Understanding Self-injury.

A
Person-Centered Approach Stephen P.
Lewis
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-self-injury-a-person-centered-approac
h-stephen-p-lewis/
Understanding Self-Injury
Understanding Self-Injury
A Person-Centered Approach

STEPHEN P. LEWIS
AND
PENELOPE A. HASKING
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the
University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing
worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and
certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2023

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in
writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under
terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning
reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same
condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Lewis, Stephen P., author. | Hasking, Penelope A., author.
Title: Understanding self-injury : a person-centered approach /
Stephen P. Lewis, Penelope A. Hasking.
Description: New York, NY : Oxford University Press, [2023] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022044716 (print) | LCCN 2022044717 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780197545065 (paperback) | ISBN 9780197545089 (epub) |
ISBN 9780197545096 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Self-mutilation. | Self-mutilation—Treatment. |
Parasuicide. | Parasuicide—Psychological aspects.
Classification: LCC RC552.S4 L49 2023 (print) | LCC RC552.S4 (ebook) |
DDC 616.85/82—dc23/eng/20221021
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022044716
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022044717

DOI: 10.1093/med-psych/9780197545065.001.0001
We dedicate this book to the countless people with lived experience
whose resilience and generosity in sharing their stories has allowed
us to write this book. Their silent strength is a constant reminder of
the need to advocate for a person-centered approach in all aspects
of research, clinical practice, and outreach.
 CONTENTS

List of Illustrations
Preface

1. Self-Injury: An Overview
2. Self-Injury and Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors
3. A Person-Centered, Strengths-Based Framing of Self-Injury
4. Self-Injury and Stigma
5. Use of Appropriate Language to Discuss Self-Injury
6. Rethinking and Addressing Contagion
7. Self-Injury, the Internet, and Social Media
8. Addressing Self-Injury in Schools: A Student-Centered,
Strengths-Based Approach
9. Families and Self-Injury
10. Clinical Approaches for Self-Injury: Assessment and
Intervention
11. Self-Injury Recovery: A Person-Centered Framework
12. Building Resilience Through Recovery
13. Supporting People With Lived Experience
14. Advocating for a Person-Centered, Strengths-Based Approach

Postface
References
Index
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIGURES
2.1. Conceptualization of self-harm.
2.2. Joiner’s interpersonal model of suicide.
4.1. Self-injury stigma framework.
11. Person-centered recovery model.
13.
1. Components of a person-centered approach when talking
1. about self-injury.

BOXES
1.1. Proposed diagnostic criteria for nonsuicidal self-injury disorder.
1.2. Summary of key considerations regarding reasons for self-
injury.
10. Overview of psychological approaches.
13. Example questions for a person-centered approach when
1.
1. talking about self-injury.
13. Reputable online resources for people with lived experience of
2. self-injury.

TABLES
1.1. Common intrapersonal and social reasons for self-injury.
2.1. Practical tips regarding language and asking about suicidal
thoughts and behaviors.
2.2. Sample safety plan to be individually tailored.
4.1. Forms and examples of self-injury stigma.
4.2. Overview and application of the self-sinjury stigma framework
to different forms of stigma.
5.1. Appropriate language to use when talking about self-injury.
6.1. Practical tips for minimizing socialization effects.
7.1. Recommended resources for people with lived experience of
self-injury.
8.1. Key elements of a school policy.
9.1. What young people think caregivers can do to support
individuals who self-injure.
9.2. Strategies for families to use and avoid when supporting a child
who self-injures.
10. Considerations for the context of self-injury.
12. Examples of reframing instances of self-injury.
1.
12. Example of a decisional balance.
1.
12. Character strengths can be ranked in terms of the degree to
2.
3. which an individual possesses that strength.
12. Factors to consider in the decision to disclose self-injury.
4.
 PREFACE

