Zibaldone
Page 326
*“Monsieur Letronne (‘New examination of the Greek inscription placed in the temple of Talmis in Nubia by the Nubian king Silko’”*a—inscription already described earlier by Niebuhr, Inscriptiones Nubienses, Rome 1820—*“Journal des Savans, 1825) then examines why Greek is used in the inscription, which he explains by the introduction (among the Nubians) of the holy books and liturgies written in that language. In effect, the very style of the inscription, its biblical, Byzantine, and modern Greek turns of phrase, prove quite clearly that the Greek language was only used in this part of the world after, or rather as a consequence of the introduction of the Christian religion.… Of all the pagan Greek inscriptions examined [4365] by Monsieur Letronne, not one has been found beyond the limits of the Roman empire: once that line is crossed, everything written in Greek expresses Christian ideas. Thus, having proved” (contrary to the opinion of Niebuhr) “with a host of philological comparisons on the style of the inscription that it belonged to a Christian king, Monsieur Letronne then proves that … it is only due to Christianity that the Greek language is known in these parts.”* Bulletin de Férussac, loc. cit. at p. 4312, Jan. 1826, tome 5, art. 36, pp. 40–41. Another means by which the Greek language gained universality in those times. The inscription, according to Letronne, is no earlier than around the middle of the 6th century. Niebuhr, who considers it to be pagan, places it at the end of the 3rd century. (2 Sept. 1828.) See p. 4471.
For p. 4336, margin. I also find among the rustic writers caallo [horse], portaa for portava [carried], and so forth, ad infinitum. This is also where the imperfect dicea, sentia, etc., come from, for diceva [said], etc., adopted in the written language, but which is never heard except in Tuscan. Va’hia for vai via, i.e., va via [go away] (imperative): popular Tuscan. (2 Sept. 1828.)
Those who identify allegories in a poem, story, etc., as has been done so often in the past and today with the Iliad and Odyssey, as Tasso himself did in his Gerusalemme liberata, as Rossetti is now doing in his commentary on the Divine Comedy printed in London,1 wanting it all allegorical, the character of Francesca da Rimini allegorical, Ugolino allegorical, etc., destroy the whole interest of the poem, etc. We can find interest in a character whom we know to be completely made up by a poet, dramatist, novelist, etc.; but not in one whom we suppose to be allegorical. Because in that case the falsity, as [4366] we can see for ourselves, is in the very intention of the writer. (2 Sept. 1828.) See p. 4477.
If you take away all beauty from our studies (as is happening at the moment), if you destroy style and literature, and the sense of their value and pleasures, etc. etc., it is not that all pleasure will be taken away from studying, because even simple knowledge, simple truth, any discussion about things, is pleasurable. But you will certainly take away a very large part, perhaps most, of the pleasure they provide; you will greatly reduce the faculty of pleasure that this most beautiful of life’s entertainments affords: you will therefore perform a true disservice, bring about real harm (and not insignificant, by God) to the human race, to civil society.
For p. 4362. *“I think that a second error has already been resolved” (that is, already generally recognized by scholars), “that from a false etymology of the noun ῥαψῳδοῦ [rhapsode] some have inferred that the rhapsodes’ work consisted of excerpting verses from a variety of sources and stitching them together, just as certain holy men made the Homeric centos that still exist—ridiculous pieces of nonsense about the most profound of subjects.”* Wolf, § 23, pp. XCVI–II. Apart from this error (which moreover is common among scholars), the word rhapsodes and rhapsodies alone should have been sufficient to make us aware that the Homeric poems could only be separate songs. Likewise, the constant tradition of antiquity that Homer’s verses were first collected and ordered in their present form by Peisistratus, or on his orders (Wolf, § 33), should have been sufficient to demonstrate both what is stated above, and that Homer and the others did not leave those poems in written form. Yet great perspicacity has been required in order to discover these truths, and courage to advance them, and even Wolf experienced in this respect what still happens in a thousand other circumstances—some of which are far more serious—that men have no difficulty in reconciling, or rather in blindly joining together beliefs and notions [4367] which are incompatible.
