the compounds of jugare [to join] noted elsewhere [→Z 2814], add seiugare, that is seiungere [to disjoin, to separate]. (17 May 1824.)
Clepo is psi ptum–κλέπτω, as if clepto as from cleptum out of clepo [to steal]. The case is very similar to that of apo–aptum–apto–ἅπτω [to fasten, to fit] discussed at length elsewhere [→Z 2136–40], except that clepto is unknown in Latin (it is however very likely), and vice versa clepo is more known and certain than apo, although likewise archaic. There is clepso is as well, if it is true. See Forcellini. (17 May 1824.) See p. 4115.
The Spanish diminutive form in ico ica must come from the Latin iculus, icula, iculum, as I said elsewhere about other Spanish, Italian, French diminutives. [→Z 3514–15] (17 May 1824.)
Cosa that is causa for res [thing]. A usage found in all three daughter languages. See if Forcellini has anything on Causa; the Glossary, etc. Causa is said very often in Italian and in French as well, etc., for res, as la causa pubblica [the state], in causa propria [on one’s own behalf], giovava alla sua causa (rei suae or rebus suis) [it helped his cause (his case or his affairs)], and this kind of expression is frequent in Guicciardini. (17 May 1824.) See p. 4294.
Premo–pressum–presser, pressare [to press] with its derivatives. Add it to what I said elsewhere [→Z 1108, 2843] about the compounds oppressare, soppressare [to oppress], etc., and see the Spanish. (17 May 1824.)
Marceo [to wither] ancient marcitum; marcire marcito; Spanish marchito–marchitarse, marchitable. (18 May 1824.)
Αὐτίκα in the same way and with the same meaning as Spanish luego, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2865–66, 4026]. Lucian, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 897. “ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν ἐυθὺ τοῦ βίου” [“right at the beginning of the life”]. Ibid. (18 May 1824.)
[4090] Altro [Other] for niuno [no, any], mentioned elsewhere [Z 4000, 4010–11]. Senz’altro mezzo [Without any way]. Speroni, Dialoghi, Venice 1596, p. 275, toward the end. (20 May 1824.) In Petrarch, Canzone “Una donna più bella,” etc., stanza 3, “Altro volere o disvoler m’è tolto” [“I cannot wish or not wish anything”];1 altro stands for alcuna cosa, nulla, quidquam [something, nothing, anything]. (21 May 1824.)
We find fault with man who is never content with his state. But actually this does not mean that his nature is unable to be content, rather that it is incapable of being happy. If the poor man, the rich man, the king, the subject were truly happy, they all would be equally content with their state, and man would be as content as any other creature can be, because he is just as able to be content. (20 May 1824.)
Rodo–rosum–rosicchiare, rosecchiare, rosicare [to nibble] (vulgar). Frequentative or diminutive. (20 May 1824.)
; For p. 4081. Man would be omnipotent if he could be desperate the whole of his life, or at least for a long time, that is, if his desperation were a state that could last. (21 May 1824.)
We have seen elsewhere [→Z 1659–60, 2458–63, 2869ff., 2884–85, 3683, 3959–60, 3964] how the irregularity and palpable faults in foreign spellings come mostly from wanting to accommodate their written language to Latin. Now it is curious though that foreigners then want to pronounce Latin writing the way they pronounce their own. The latter does not correspond to the way the word is pronounced because they wanted to use the Latin spelling, and they want then to pronounce Latin words [4091] with the same difference from the way they are written as they use in pronouncing their own words, because those are written badly. But if they are written badly, the Latin ones are written well, so they should be pronounced as they are written and not in any other way. And it is clear that foreigners do not recall that it is just because they wanted to use the Latin forms that their pronunciation is different from what they write, and that the origin of the difference between their written and spoken language, and of their false spelling, was because they wanted to write the Latin forms while pronouncing them another way, and they wanted physically to follow Latin writing, not a false one, but the true one. Now having wanted wrongly to take Latin writing as their model, and so having written their own language falsely, they claim then for that very reason that Latin writing is as false as their own, and that theirs is wrong because they follow the Latin; which is very witty of them. (21 May 1824.) Then those who have not taken their spelling from the Latins (although all have taken it directly or indirectly to some degree), and those who have, on those occasions when what they write does not derive from Latin, but is still clearly faulty, because it is aberrant to their own alphabet, leaves out letters and syllables which should be pronounced, writes others that should not be; however does it happen, I ask, that these people come to believe that Latin writing is both faulty because theirs is, and also marked by those very faults which their own language has, which are very different in each of them, so that every foreign nation pronounces Latin differently? (21 May 1824.)
