Zibaldone

by Leopardi, Giacomo

  Cleobulus (one of the 7 sages) in Stobaeus, ch. 3, Περὶ φρονήσεως [“On Wisdom”], ed. Gessner, Zurich 1559: “Μὴ ἐπιμαίνεσθαι τῷ σκώπτοντι· ἀπεχθὴς γὰρ ἔσῃ τοῖς σκωπτομένοις” [“Do not fall in love with someone who derides others. You will be hated by those who are derided”].1 *“but the verb ἐπιμαίνεσθαι [to fall in love] is extremely choice: almost to die for love of someone. See Hemsterhuis on Lucian, Dialogues of the Sea-Gods 1, tome 2, p. 346, Bipontine edition”* (Orelli, loc. cit. above, p. 529) (15 January 1829.) “alios subsannanti ne subrideas, invisus enim fies quibus illuditur” [“do not laugh when someone derides others: you will be hated by those who are derided”]. Id., in Laertius, 1, 93. “μὴ ἐπιγελᾷν τοῖς σκωπτομένοις· ἀπεχθήσεσθαι γὰρ τούτοις” [“do not laugh at those who are derided. For you will be hated by all”]. For “Moral etiquette.”2 (14 [January] 1829.)

  For p. 4346. “Παρὰ πόσιν, τοῦ ἀδελφιδοῦ” (fratris filio) “αὐτοῦ” (Σόλωνος) “μέλος τὶ Σαπφοῦς ᾄσαντος, ἤσθη τῷ μέλει” (ὁ Σόλων), “καὶ προσέταξε τῷ μειρακίῳ διδάξαι αὐτόν” [“At the symposium, his” (Solon’s) “nephew” (his brother’s son) “having sung one of Sappho’s songs, he” (Solon) “enjoyed it, and ordered the boy to teach it to him”] (wanted that boy, i.e., his nephew, to teach him). Stobaeus, ch. 29.3 Περὶ φιλοπονίας [“On Industriousness”], ed. Gessner, Zurich 1559. (15th day of 1829.)

  When a bitter or terrible thought presents itself, it is more painful to force the mind away from it than to dwell on it. (17 [January] 1829.)

  To live without oneself in the world, to enjoy any thing without oneself, is impossible. So someone who is without hope, who sees himself being spurned by acquaintances and all those around him, and is therefore necessarily lacking in self-esteem, cannot experience any enjoyment, cannot live, [4439] to be precise: because that person is truly lacking of himself in life. (17th day of 1829.) See p. 4488.

  So-and-so rarely reads modern books, he says, because: “I note that the ancients took ten, twenty, thirty years to produce a book, and the moderns take a month or two. But in order to read them you need the same time for that book which took thirty years as you do for the one which took thirty days. And life, on the other hand, is very short compared to the number of books that exist.” Hence, etc. (17 [January] 1829.)

  The strong, the fortunate, feel and take an interest in others ἐκ τοῦ περισσοῦ [by reason of the excess] of their faculties and energies: the weak and wretched do not have enough for themselves. In truth, feeling toward others is no more than a superfluity, an excess of personal faculties measured against personal needs and necessities. (17 [January] 1829.)

  In this century of so much lawmaking no one has yet thought of making a utopian code of civil and criminal laws, but in due and proper form, such as to serve as a standard of perfection, which should be a model for all other codes, so that their goodness is judged according to the greater or lesser extent to which they resemble it; such also as to make it possible, with few changes or additions required purely by the circumstances of place and time, to be adopted by any nation whatsoever, at least under a given form of government, at least in this century and by civilized nations, etc. (17 January 1829.)

  Tomber, tumbar (Spanish)—tombolare [to tumble]. Tumbo (Spanish) tombolo, etc.

  [4440] Muggine–mugella [mullet].

  “Social Machiavellianism.”1 Anyone who takes himself for a sucker in the world, is one, and looks it. —The laws, etc., contained in this treatise are not transient, etc.; they are at least as eternal as physical laws, etc. (18 [January] 1829.)

