Zibaldone
Page 216
It is very difficult to write hastily with clarity and simplicity, more difficult than to do so with efficacy, vehemence, abundance, and also magnificence of style. Nevertheless haste can be combined with diligence. If simplicity and clarity can live with haste, they certainly cannot do so with negligence. An appearance in writing of carelessness, nonchalance, abandonment, almost disregard is very beautiful. [3051] This is one of the kinds of simplicity. Indeed simplicity is more or less always an appearance of nonchalance (although because of the different qualities which it can possess, it does not always produce in the reader the feeling of this nonchalance as the principal and characteristic feeling) because it always consists precisely in hiding the art, the effort, the refinement. But the appearance I speak of is never born out of true carelessness, in fact on the contrary it comes from extensive and continuous care and artifice and study. When negligence is real, the sense one experiences in reading what is written is one of hardship, effort, art, affectation, difficulty. Because the facility which we ought to feel in writings is the hardest quality to impart to them. And the aptitude or the practical ability to impart it is not acquired without the greatest hardship.1 (27 July 1823.)
A word which does not exist in written Latin, common however to the three daughter languages. Speranza, espérance, esperança, that is sperantia [hope], verbal noun from [3052] spero, formed according to the usage of good Latin, like constantia [constancy], instantia [constancy], redundantia [excess], etc. (27 July 1823.)
For p. 3040. Here I believe we should also make reference to the verb posare [to place, to put] (French poser whence déposer, opposer, supposer, composer, apposer, disposer, exposer, proposer, imposer inasmuch as it means por giù, deporre with all its derivations, etc., in this sense. That riposare and posare for quiescere [to rest] come from pausa pausare [to pause], etc. (and so too the French reposer, etc.) I have stated elsewhere [→Z 2627–28] and this is demonstrated by the usage of the verb pausare, etc. etc., in the Du Cange Glossary and this is all well and good. But that posare, poser, déposer for deporre [to place, put down] come from pausare, not from ponere, and are therefore in no way different from posare, etc., for quiescere, although they sound the same, this I cannot allow myself to be persuaded of, although I find in the Glossary an example where pausare stands for deporre. I believe it is a copyist’s error (or one by the author himself, who like everyone else in those days was ignorant about even the barbarian language) who wrote au for o, syllables that were not infrequently confused, especially in later times, and especially when there is another very similar verb, that is pausare [3053] for riposare, where the au was in fact admissible. Posare for deporre must certainly come from positus, contracted to posus, like visitus–visus, pinsitus–pinsus, pisitus–pisus, whence viser, pisare. From the uncontracted positus, comes depositare and the Spanish depositar, of which I have also spoken elsewhere [→Z 1142]. Add to this that poser in French very frequently means properly nothing other than porre, and it has absolutely nothing to do with riposare or reposer, except insofar as the latter sometimes means residere, far la posa [to settle back, to take a break], and in this last sense it is a different verb, and likewise comes from ponere. From postus come the Italian appostare, the Spanish apostar, the Italian modern, technical impostare. (27 July 1823.) See p. 3058.
Pausare may well come from pausa, and this word comes from παύω [to bring to an end]. But it is possible (together with posare, that is quiescere, reposare, reposer, etc.) that it is a true continuative formed from a pausus, participle from pauo or pavo or a similar verb equivalent to the Greek verb mentioned above. See Forcellini and what I have said elsewhere on such words in a separate thought [→Z 2627–28], and the Glossary. (27 July 1823.)
[3054] On the subject of what I said at the beginning of my discussion [→Z 1106] on continuatives about exspectare [to look out for] esperar, etc., see the Du Cange Glossary under Sperare, 3 and 5. (27 July 1823.)
Crystallus from Κρύσταλλος ice. The same metaphor used by the Latins and Greeks to mean natural crystal, is also used by the French for artificial. Glace, sheet of man-made crystal. (27 July 1823.)
For p. 3040 end. Diminutives of this sort common to all three daughter languages demonstrate that their use in place of and with the meaning of positives comes from Latin, especially since in good Latin too can be found many diminutives used in place of obsolete or lost or less used positives, or indistinguishably from positives, etc. etc. etc. Which mean it is very likely that the common people or everyday Latin speech used those positive diminutives in the same way in which they are used today either in all 3 daughter languages, or in one of them, etc., partly enumerated by us, etc. etc. etc.
On which topic see the word fabula fabella [story], etc., whence fabulo as, fabulor aris, and favella, favellare, etc., as I have said extensively elsewhere [→Z 497–99]. I actually believe that it comes from fari [to speak], but it likewise seems to me that it is a diminutive of another word. And all the more because one does not say fabulella, but fabella, another diminutive, which does not come from fabula, but seems alongside this to demonstrate a third [3055] positive noun, of which both are diminutives.a This positive is unknown in Latin. Only the diminutives mentioned are used, with the diminutive verb fabulo, etc. But we have the word fiaba which indeed means favola, and which afterward was applied especially to certain fantastical theatrical compositions, as fabula in Latin was also applied to mean plays, not in a diminutive but a positive sense. I strongly suspect that this fiaba is a very ancient word in Latin, lost in writing, preserved in the vernacular down to our day.1 (27 July 1823.)