For p. 4347. It has been shown that refined, intimate, exquisite pleasure in the arts, or shall we say pleasure in the perfected arts (and among the arts I include literature and poetry), can only be experienced by the knowledgeable, because it is one of those many pleasures in which nature does not provide us with an organ of sense. It is given us by habit, which here consists in study and practice. For ordinary people, who can never have that study and practice, in order to taste the pleasure of the arts it is necessary for those arts to be less perfect. Such pleasure will always be much less than that which the knowledgeable would receive from the perfected arts (what they bring only to the knowledgeable would otherwise not in truth be perfection), and therefore there will be a real loss; but it will be so that the multitude regain the pleasure it has lost, and of which it alone is capable. See p. 4388.
For p. 4357. The story, the novel, etc., are much less alien to a man of genius than drama, which is the most alien of all kinds of literature, because it is that which demands the greatest degree of imitation, the greatest transformation of the author into other individuals, the most entire rejection and most entire divestment of personal identity, which the man of genius holds on to more firmly than anyone else.
For p. 4351. It is also insufficient to say that the language of imagination always precedes that of reason. In our case, in other words in Greece in the times of Solon, and also in the times of Homer himself, which were already very cultured times (and likewise in all cases concerning cultured and literary poetry and prose), the imagination had already given reason all the space [4368] it needed to have a language of its own. (5 Sept. 1828.)
As society becomes more perfect, with the progress of civilization, the masses gain, but individuality is lost. It loses strength, value, perfection, and therefore happiness, and this is the case with the moderns compared to the ancients. This is the view of all modern people of true and genuine wisdom, even the keenest defenders of civilization. Therefore the perfection of man is like that of the Capuchins: the road of penitence.1 (5 Sept. 1828.)
The sayings and responses, etc., that Machiavelli ascribes to Castruccio Castracani (in his Life) are all or almost all exactly the same as Laertius and others attribute to ancient philosophers, changing only the names, the places, etc.2 Besides, Machiavelli knew no Greek, little or no Latin, and was not well versed in letters. It would be no surprise if he had followed a popular tradition which had preserved these sayings, changing the names and attributing them to the national figure of Castruccio, who was known for his particularly sharp and ready wit. The people of Florence still tell various stories about Dante and Machiavelli himself which can be read in ancient Greek and Latin writings, such as that of Aesop who gave a penny to someone who threw a stone, etc., which (with incidental and minor changes) the people of Florence tell about Machiavelli.3 (I was told these things by Forti and Capei.)4 Thus it is not only nations, but also cities, which use facts from other stories, known to the people through ancient oral traditions, and apply them to their own history and characters, and to events and people which are more familiar to them. In Naples, the wisdom and learning of Abelard are still proverbial: [4369] “he knows more than Peter Abelard” (Capei). In any event that book of Machiavelli would still fit my argument very well. See p. 4430.
And the same argument applies to that very ancient use, perpetually continued, of attributing to more famous authors the works of anonymous, or unknown, or minor authors, works, I mean, that belong to a genre in which those authors have excelled, and especially when those authors are models or masters of their kind. Thus the many poems falsely attributed to Homer, moral dialogues, etc., to Plato, philosophical works to Aristotle, oratio
ns to Demosthenes, homilies, scriptural commentaries, etc., to St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc. See pp. 4414, 4416. The more an author is famous and first of his kind, the more abundant is the list of his apocryphal books. It is rare among the ancients, or in the middle ages, for there to be an author who is famous, or recognized as first of his kind or in his century, who is not credited with spurious, apocryphal works, whether existing or lost. The Fathers mentioned above have almost as many as those which are genuine. The same with Plato, etc. Critics are unable to discover the true authors of many of these; other works are found either cited or even in some of their works, with real names, and yet they commonly go under false names, because the real names are of people who are little known.
—*“In the Parisian ms., which is the oldest and the best ms. according to the critics, the work is entitled Διονυσίου Λογγίνου περὶ ὕψους [On the Sublime by Dionysius Longinus] but in the index, which is written in the same hand as the rest of the ms. (which ms. contains, besides, Aristotle’s Problems), it is styled Διονυσίου ἢ Λογγίνου περὶ ὕψους [On the Sublime by Dionysius or Longinus]. The Codex Vaticanus, which is styled by Amati praestantissimus [outstanding], gives the author’s name in the latter form, and in the Laurentian Library ms. the inscription is [4370] ᾿Ανωνύμου περὶ ὕψους [On the Sublime by Anonymous].”*1 Bulletin de Férussac, loc. cit. at p. 4312, tome 8, p. 11, art. 12, 1827, July. —As the author of that treatise was uncertain, ἀνώνυμος, it was described as being by Dionysius of Halicarnassus or Longinus for no other reason than that in post-Classical Greek these were the best known rhetoricians, technicians, leaders in rhetorical form. A fine example of the way in which such attributions were carried out: either Dionysius or Longinus, almost as if there were some analogy between the writing of Dionysius, a 1st-century writer, and that of Longinus, who is from the 3rd century. Meanwhile critical scholarship clearly recognizes without much difficulty that that treatise can be by neither one nor the other. (Bulletin, etc., ibidem.) —Weiske and the author of a book published in London, in 1826, entitled Remarks on the supposed Dionysius Longinus, ascribe that treatise to the century of Augustus. Amati actually attributes it to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, without observing (as no one else has) the true reason why the Paris and Vatican manuscripts have the name of Dionysius; and that, apart from the total difference of style, that treatise is against Caecilius of Calacte, who was a friend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus, something apparently not observed by others. See p. 4440.