Nonsuicidal self-injury (self-injury), the purposeful damaging of one’s

own body tissue (e.g., cutting) without suicidal intent, is a behavior
that is a concern for countless people. Although it appears to run
counter to the human instinct for survival—to avoid getting injured—
self-injury can be the very way many individuals survive in the world.
Often misunderstood, self-injury is primarily used to cope with
intense or unwanted emotions that an individual feels they are not
able to deal with in other ways. Not surprisingly then, self-injury is
associated with a number of mental health difficulties (e.g., emotion
dysregulation, major depression) and is a reliable predictor of
subsequent suicidal thoughts and behavior. For these reasons there
has been increased attention paid to factors that initiate and
maintain self-injury, and a recent focus on factors that might aid
recovery.
Over the past two decades, our understanding of self-injury has
expanded significantly. Yet, self-injury remains shrouded in much
stigma which foments shame, isolation, and hopelessness for
countless individuals who self-injure. Accordingly, how we talk about
self-injury and respond to individuals who self-injure necessitate an
empowering approach conducive to fostering strength, hope, and
resilience. In keeping with the recent strengths-based movements
toward conceptualizing and addressing mental health difficulties, this
book offers a novel person-centered and strengths-based framing of
self-injury. In doing so, the book addresses contemporary and often
overlooked areas in the field, such as stigma, recovery, and the role
of social media in self-injury. Given its applied emphasis, this book
will be relevant and useful to anyone working with or supporting
people with lived self-injury experience, including: mental health
professionals and trainees, school professionals, families, and
researchers. We hope people with lived experience of self-injury find
this book empowering, and consider sharing it with loved ones.
In the first part of the book we aim to contextualize self-injury. In
Chapter 1, we start by outlining the most up-to-date understanding
of what self-injury is, how common it is, factors that are associated
with self-injury, and the relationship between self-injury and suicidal
thoughts and behaviors. In Chapter 2, we further delineate self-
injury from suicidal behavior, highlighting the similarities and
differences between them, and proposing a person-centered way to
inquire about suicidal thinking. We then move on to offering a
person-centered framing of self-injury. In Chapter 3, we argue that
many models of self-injury adopt a medicalized viewpoint—seeing
self-injury as a symptom that needs to be treated and removed.
These models frame self-injury as a problem that needs to be fixed,
that arises due to some deficit or flaw in the individual (e.g., a
history of trauma, lack of coping skills). We argue that a deficit-
based approach can, perhaps inadvertently, emphasize vulnerabilities
and feelings of worthlessness often held by people who self-injure.
We offer readers a strengths-based approach that instead highlights
the resilience of people who self-injure. While not dismissing factors
that drive self-injury, additionally focusing on strengths can further
empower people toward positive change and recovery.
Self-injury remains a highly stigmatized behavior, yet there has
been little consideration in the literature regarding how stigma
manifests, and the impact this stigma has on people who self-injure.
In Chapter 4, we tackle stigma head-on, challenging readers to
adopt a nonstigmatizing framing of self-injury. Along similar lines,
Chapter 5 draws on recent work highlighting the importance of the
language we use when talking about self-injury, and people who
self-injure. Language is a powerful form of communication that helps
frame the way we see the world. Stigmatizing, medicalized, or
derogatory language—often used unintentionally—can foster shame
and reduce the likelihood a person who self-injures will reach out for
support. We present readers a guide on appropriate ways to talk
about self-injury that foster respect, hope, and resilience. In this
way, we hope people who wish to talk about their self-injury are able
to receive nonjudgmental, noncritical responses to their disclosures.
In Chapter 6, we address the issue of self-injury “contagion.” We
present the latest evidence regarding social causes and
consequences of self-injury among peer groups. Following our
discussion of appropriate language to use when talking about self-
injury, we consider the pitfalls of adopting a medicalized
conceptualization of the social causes and consequences of self-
injury, which is grounded in an infectious diseases model. Instead,
we focus on how we can encourage a broader discussion of these
social influences and effects associated with self-injury. This includes