How pedantically French spelling is modeled on, or rather slavishly copied from Latin can be observed in the use of h which in words or syllables which are exact fellows in pronunciation, and sound, do not have the h if in Latin (or in Greek, etc.) they did not have it, if they did have it they have it also in French. As in Christ‒cristal, technique, théologie, homme‒omettre, etc. You can say the same for ph, for y, etc. It is really pedantic and unphilosophical [3056] for words which are national, very much in everyday use, widely used by the people, to be written not as the nation pronounces them, but as those from whose language they came wrote them, who wrote them like that because that is how they pronounced them, since the Latins too pronounced, e.g., y like the French u, etc. (though they too from the times of Cicero onward erred somewhat in the slavish imitation of Greek writing in words which came from or were newly taken from Greek. And see Desbillons on Phaedrus, Mannheim 1786, p. LXCIII). For if words which have been naturalized in a language, and completely changed from their original state because of that nation’s pronunciation, always had to be written in the way in which those peoples, from whom they came down to us, even though very far away and very different, wrote or write them, and if the original writing had to be preserved in every word, whether it was changed or not by time, place, and by the different nation and language, and if the value of spelling consisted in preserving the original forms of each word no matter how foreign it was, I do not see why words which have come from Greek should not be written in Greek letters, and Hebrew and Arabic words with Hebrew and Arabic letters and points, and German with German letters. Since in using a different alphabet, the original writing can be imitated, but not perfectly preserved. And so we would have to learn and use a hundred alphabets to be able to read and write our own language. [3057] Certainly no nation in this area is as sensible, and no writing as true, perfect, and philosophical as Italian. The ancient Greeks could stand comparison with it, except that a few foreign words made them run the risk of ruining their spelling. (27 July 1823.)
Condiscendere, condiscendenza, condecender or condescender, condescendre, condescendance [to acquiesce], etc., come from Greek. Συγκατάβασις [condescension] for condiscendenza can be found in St. John Chrysostom in the Sermon “Quod nemo laedatur nisi a seipso,” ῞Οτι τὸν ἑαυτὸν μὴ ἀδικοῦντα οὐδεὶς παραβλάψαι �
�ύναται [“That no one can harm the man who does not injure himself”], which begins “Οἶδα μὲν ὅτι τοῖς παχυτέροις” [“I know that to more stupid people”], ch. 11, Chrysostom, Opera, ed. Montfaucon, tome 3, p. 457b.1 See the Latin and Greek Glossaries. See p. 3071.
Sopra in place of contro (see Crusca under Sopra, § 2. Venire sopra alcuno, Dare sopra [to attack someone] Boccaccio, story 17.2 “Acciocchè sopra,” that is against, “Osbech dall'una parte con le sue forze discendesse” [“In order for {Basano} to descend with his forces on Uzbek from one direction”]. And see also Crusca under Scendere, § 1) is a pure Grecism (unknown in good Latin) and a Grecism of the best and purest Greek. The Greeks said ἐπὶ in the same sense, both when this preposition is separate, and when it is in composition, as ἐπέρχομαι [to come upon, to attack], etc., ἐπιτίθεμαι [to set upon]. (28 July 1823.)
[3058] For p. 3053, end. Spanish Posar for abitare [to dwell], whence posada [inn], etc. Spanish Pausar [to pause], etc. See the Spanish Dictionaries. —Repossione for re-pos-it-ionem [saving up] is found in a recently discovered ancient Latin inscription, and illustrated by Ciampi (in a letter dated from Warsaw and printed in the Appendix to Giornale di Milano two or three years ago); and has the meaning of place to deposit goods.1 (28 July 1823.) See p. 3060.
“Corruptio optimi pessima” [“The corruption of the best is the worst of all”]. This proverb is proved true expressly in men, in spirits who are extremely sensitive who through the passage of time and use become more insensitive than those who are most insensitive by nature, as I have said elsewhere [→Z 1473–74, 1648–49, 2039–41, 2107–10, 2208–10, 2473–74] and they tend toward the contrary excess, etc. (28 July 1823.)
People who are imperfect, defective, monstrous in body, including those who never get to be born and are lost through abortion, through miscarriages, etc., which are neither voluntary nor procured; including those who are such at birth, and who die as soon as they are born or shortly afterward, through internal or external natural defects; those born like this who are alive and can be seen and easily counted, numbering monstrosities and defectiveness of all sorts; those finally who become so after birth, sooner [3059] or later, naturally and without any direct external cause, I mean either through inborn defect which develops afterward, or through some illness or other which arose naturally; in short I say, and bringing all these individuals together, one can see at a quick glance and without a great deal of reflection that their number in the human race alone, indeed only in its civilized part, exceeds by a long way not only what can be found in any other entire race of animals of any description, not only what we see as well in each species of domestic animals, even though they are corrupted and altered from their natural life and condition, and in a thousand ways tormented and mistreated by us; but also altogether the number of defective and monstrous individuals that we see in all species of animals which daily meet our gaze, taken and considered together.1 This truth is so obvious, that no one, I believe, provided that he thinks about it just for a moment and gathers his recollections, could ever challenge it. A similar difference will be found in this detail between civilized and savage nations,2 and proportionately between more and less civilized nations, according to an exact scale, as between French, Italian, German, Spanish, etc.