*“The loves of Cydippe and Acontius are known to us primarily through the letters which Ovid attributes to them in his Heroides. Callimachus was the source on which Ovid drew: Monsieur Buttmann (Ueber die Fabel der Kydippe. On the fable of Cydippe, by Philipp Buttmann, Memoirs of the Munich Academy, tome 9, years 1823–1824, philological section, pp. 199–216) gathers and discusses the fragments of the latter [4371] poet, where they concern Cydippe. This fable, if we are to believe the learned professor, is identical to the history of Ctesylla (sic)1 and Hermochares, related by Antoninus Liberalis and Nicander.”* (Bulletin, etc., July 1827, tome 8, art. 34, p. 35.) —And how many tales or stories from mythical or heroic times are found repeated with different names and places in various writers, not just Greek and Latin, but also Greek alone! —Codrus, Erechtheus, etc. The Decii, etc.2
*“Le combat de trente Bretons contre trente Anglais, published from the manuscripts of the Bibliothèque du roi, by M. Crapelet, printer, Paris, 1827. For a long time the authenticity of this battle was disputed, and nothing had been produced up to now except for a single ms. of 1470, held in the library at Rennes. The happy discovery of a story in verse of the Combat des Trente in a collection of manuscript pieces in the Bibliothèque du roi by the chevalier de Fréminville led in 1819 to the first publication of a new document; but it was important that the text be reproduced with the greatest exactitude. Monsieur Crapelet has brought to completion everything that was left wanting in this respect by the 1st edition. He has followed up this publication with a literal translation of the poem and of another account of the battle, excerpted from Froissart’s chronicles. The work is adorned with a plate representing the monument raised in memory of this battle, and the arms of the 30 Breton knights, drawn from the armorials in the Bibliothèque du roi, and other private, unpublished armorials.”* (Ibid., tome 8, pp. 389–90, art. 407, Oct. 1827) —See in Guicciardini [4372], etc., the famous combat between 10 Italians and 10 French at the siege of Barletta under the Great Captain; and that of a Bavarian and an Italian in Giambullari, referred to in my Crestomazia, p. 23.1 —the Horatii and Curiatii, etc. (9 Sept. 1828.)
Hordeum–fordeum [barley]. See Forcellini.
For p. 4350, margin. The sonnets, canzoni, etc., and also long poems in childish style and form which abounded in the vernacular languages prior to Dante (not only in Italian but French, Spanish, etc.) did not constitute and were not considered to be literature. See p. 4413.
For p. 4356. Enthusiasm, inspiration, which are essential to poetry, do not last. Nor can they be kept going too long in the reader.
For p. 4361. Translations and imitations of these Serbian poems have been made in German after their publication by Vuk. Ibid., Feb. 1827, art. 156, p. 124, tome 7. See p. 4399.
For p. 4362. *“Guillaume Tell et la Révolution de 1303, ou Histoire des trois premiers cantons jusqu’au traité de Brunnen, 1315, et réfutation de la fameuse brochure Guillaume Tell, fable danoise (répétée dans cet ouvrage) by J.-J. Hisely, Doctor in philosophy and belles-lettres, 8°, Delft 1826.”* (Ibid., Feb. 1827, tome 7, art. 210, p. 182.)
For p. 4358. The poet does not imitate nature: rather is it true that nature speaks within him and through his mouth. “I’ mi son un che quando Natura parla” [“I am one who when Nature speaks”], etc.,2 a true definition of the poet. Thus the poet is not an imitator except [4373] of himself. (10 Sept. 1828.) When through imitation he truly takes leave of himself, that really is no longer poetry, a divine faculty; that is a human art, it is prose, despite the verse and the language. As measured prose, and as a human art, it can stand, and I do not seek to condemn it. (10 Sept. 1828.)