consideration of societal attitudes, discussion of self-injury in a
broader social context, and response to people who self-injure. In
Chapter 7 we broaden this discussion to social media. Indeed, there
has been much concern about the effect of social media on self-
injury, with many suggesting that online communication about self-
injury can encourage people to engage in the behavior. Yet, others
propose that discussing self-injury online can decrease isolation, and
assist with recovery. We rely on recent evidence to present both the
benefits and risks associated with online communication of self-
injury.
The remainder of this book is focused on applying this person-
centered approach across a range of contexts. In Chapter 8 we turn
our attention to the roles schools can play in the prevention and
early intervention of self-injury. Given self-injury most often emerges
in adolescence, schools have become a prime context in which to
identify students who self-injure and offer appropriate and timely
referral. Yet school staff tell us they are unsure how to respond to
self-injury, and are worried about “contagion” if they discuss self-
injury with students. In this chapter we offer guidance for schools in
adopting a whole-of-school approach and developing a policy to
address and respond to self-injury. Acknowledging that all school
staff have a role to play in appropriately addressing and responding
to self-injury is important in developing effective school protocols.
Extending considerations about caring for people who self-injure, in
Chapter 9 we focus on how families can adopt a strengths-based
approach in responding to a family member who self-injures. This
includes the role of siblings, and consideration of how self-injury can
impact family functioning.
Next we shift our attention to the recovery process. We begin
Chapter 10 by taking a look at existing treatments for self-injury and
critically appraise the evidence for their use. Against this tradition,
there has been a recent move to direct attention away from factors
that initiate and maintain self-injury to factors that help promote
recovery. Traditionally, the focus of recovery has been on stopping
self-injury. However, in Chapter 11, we propose a new way to
conceptualize recovery that takes into account not just the
behavioral aspect of self-injury but also associated beliefs and
expectations about recovery. Building on the person-centered
approach, we argue that recovery is an ongoing, nonlinear, individual
process. This process is not just about finding alternatives to self-
injury but also involves an understanding that setbacks can be
expected, that thoughts and urges to self-injure can be ongoing,
that scarring and disclosure of self-injury to others can be
challenging, and that self-acceptance and self-compassion are
possible. Building on this in Chapter 12, we apply this person-
centered model of recovery to how people who self-injure can build
resilience.
In Chapter 13 we begin by considering how to support individuals
who self-injure. Although many resources are available to help
people initiate conversations about self-injury, we acknowledge that
supporting someone who self-injures is an ongoing conversation—
and one that will change over time. In addition to providing
guidance for parents, friends, teachers, and others who care for
someone who self-injures, we offer people who self-injure a way to
internalize the strengths-based approach in their own interactions
with others. This includes considerations regarding disclosures, how
to respond to questions about scarring, and the importance of self-
care. Finally, in Chapter 14 we emphasize the need for advocacy of
the person-centered approach through research, clinical practice,
and in the community. We present ways that readers can advocate
for people who self-injure, by adopting the person-centered
framework, and learning from people with lived experience of self-
injury. We hope this will encourage readers to take up the mantle
and apply a strengths-based framing of self-injury in their own work
and lives.
The experience of self-injury is one that is different for each and
every person who self-injures. While there are some commonalities,
truly understanding self-injury requires that we listen to individuals’
experiences without preconceptions and without judgment. It is time
to challenge the traditional deficit-based models of self-injury and to
recognize the strengths, resolve, and resilience that people who self-
injure possess. In doing so we avoid stigmatizing and demoralizing
people who self-injure, and instead promote hope, optimism, and
support seeking. Our hope is that readers find inspiration in the
person-centered approach we present, and are able to take from this
framework to apply a new way of thinking about self-injury that can
make a significant and lasting impact for people with lived self-injury
experience.
 1