  For p. 4370. *“He” (Cecilius) “had a close relationship with Dionysius of Halicarnassus. See Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Epistula ad Cneum Pompeium.”* Toup on Longinus, § 1, p. 153. *“Contemporary and friend” (Cecilius) “of Dionysius of Halicarnassus.”* Casaubon on Athenaeus, 4, 21, beginning. —In any event, Amati is wrong in believing that a Greek name joined to and preceding a Roman surname, as it would be here for Dionysius Longinus, is unprecedented. It is not so frequent as a Greek name joined to and following the name of a Roman gens, e.g., Claudius Ptolomaeus, Claudius Galenus, Pedanius Dioscorides, Aelius Aristides, Cassius Dio, etc.; but nevertheless there is no shortage of examples; and we have, among others, a famous one, Musonius Rufus, a stoic philosopher during the time of Nero, for which see Reimar on Dio, bk. 62, ch. 27, pp. 1023ff. § (i.e., note) 143.2 (18 January 1829, Sunday.) And Lambeck, Commentarius de bibliotheca, Vienna, bk. 8, conjectured that the Greek translation which we have of Eutropius’s Breviarium, and which carries the name of Paeanius or Paeania, was called Peania Capitone: the first name Greek, and the other Roman.3 (19 [January] 1829.) See p. 4442.

  As with many other things, our own times come closer to primitive times in the following respect too: that they have little respect for poetry of style (see p. 4465), the poetry of Virgil, Horace, etc., indeed not just this, but also that, e.g., of Petrarch, and all poetry which ἁπλῶς [in short] has style. Our times require poetry of things, of invention, of imagination; though, in a century so eminently civilized, the latter seems completely alien and the former entirely appropriate.4 (19 [January] 1829.)

  [4441] Also relevant to the discourse about the excellent humanity of the ancients in comparison with the moderns (about which elsewhere [→Z 4245, 4286]), is the right of asylum1 among the former pertaining not only to temples and other public places, but also to the hearth of every private house; and which was so much more venerated by them than by us. Orelli, loc. cit. above, p. 542: *“῾Εστίαν τίμα [respect the hearth]” (precept of some of the 7 sages in Stobaeus, ch. 3) “The meaning is: Jus foci sanctum habeas [hold as sacred the right of the hearth], or: Supplicem honorato qui foco assidet [the suppliant seated by the hearth is to be honored]. (῾Ικέτας ἐλέει [have pity on the suppliants], above, in Periander, Aldine. To be seated at the hearth after the fashion of suppliants, whether next to an altar or in the shrine of the household gods, where the fire was normally lit and next to which was in force the right ἀσυλίας [to asylum]. See Casaubon on Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae, bk 8, p. 1504, Reiske and translators, Thucydides, bk. 1, ch. 136, p. 227, ed. Bauer.”*2 —Likewise compassion toward those seeking mercy, even enemies, aggressors, etc., protected by Nemesis, etc., and see the well-known story about the Prayers, etc., in Homer.3 —Likewise the special honor given to old people, etc. —Likewise the respect for the dead, even in talking about them. “Τὸν τεθνηκότα μηδεὶς κακῶς ἀγορευέτω” [“Let no one speak ill of the dead”], Solon’s law in Plutarch, in Solon, p. 89, Frankfurt ed. —Anyone who might wish to see, and admire, the humanity of the ancients (including the very early among them) summed up, as it were, should look at the rules and precepts attributed to the name of the 7 sages (and they are certainly of great antiquity) and which, previously collected together in antiquity,4 (in Stobaeus the authors of those two collections which he prints are named as Demetrius Phalereus for one and Sosiades for the other). (19 [January] 1829) are printed in Stobaeus, ch. 3, περὶ φρονήσεως [“On Wisdom”], ed. Gessner, Zurich 1559 (see them in Orelli loc. cit., pp. 138–56). (19 Jan. 1829.)

  Alonso, modern Spanish—Al-f-ons, old Spanish (in a 13th-century document, etc.).5 ῞Υλη–sil-v-a [wood]. (20 [January] 1829.)

  [4442] Cerebrum–cervello [brain].

  For p. 4440. I do not mention the Disticha de moribus which are well known and certainly ancient, and circulate under the name of Dionysius Cato; a name not based upon any reliable authority. (22 Jan. 1829.)

  ConsUlere [to consult]–consIlium, etc. ExsUl, exsUlium–exsIlium [exile], etc.