[4092] For p. 4064. From this line of reasoning it follows that most animals (since the natural life of man is one of the longest, and the development of his body one of the slowest) are also for this reason naturally happier than we are, the more so the more rapid their development is, which is in direct proportion to the brevity of their life, because Buffon observes that life is all the more short the more rapid the growth of the animal (he is talking about the genus, and often even individuals in each genus), the growth of his body and faculties, consequently his animal functions, and his reaching a state of perfection and maturity; and vice versa. The same may be said of women, in proportion, etc. This is observed at least in almost all genera even vegetable ones. (Buffon, in the chapter, unless I am mistaken, “On Old Age.”)1 Hence it is that horses for example, and then by degrees the others as they develop more rapidly, right down to those insects who live no longer than a day (see my “Dialogo d’un Fisico e di un Metafisico”)2 are all by degrees more and more naturally disposed to happiness than man is, despite the fact that the brevity of their life is in the same proportion. Whether it is short or long does not add or take away and does not change anything as far as the happiness of any genus of animal is concerned (or any individual either), as I have shown in the above mentioned dialogue and in the thought to which this refers. (21 May 1824.)
[4093] Le mulina [mills]. Crusca and Guicciardini, tome 3, p. 361 twice. (23 May, Sunday, 1824.)
Positivized diminutives. Sciurus–écureuil [squirrel] (ancient escureuil from sciuriculus or another similar word), schiratto (Pozzi in the Bertoldo; we also say the vulgar schiriatto) diminutive or pejorative, scoiatto (Pulci in the Crusca), scoiattolo supradiminutive, or suprapejorative. The Spanish harda, hardilla. (23 May, Sunday, 1824.)
En tanto in Spanish (mentioned elsewhere [→Z 4061, 4082, 4086, 4087]) either often or always means infino a tanto [until] as in Cervantes’s Novelas exemplares, p. 79, edition cited several thoughts above [→Z 4088]. (23 May, Sunday, 1824.) Likewise our mentre for finché.
Retinere for ricordarsi [to remember], as in Italian, etc., ritenere. Likewise its continuative retentare also stands expressly for ricordarsi in a passage in Cicero De divinatione, bk. 2, ch. 29,1 translated from Homer, for which see, Iliad 2, l. 301. (23 May 1824, Sunday.)
Inconsideratus for non considerans, qui considerare non solet [inconsiderate, who usually does not consider]. See Forcellini and Cicero De divinatione 2, ch. 27.2 Likewise consideratus in the opposite sense. See Forcellini. (23 May, Sunday, 1824.)
Ciĕo, cies cīvi cĭtum [to move] (different from cio iis īvi itum [to move]) with its compounds, add to the verbs of the second conjugation which have a perfect in vi, and the supine in short itum, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 3702ff., 3853–54, 3872]. Neo nes nevi netum [to spin]. And see Forcellini on cieo end. (27 May, Ascension Day, 1824.)
[4094] Periurus [perjured] seems to be a contraction of periuratus or peieratus which are still found, although in another sense (for peiero one said periero and periuro as well). Likewise iuratus, coniuratus, etc., in analogous senses. Exanimus and inanimus must be contractions of exanimatus and inanimatus, which are still found. Similarly semianimus from semianimatus from the simple animatus. Innumerus must be a contraction of innumeratus from the simple numeratus, with the meaning of innumerabilis [innumerable], like invictus for invincibilis [invincible] and so many other similar words, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 3949, 4016]; and see Forcellini under illaudatus. These contractions may be added to what was said [→Z 2757–58] about inopinus, necopinus, etc., where it is shown that in Latin too there was the custom of contracting the participle of the first conjugation by taking away the letters at, a custom very frequent in Italian, even in words which are not at all Latin in origin. (27–28 May 1824.)
Not only did the ancients have such a high idea of human nature that they esteemed it little lower than the divine, as I said elsewhere [→Z 3494–97, 3544–45, 4048, 4050, 4076] speaking about the demigods, but they also thought that our souls were related to, emanations of, parts of the divinity, divine themselves, and almost like gods (τὸ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῖον [the divine which is in us]). On this opinion, which was not at all the popular one, but instead proper to philosophers, and these many and very different, see among the thousands of passages in the ancients, Cicero, De divinatione, bk. 1, ch. 30, 49; bk. 2, ch. 11, 58. Virgil, Georgics, bk. 4, ll. 219ff. and Servius’s gloss,1 etc. (28 May 1824.) Cicero De natura deorum, bk. 1, ch. 11, 12. See too ibid., ch. 53, end, 62, beginning.