SELF-INJURY
An Overview

Before discussing the central framing guiding this book (see Chapter
3), it is first important to provide foundational knowledge about self-
injury. Accordingly, this chapter addresses key areas within the field
of self-injury, including how self-injury is defined, who self-injures,
what might contribute to self-injury engagement, the reasons people
may have for self-injury, and the risks associated with engaging in
self-injury. In Chapter 2, we build on this by discussing the link
between self-injury and suicide. Collectively, these two chapters
provide the groundwork from which to understand and apply the
person-centered, strengths-based framework woven throughout the
remainder of the book.

WHAT IS SELF-INJURY?
A review of the literature points to numerous terms being used to
refer to self-injury. Although having more than one term to refer to a
behavior is not necessarily an issue, this becomes a concern when
there is definitional inconsistency. Unfortunately, for quite some
time, this is what transpired in much of the self-injury literature. We
address issues of nomenclature in the next chapter as several of
these terms have also been used in the context of referring to
suicidal behavior.
Despite the historical confusion about what constitutes self-injury,
in 2007, the International Society for the Study of Self-Injury (ISSS)
—the preeminent organization in the field—put forward an official
definition for nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI; self-injury).1 Specifically,
self-injury was defined as the deliberate and self-inflicted damage to
one’s body tissue in the absence of suicidal intent and for reasons
that are not socially or culturally sanctioned. Although “NSSI” is
commonly used throughout the literature, for the purposes of
simplicity and consistency, we refer to self-injury throughout the
book to avoid repeated explanation of an acronym at the outset of
each chapter. Thus, subsequent mention of “self-injury” in later
chapters is in keeping with the above definition.
Before continuing, a few points about this definition warrant
discussion. First, suicidal behaviors (which carry lethal intent) are
excluded from this definition. However, it is important to bear in
mind, that while distinct, self-injury and suicide are related. Given
this, we address the relation between self-injury and suicide in
greater detail in the next chapter. Second, a key aspect of the above
definition is the exclusion of behaviors that would be otherwise
accepted in social and cultural contexts, such as tattooing and body-
piercing. Finally, behaviors that can have harmful effects (e.g.,
substance abuse, smoking) are not included in the definition of self-
injury as they do not yield immediate tissue damage and their
adverse effects tend to occur over time.
Following the above, what behaviors are encompassed by the
definition of self-injury? Although not intended to represent an
exhaustive list, the most common methods of self-injury involve
cutting, burning, hitting oneself (sometimes referred to as self-
battery), and severe scratching/skin abrading.2,3 Along these lines, it
is important to note that there is not a prototypical method of self-
injury. Rather, there is much variability with respect to how people
self-injure. Further, some individuals will use just one method of self-
injury, while other people will use multiple methods. In addition, how
one self-injures may change over time (e.g., the initial method used
may not be the method used through repeated self-injury). Because
of this, it is important to avoid generalizing about how people self-
injure and to instead consider people’s unique experiences.
 Since the inception and uptake of the aforementioned definition of
self-injury, the number of empirical papers published in which the
ISSS definition is used has ballooned and has steadily increased each
year since.4 It is perhaps unsurprising then that this definition
mirrors the one used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for
Mental Disorders (DSM), which we discuss later in this chapter. With
this growing literature in mind, we now focus the remainder of this
chapter on key aspects of what we have come to learn about self-
injury.

WHO SELF-INJURES?
For quite some time self-injury was primarily viewed as a symptom,
and frequently an indicator, of borderline personality disorder (BPD).
However, while self-injury is one of nine possible diagnostic criteria
for BPD—it is neither necessary nor sufficient for one to receive such
a diagnosis. Moreover, most individuals who engage in self-injury do
not meet BPD criteria.5,6,7 This then raises the question, who self-
injures? A basic answer is that anyone may self-injure. But, when
does self-injury tend to begin and do certain groups report more
engagement in self-injury than others? We address these important
questions next.

