distinct, nothing <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> prominent, and that it is clear, tenuous and transparent,’ meaning no concreteness, solidity, distinctness, or prominence. 83 All this means, in fact, is nothing concrete, nothing solid, nothing distinct, nothing prominent. How many words I fashion and how much labor I undertake for what makes no difference! What is <strong>the</strong> point <strong>of</strong> this dispute <strong>of</strong> which our ancestors made no mention, as if it were worthless goat’s wool? 83 Zippel cites Cic. Nat. D. 1.27.75. 22 2/21/05 9:35 PM 22/44
4 NO NOUNS IN -ITAS COME FROM SUBSTANTIVES BUT FROM ADJECTIVES, AND NOT FROM ALL ADJECTIVES. (1) Why is it that <strong>the</strong>y make ‘entity’ from this ‘being’ <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>irs – if I may raise this issue now as well – as <strong>the</strong>y do in many o<strong>the</strong>r cases, such as ‘whatness’ from ‘what,’ ‘initselfness’ from ‘in itself’ and ‘thishereness’ from ‘this here,’ all fetched out <strong>of</strong> some lair <strong>of</strong> barbarism? 84 In <strong>the</strong> first place, <strong>the</strong>se terms are not handed down from Aristotle; next, <strong>the</strong>y cannot be derived from substantives, though ‘being’ and ‘which’ are substantives; nor finally do <strong>the</strong>y come from all adjectives – only from those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> second declension that end in -us (and not even all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se); or from those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> same declension ending in -er; and those <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> third declension in -is or certain o<strong>the</strong>r letters, and again not all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m. (2) In <strong>the</strong> second declension, <strong>the</strong>n, ‘healthiness,’ ‘goodness,’ ‘honesty,’ ‘holiness,’ ‘severity,’ ‘divinity’ and ‘humanity’ come from ‘healthy,’ ‘good,’ ‘honest,’ ‘holy,’ ‘severe,’ ‘divine,’ and ‘human,’ and also ‘readiness’ from ‘ready.’ In <strong>the</strong> third, ‘lightness,’ ‘heaviness,’ ‘easiness,’ ‘moderation,’ ‘fineness’ and ‘thinness’ come from ‘light,’ ‘heavy,’ ‘easy,’ ‘moderate,’ ‘fine’ and ‘thin.’ A good many such words also ended in –tudo, since in <strong>the</strong> antiquity-hunters one may see ‘sweetness,’ ‘sanctity, ‘severity’ and ‘levity’ [ending in -tudo, all] in <strong>the</strong> same sense, along with ‘blessedness’ and ‘beatitude’ – harsh words, in Cicero’s view, though he thinks that use may s<strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong>m. 85 Likewise, ‘rapidity,’ ‘wholesomeness,’ ‘poverty’ and ‘happiness’ come from ‘rapid,’ ‘wholesome,’ ‘poor’ and ‘happy.’ (3) I have heard <strong>of</strong> no derivative in -itas from ‘running,’ however, or from ‘eating’ or ‘crying’ or ‘standing’ or ‘sitting’ or ‘reading’; ‘entity,’ <strong>the</strong>refore, cannot be derived from ‘being.’ Thus, beyond <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong> word has no basis in authority, <strong>the</strong>re are two reasons why we are forbidden to form ‘entity’: because <strong>the</strong>se words ending with n and s do not allow such substantives in -itas; and because no substantive like ‘being’ produces from itself a substantive in -itas; <strong>the</strong> sole exception is ‘citizen,’ from which ‘citizenry’ comes, though it is hardly a substantive, being like ‘rich’ or ‘poor [person].’ Therefore, ‘citizenry’ does not signify a quality because this is not what ‘citizen’ signifies, in <strong>the</strong> way <strong>of</strong> ‘healthiness’ and ‘healthy,’ ‘honesty’ and ‘honest,’ ‘sweetness’ and ‘sweet,’ ‘poor’ and ‘poverty’ (in Cicero, for example). 86 ‘Olivity,’ a name that some writers use, actually means ‘olive-harvest’ or <strong>the</strong> time when olives ripen, which is not a property that belongs to <strong>the</strong>m, and yet it seems that <strong>the</strong> word comes from an adjective, ‘olive [in three genders.]’ 87 84 Above, n. 59; Zippel cites Paul. Ven. Lib. met. 1, 5; Sum. nat. (Venice, 1503), 93r, 95r. 85 Zippel cites Cic. Nat. d. 1.34, 95; Quint. 8.3.32; for stylists who were fond <strong>of</strong> such odd words, which Valla sees as archaisms, see Gel. 13.3.2; Apul. Soc. 3; Lact. Ira 10.7; <strong>the</strong> unlikely austeritudo seems to be Valla’s invention. 86 Cic. Part. 32, 63; De orat. 3.181; Tusc. 3.9-11. 87 Zippel cites Varro, RR 1.60; see also Menip. fr. 219; Col. RR 1.1.5; 12.50.1, 52.1, 8, 15; Paul. Fest. 202 (M). 23 2/21/05 9:35 PM 23/44
Change language