[4095] Greek positivized diminutives. κυψέλη–κυψέλιον, κυψελὶς ίδος. See Scapula and Lucian in Lexiphanes, p. 2.1 (29 May 1824.)
There was someone who used to compare human pleasures to an artichoke, saying that you should nibble and swallow all of its leaves before you bite into its heart. And also that there was a very great dearth of these artichokes, and most of them didn’t have a heart. And he added that since he did not want to get used to just nibbling at leaves he had contented himself and was content not to taste any hearts.2 (30 May, Sunday, 1824.)
He used to liken any (He used to compare every) human pleasure to an artichoke saying that you need to nibble at it and gulp down all its leaves if you want to get to bite into its heart, and that there is a very great dearth of these artichokes, and most of them as well are just leaves without a heart. And he added that not being able to get used to just swallowing leaves, etc. (31 May 1824.)
῎Ετι γὰρ τοῦτό μοι τὸ λοιπὸν ἦν ci mancherebbe altro [that’s all we need!]. A common idiom in Greek and Italian. Lucian, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 787, beginning. See if Crusca and Forcellini have anything under supersum [to be superfluous]. —παρ' ὅσον in quanto che [insofar as]. See Lucian, ibid., p. 786, and Scapula, etc., a common expression too, on which or something similar I h
ave also spoken elsewhere [→Z 4035]. (31 May 1824.)
Positivized diminutives. See Creuzer, Meletemata e disciplina antiquitatis, Leipzig 1817ff., § 3, p. 112, line 328, p. 130, lines 23–24, where he is mistaken in supposing it is necessary, because [4096] such nouns as these are not always diminutives, as I have shown elsewhere [→Z 3875, 3937] with the example iaculum [dart, javelin], speculum [mirror], etc. (1 June 1824.)
Sisto [to cause to stand] instead of coming from Greek ἱστάω, as is thought and I have said elsewhere [→Z 2143–45, 2779–80], could well come from sto [to stand] through duplication, which was not unknown to the Romans either (and very widely used by the Greeks), especially in ancient times, as I have shown elsewhere [→Z 2774, 2811, 3940–41] with the example of titillo [to tickle] from τίλλω, and of the perfects cecidi, etc. etc. And the change of the conjugation from the first to the third would be just like compounds in do (mentioned elsewhere as well [→Z 2772]), another monosyllable like sto. And as far as meaning and usage are concerned, etc., who cannot see the analogy between sto and sisto? (1 June 1824.)
There was someone who used to say that it was incorrect to make the common affirmation that it takes no more than appearance, e.g., for a man of letters to be esteemed, even though he may lack substance. Now appearance not only suffices, it is the only thing that suffices, and it is necessary and all that is necessary. Because substance without appearance makes no impression at all and achieves nothing and appearance with substance does not do anything or achieve anything more than without it. So you see that substance is pointless, and it all has to do only with appearance.1 (1 June 1824.)
Anyone who wants to see the difference between ancient and modern philosophy, and what we can expect from the latter, let him consider both on the throne, that is, ἐξουσίαν λαβούσας [endowed with power], [4097] which those who philosophize in private cannot aspire to. Now if it is true that the quality of anything can never be better or more truly known than by its effects, we ought to judge the two philosophies from the effects of philosopher princes rather than from private philosophers, who necessarily have more words than effects, or weaker effects, and more desires and projects than implementations, because what they want, especially when it comes to important and relevant matters, they are not able to do. Compare then Marcus Aurelius and Frederick, both, it can be said, perfect in their respective philosophies, both philosophers in words and deeds, and acting in accordance with their precepts. And you will find that the former who lived in a century inclining to barbarism was the father of his people and an example of every kind of moral virtue even for private individuals and for all ages. The latter who lived in a highly civilized century was as much a despot as it was possible to be, the coldest of egoists toward his people, the most indifferent to their welfare and only caring for his own, used to and always intent on putting the latter before the former, showing, as I say, utter contempt in all he did, and partly also said, for morality insofar as it is morality, for virtue insofar as it is virtue, and for justice insofar as it is justice. He was in fact, if not the most corrupt (since his corruption was not calculated), certainly the least virtuous prince of his age, and perhaps of all ages, because while not having any of the virtues which derive, or rather which derived from strength of mind, he lacked even those that come from weakness (like those of Louis XV). He was strangely disaffected from his country, for which he was [4098] bitterly reproached by the Germans, including Klopstock, decidedly enamored of foreign things, and accustomed in his affections, his inclinations, and deeds to putting foreigners before his own people.1 (1 June 1824.)
Zibaldone Page 294