Rates and Age at Onset

The typical age at onset for self-injury is early- to mid-adolescence
with another peak during early adulthood.2,8 Although this is when
self-injury most often begins it is important to bear in mind that
people may start to self-injure at any age. In our own research and
outreach work, we have had participants report ages at onset in
early childhood and people indicating that they did not start to self-
injure until well into middle and older adulthood (60+ years).9
Indeed, individuals of all ages may self-injure, so it is important to
avoid sweeping generalizations and misconceptions that self-injury is
circumscribed to specific age groups (e.g., adolescents).
 While people across the age spectrum may report self-injury, this
is not to say that rates are similar across different age groups.
According to a large body of research, adolescents and emerging
adults consistently report the highest rates of self-injury, with up to
one in five individuals in these age groups reporting self-injury at
least once. More specifically, the lifetime prevalence of self-injury
among adolescents typically ranges from about 13% and up to 18%
in community samples.2,10,11 Among emerging adults, rates tend to
hover around 13%.2 However, in university settings rates tend to be
even higher with approximately 20% of students reporting self-
injury.2,12
Among adults, findings from several studies have indicated that
around 5.5% of adults report having self-injured on at least one
occasion.2,13 A similar but slightly lower rate (4.86%) was reported
in a recent paper examining the prevalence of self-injury in a
community sample of British adults.14 Research examining self-injury
among children under 12 years of age is sparser when compared to
that involving other age groups. Nevertheless, some researchers
have found that among children 8 to 12 years old, about 8% report
having self-injured on at least one occasion.15 Children younger than
8 may also self-injure; however, more research is needed to better
understand self-injury among younger youth.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, rates among clinical samples tend to be
much higher than those cited above. For instance, in some of the
field’s earlier published studies, self-injury rates of 40% to 61% were
reported among adolescents in inpatient settings.16,17 More recently,
researchers have sought to understand rates of self-injury within
particular diagnostic groups. For example, in one study about one-
third of individuals diagnosed with an eating disorder reported
having self-injured;18 similar rates have been reported elsewhere,
though individuals meeting criteria for bulimia nervosa (32.7%) were
found to have higher rates of self-injury than individuals with
anorexia nervosa (21.8%).19 In another study examining self-injury
in an inpatient sample of adolescents meeting criteria for personality
disorders, the rate of self-injury was 66.4%; however, this was not
circumscribed to just BPD.20 Collectively, across the literature there
are numerous reports of self-injury rates being higher when
comparing a variety of samples comprising individuals from inpatient
settings versus community-based settings.
In sum, adolescence and emerging adulthood represent the two
age groups during which self-injury tends to begin and most often
occur. However, anyone of any age may self-injure. Additionally,
although self-injury rates tend to be higher among inpatient or
clinical samples versus community-based samples, rates are
nonetheless high in the latter. As addressed in more detail later, self-
injury is transdiagnostic in nature. That is, it is not limited to a
particular diagnostic group and assumptions that self-injury is a
marker for borderline personality disorder—or any disorder—ought
to be avoided.

Racial Diversity
Much of the empirical efforts aimed at examining the prevalence of
self-injury (and studying self-injury more generally) have, to date,
not sufficiently represented racially diverse populations. Of the
research conducted to date, however, there is some evidence to
indicate that rates of self-injury among Black, Indigenous, and
People of Color (BIPOC) are higher than among white people.21,22
However, this should not be assumed as a generality. Findings from
two reviews of the literature concerning self-injury among racially
diverse groups indicate that different risk (e.g., difficulties with
emotion regulation, stigma) and protective factors (e.g., religion,
belongingness to one’s community) can influence the rate of self-
injury.21,22
Following the above, there is a strong need in the field to work
toward more diverse and equitable representation in research
efforts. Doing so is an important step toward appreciating and
understanding the unique and intersecting contributing factors (e.g.,
systemic racism; socioeconomic disadvantages) which may associate
with both mental health challenges and resilience and thus influence
engagement in self-injury. Thus, it is not only important to direct
more efforts at understanding self-injury among racially diverse
populations but also to work toward understanding the context in
which self-injury occurs. Beyond working toward greater
representation of diversity in terms of which populations are
included in future research, efforts to enhance diversity and inclusion
are not limited to who takes part in research but also to who
conducts research. Doing so ensures historically marginalized voices
are appropriately accounted for in all aspects of research. As this is a
critical goal in the broader field and when advocating for the person-
centered framework that underpins much of the book’s content, we
address this further in Chapter 14.