*“The author (Monsieur Faber, Synglosse, oder Grundsaetze der Sprachforschung. Syngloss, or Principles of Research into Languages, by Junius Faber, 213 pp. 12°, Carlsruhe 1826) has been drawn by these comparisons to the conclusion that there is only one language, and that what are ordinarily called languages are only dialects of this one idiom, in which the form, not the substance or essence of words, has been modified; finally, that this essence of words is contained in roots which have existed since the beginning, and whose origin can be proved by physiological reasonings.”*1 Depping, Bulletin, etc., loc. cit., at p. 4312, March 1827, tome 7, at. 231, p. 202.
—*“Monsieur Kärcher has no doubt that the known languages all come from a primitive language; he sets out, etc., encouraged by the approval of Monsieur Goulianov, who sets out, he says, to demonstrate the certainty of this universal derivation of languages from one single one which was the rootstock of them all. It is possible that the criticisms of an authority at least equal to that of Monsieur Goulianov might express a totally opposite opinion. However that may be, and Monsieur Kärcher is certainly free [4374] to prefer his opinion to that of others, etc.”* Champollion-Figeac. Ibid., December 1827, tome 8, art. 430, p. 410.1 (10 Sept. 1828.)
*“Monsieur Lindemann (Novus thesaurus latinae linguae prosodiacus, 8°, Zittau and Leipzig, 1827) is also attached to the old” (Latin) “prosody, that which preceded Ennius, and which is quite different from the one we are taught today, as has been shown by modern critics, above all Monsieur Hermann.”* Bulletin de Férussac, loc. cit. at p. 4312, March 1827, tome 7, art. 253, p. 221. What I suggest elsewhere [→Z 2793–95, 2827–29, 3024–26, 4026ff.] is therefore reasonable with regard to the changed prosodiacal pronunciation of Greek during the time of the Romans, of the sophists, etc., and its influence on the structure of periods, e
tc. (11 Sept. 1828.)
*“‘Observations on the best system of Portuguese spelling’ by Rodrigo Ferreira da Costa (Memorias da Academia real das sciencias de Lisboa, tome 8, part. 1, p. 102). In 1820 the Sciences Academy of Lisbon resolved to create a spelling dictionary for its own use. In this connection one of its members thought it necessary to lay down the principles which should be followed. He begins by recalling the different systems which are generally used; some wish to write as the word is pronounced, others wish to remain faithful to the etymology, yet others prefer general usage, and others combine these 3 systems, which makes a 4th. The author examines their advantages and disadvantages, etc.”* Ibid., Sept. 1827, tome 8, art. 216, p. 217.2 It is apparent from his observations that Portuguese spelling [4375] is still not fixed. (11 Sept. 1828.)
For p. 4345. *“Quaestiones Herodoteae, by dr. C.-G.-L. Heyse, Part 1. De vita et itineribus Herodoti, 8° of 141 pp., Berlin 1827.”* — *“section 2. ‘De recitatione, quam Olympiae habuisse fertur Herodotus ol. 81,’ section 3. ‘Vitae decursus usque ad ol. 84, de recitatione Athenis habita, deque,’ etc.”* Bulletin, etc., Dec. 1827, tome 8, art. 425, p. 408.1 (11 Aug. 1828.) See p. 4400.
*“Lingua universalis communi omnium nationum usui accommodata, by A. Rethy, 8° of 144 pp., Vienna 1821 (Leipziger Literaturzeitung, April 1827, p. 758).
“Although this project, to create a universal language, contains a number of good ideas, yet it does no more than offer new evidence in favor of the opinion that the solution of this great problem will remain unworkable as long as the philosophical sciences are not raised to a higher degree of perfection. Having undertaken to trace back the construction of his language to that of the language he claims to be the original one, the author has done violence to the history of languages in order to support his system. According to him, the original language was made up only of monosyllabic words, intended to designate the most general ideas, and which, by means of their different combinations, were sufficient, he says, to make all combined ideas intelligible. Given the nature of this fundamental insight, we can dispense with following the author through its applications.”*2 Ibid., July [4376] 1827, tome 8, art. 2, p. 3. (11 Sept. 1828.)