  For p. 4428, end. Thus matutinum (tempus), il mattino, le matin, for mane; matutina (hora), la mattina, la mañana [morning
]. Vespertinum, serum (le soir), sera (la sera), Spanish la tarde, for vespera [evening]. See the Glossary. And thus also with the ancients: see Forcellini under these words. Likewise in the Canonical hours Matutinum, Prima, Tertia, Sexta, Nona. Hibernum, l’inverno, l’invierno (Spanish), l’hiver, for hiems [winter]. Aestivum (Spanish estío), for aestas [summer]. See Glossary and Forcellini, also under diurnus [daily]. Similarly Infernus (locus) in the Christian writers, and perhaps also in Varro. And other such substantivized adjectives. (24 [January] 1829.) See pages 4465, 4474.

  ῎Αορνος–Avernus.

  Niebuhr (loc. cit., p. 4431, end), section entitled “The Opicans and Ausonians,” p. 55.1 “Apulus and Opicus are according to all appearance the same name, only with different terminations. That in ulus acquired the meaning of a diminutive only in the language of later times; in earlier such a sense must be entirely separated from it; as is evident from Siculus and Romulus, as well as from the words uniting the two terminations” (that with icus and that with ulus), “which is the commoner case, Volsculus” (contracted from Volsiculus), “Aequiculus, Saticulus; and even Graeculus.” —Ibid., section entitled “Iapygia,” p. 126. “The Poediculians” (such was the Italian name of the Peucetians) “were, etc. (note 419. The simpler [4443] forms, Poedi and Poedici, have not been preserved in books.).” —Ibid., section entitled “Various traditions about the Origin of the City,” p. 174. “It was natural for them” (the inhabitants of Rome) “to call the founder of their nation Romus, or, with the inflexion so usual in their language, Romulus.” —Ibid., section entitled “The Beginning of Rome and its Earliest Tribes,” p. 251. “Romus and Romulus are only two forms of the same name (note 698. Like Poenus and Poenulus and others mentioned above p. 55); the Greeks on hearing a rumour of the legend about the twins” (Romulus and Remus), “chose the former” (i.e., ῾Ρῶμος) “instead of the less sonorous name Remus.” —Faustus and Faustulus, the shepherd who saved Romulus and Remus as babies. —The use of this ending in ulus without any diminutive force, a use proper to such ancient Latin, is preserved perfectly (and no less frequently) in Italian, especially in Tuscan, and especially among the common people who continually, out of mere linguistic habit, add a lo at the end of Italian words, saying, e.g., ricciolo instead of riccio [curl],a and likewise for a thousand others, which do not appear in such a form in the Dictionary; as well as the many which do. And that this same use (often linking, as in antiquity, the ending in icus to that in ulus) is perpetually preserved in Vulgar Latin, can be seen many times over, not only in nouns, but also in verbs in late Latin or clearly derived from it, as I have noted passim,1 which carry such an ending without any shadow of a diminutive meaning; such as pariculus [coupled] (parecchi, pareil, etc.), appariculare (apparecchiare, aparejar, etc.) [to pair], superculus [excessive]; (see p. 4514, end), etc. etc.; nouns but also adjectives, etc. I would not venture so far as agreeing with Niebuhr that this inflection was not originally diminutive. Observing it without this meaning is not proof; it appears from [4444] many, almost infinite, examples (whether in Greek, or in late or in ancient Latin, or in the daughter languages of Latin; and as far as the latter are concerned, both in forms derived from Latin and in other diminutive forms that are proper to them and are not Latin) that speaking words with a diminutive inflection, almost graciously, even when the circumstances are far from requiring a diminution, and the diminutive significance is in fact far from what is being said, always was (and remains) a linguistic habit, especially in popular language. (25 January 1829, Fourth Sunday.) Besides I have noted elsewhere [→Z 3875] when the ul … is a simple ending of derivative words, such as speculum, iaculum, etc., and likewise in verbs, such as fabulor, etc. See p. 4516.