[3060] The consequences to be drawn from these observations are as easy to see as they are absolutely obvious, and have that greater degree of certitude which is possessed by a proposition demonstrated mathematically, and deduced mathematically from another which cannot be held in doubt. (28 July 1823.)
Porgo for porrigo is [to put forth, to reach out], syncope used by the ancient Romans and in common use with us. See Forcellini under Porgo and especially the passage of Festus.1 (28 July 1823.)
For p. 2842, beginning. Defectus a um [abandoned] seems to have the neutral meaning of one who abandons in various places, for which see Forcellini under defectus a um, and Desbillons’s Phaedrus, Mannheim 1786, p. LVII, on bk. 1, fable 21, l. 3. Quietus a um from quiesco [to keep quiet]. See in particular Desbillons, loc. cit. p. LXII, on 2, 8, l. 15.2 Usurpatus a um [used]. See Cicero, Ad familiares 9, 22, toward the beginning.
For p. 3058. Assus (and so semiassus) for assatus [roasted] may be a contraction that would suit our discussion. Unless however assare [to roast] does not in fact come from assus, which in that case would be the participle of an unknown verb. And if it were the same as arsus (see Forcellini under Assus), which is not unlikely, [3061] given the ancient practice in Latin of pronouncing and writing s for r (on which elsewhere, that is pp. 2991ff.) assare would be the same as arsare, a word from late times, on which elsewhere [→Z 2688–90], continuative of ardeo [to burn], and more regular, etc., in its pronunciation than assare. Spanish asar [to roast], Italian lessare [to boil], etc. See p. 3064. Elixus for elixatus [boiled, sodden] (which is also said) would be another contraction fitting our topic, unless however elixo does not come from elixus, as I said about assus. And on this topic see pp. 2757–58 and 2930, margin. (29 July 1823.)
Nothing in society is more judged, or is actually more shameful, than being ashamed. (29 July 1823.)
On the subject of favella, favellare, hablar [to speak], etc., about which I have argued extensively elsewhere [→Z 497–99, 3054–55] see the French words habler, hablerie, hableur [to brag], etc. They also have fable, etc., as we also have favola, etc., and the Spanish fabula, etc., from the other Latin meaning of fabula, fabulari, etc. (29 July 1823.) See also the Spanish habla and hablilla [rumor, chatter, gossip], etc., ser habla or hablilla del pueblo [to be the talk of the people]. (29 July 1823.)
[3062] For p. 3055, margin. Asinus–asellus [ass] in place of asinellus, which would be uncontracted and regular, and is what we say. Opera [labor]–opella [light labor], etc. (29 July 1823.)
Esse conveniens alicui rei for convenire [to agree, to be suitable], the active participle with the auxiliary esse, as in Italian. See Phaedrus, Fable 27, l. 1, bk. 1 and Ovid, Tristia 1, 1, l. 6 and also Desbillons’s Phaedrus, Mannheim 1786, p. LIX. (29 July 1823.)
Two other Italianisms can be seen in Phaedrus 2, 5, l. 25, and 6, l. 4. —Desbillons loc. cit. pp. LXIV and LXV.1 And the passages in Varro which talk of illustrious Latin should also be noted.2 Also another similar 3, 6, l. 5.3 —Desbillons, p. LXXI. But Phaedrus followed or was close to Vulgar Latin in many things. Hence he has expressions which are all his own, which are not to be found in other Latin authors, and have been thought not Latin. See Desbillons, pp. XXII‒vi and the other writers who deal with his Latin. None of whom, I believe, has observed the true cause of the difference between this Latin and that which is better known. All Latin writers (both ancient and true classical) who have something of the everyday in their style, such as, besides the comic writers, Celsus (who comes as close to Phaedrus as a prose writer can to a poet, and was also considered not to belong to the golden age) and [3063] Caesar himself, leaning therefore more than others to the common language (although moderately and with grace, like many Italians, e.g., Caro), come even closer than the others to the modulation, flavor, etc., and to expressions, words, or meanings of Italian. So too does Ovid up to a certain point, but for a different reason, which was that his negligence and haste did not allow him to cleanse his language enough, to give it the necessary splendor, nobility, etc., in every part, or to keep a constant distance from ordinary speech; in short, because he could not or would not write well perfectly, letting himself be carried away by his inspiration and abundance, and making little effort to polish up his style any more than his language. (29 July 1823.)