  Not only were stories or tales of one nation very often transferred and applied to another, as I have said elsewhere in various places [→Z 4153, 4193, 4330], but even those of one and the same nation were often transferred and applied from one period of its history to another, with changes to the names of the people, and the circumstances of place, time, etc. Niebuhr often notes such cases in the annals of Rome, and he frequently repeats this observation throughout his history. Among others, in the section entitled “The War with Porsenna,” pp. 484ff., he says: “It is a peculiarity of the Roman annals, owing to the barren invention of their authors, to repeat the same incidents on different occasions, and that too more than once. Thus the history of Porsenna’s war reflects the image of that with Veii in the” (Roman) “year 277, which after the misfortune on the Cremera brought Rome to the brink of destruction. In this again the Veientines made themselves masters of the Janiculum; and in a more intelligible manner, after a victory in the field: here again the city was saved by a Horatius” (as by Cocles in the war with Porsenna); “the consul who arrived [4445] with his army at the critical moment by forced marches from the land of the Volscians: the victors, encamping on the Janiculum, sent out foraging parties across the river and laid waste the country; until some skirmishes, which again took place by the temple of Hope and at the Colline gate, checked their depredations: yet a severe famine arose within the city.”1 (26 Jan. 1829.)

  Niebuhr, ibid., section entitled “The Patrician Houses and the Curies,” p. 268. “Each house” (each of the γένη gentes [family clans] in which the Athenian people lived in ancient times) “bore a peculiar name resembling a patronymic in form; as the Codrids, the Eumolpids, the Butads: which produces an appearance, but a fallacious one, of a family affinity” (because those gentes, as with the Romans, were a mere political division; each gens or house consisted of several families without any regard to mutual affinity). “These names may have been transferred from the most distinguished among the associated families to the rest: it is more probable that they were adopted from the name of a hero, who was their eponymus. Such a house was that of the Homerids in Chios; whose descent from the poet was only an inference drawn from their name, whereas others pronounced that they were no way related to him (note 747. Harpocration, see ῾Ομηρίδαι [Homeridae]. It may be warrantably assumed that a hero named Homer was revered by the Ionians at the time when Chios received its laws. See the Rhenish Museum, 1, 257). In Greek history what appears to be a family, may probably often have been a house of this kind; and this system of subdivision is not to be confined to the Ionian tribes alone.”2 (27 [January] 1829.)

  [4446] Ibid., section entitled “Aeneas and the Trojans in Latium,” pp. 166–67. “These wars Virgil describes, effacing discrepancies and altering and accelerating the succession of events, in the latter half of the Aeneid. Its contents were certainly national; yet it is scarcely credible that even Romans, if impartial, should have received sincere delight from these tales. We feel but too unpleasantly how little the poet succeeded in raising these shadowy names” (of the heroes of those wars), “for which he was forced to invent a character, into living beings, like the heroes of Homer. Perhaps it is a problem that cannot be solved, to form an epic poem out of an argument which has not lived for centuries in popular songs and tales as common national property, so that the cycle of stories which comprises it, and all the persons who act a part in it, are familiar to every one.”1 See p. 4475. “Assuredly the problem was not to be solved by Virgil, whose genius was barren for creating, great as was his talent for embellishing. That he felt this himself, and did not disdain to be great in the way adapted to his endowments, is proved by his very practice of imitating and borrowing, by the touches he introduces of his exquisite and extensive erudition, so much admired by the Romans, now so little appreciated. He who puts together elaborately and by piecemeal, is aware of the chinks and crevices, which varnishing and polishing conceal only from the unpractised eye, and from which the work of the master, issuing at once from the mould, is free. Accordingly Virgil, we may be sure, felt a misgiving, that all the foreign ornament with which he was decking his work, though it might enrich the poem, was not his own wealth, and that this would at last be perceived by posterity. That [4447] notwithstanding this fret
ting consciousness, he strove, in the way which lay open to him, to give to a poem, which he did not write of his own free choice, the highest degree of beauty it could receive from his hands; that he did not, like Lucan, vainly and blindly affect an inspiration which nature had denied to him; that he did not allow himself to be infatuated, when he was idolized by all around him, and when Propertius sang:

  Yield, Roman poets, bards of Greece, give way,

  The Iliad soon shall own a greater lay1

  that, when death was releasing him from the fetters of civil observances, he wished to destroy what in those solemn moments he could not but view with melancholy, as the groundwork of a false reputation; this is what renders him estimable, and makes us indulgent to all the weaknesses of his poem. The merit of a first attempt is not always decisive: yet Virgil’s first youthful poem shews that he cultivated his powers with incredible industry, and that no faculty expired in him through neglect. But how amiable and generous he was, is evident where he speaks from the heart: not only in the Georgics, and in all his pictures of pure still life; in the epigram on Syron’s Villa” (thus, instead of Sciron’s):2 “it is no less visible in his way of introducing those great spirits that beam in Roman story.” (29–30 [January] 1829.)