Sex, Gender, and Sexual Orientation

Previously, it was assumed that self-injury was a behavior primarily
enacted by girls and women. Yet, there is now substantial evidence
that the proportion of boys and men who self-injure is more or less
the same.2,5,23 The same is the case when comparing adult men and
women and the proportion of individuals in these groups who report
a history of self-injury.13 This is not to say that there are no
differences, however. Several studies indicate that there are
differences when it comes to the behavioral features (e.g., method)
of self-injury. Of note, young men tend to engage in higher rates of
self-burning (including branding) and to injure on their torso/chest
more often than young women; they also report self-injuring more
often when under the influence of substances.23,24 In contrast,
young women tend to report more engagement in self-cutting and
scratching and to report injuring their wrists and thighs.23,24,25 They
also tend to engage in more frequent self-injury and are more apt to
talk about self-injury.24,25
It is important to note that many studies reporting on sex and
gender differences among people who self-injure have not clearly or
consistently demarcated these constructs. As a consequence, it is
common to see sex-related terminology (e.g., male, female) to refer
to gender and vice versa. Further, many studies have historically
adopted a binary approach when reporting on sex and gender. This
limits what we know with respect to sex, gender, and self-injury.
Indeed, when researchers conflate sex and gender in the
presentation of questions asking about participant demographic
information or when binaries are used in questionnaires, individuals
completing the relevant items may feel unrepresented and
potentially marginalized in the research process; indeed, this can
impact people’s mental well-being.26 For these reasons, it is
incumbent on researchers to ensure clarity when asking about sex
and gender and that the questions presented to participants are
both accurate and inclusive.
Attention has increasingly been paid to understanding self-injury
among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+)
individuals as well people from gender diverse populations. Findings
from a series of reviews have indicated that compared to
heterosexual individuals, members of the LGBTQ+ community report
higher rates of self-injury.27,28,29 Relatedly, gender diverse individuals
also report higher rates of self-injury when compared to their
cisgender peers.29 Much like what was mentioned in the discussion
on racial diversity and self-injury, it is critical to not draw sweeping
conclusions about who may be at higher risk for self-injury when
considering sexual orientation and gender diverse people. Indeed, a
closer look at the extant literature reveals that some groups may
report higher rates of self-injury when compared to others.
Specifically, both transgender and bisexual individuals report greater
instances of self-injury and are considered at higher risk of self-
injury.25,29 Some research has further indicated that trans men may
be at especially high risk for self-injury.30 In line with this,
transgender youth report high rates of self-injury and broader self-
harm, including suicide attempts.31
Inasmuch as it is important to avoid generalizations about who
may be at heightened risk for self-injury, it is also critical to account
for the context in which self-injury occurs—that is, what may
account for why members of the above groups may self-injure. While
more research is needed to understand self-injury among members
of the LGBTQ+ and gender diverse communities, the extant
literature points to several considerations (e.g., minority stress,
stigmatization because of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity)
that contribute to this risk.27,28,29 Commensurate with attention to
the context in which self-injury occurs, an array of considerations
warrant attention when understanding what may lead to people
engaging in self-injury. We address these in the subsequent section.

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO SELF-INJURY?

There is significant variability and complexity with respect to what
confers risk for self-injury. Indeed, there is not a single factor, nor
set of factors, that consistently underlie and thus explain self-injury.
Rather, multiple, and often intersecting considerations contribute to
engagement in self-injury. For these reasons, no two people who
engage in self-injury will be identical—even if (many) aspects of
their experience are similar. Accordingly, it is essential that
assumptions are avoided when it comes to what may have
contributed to any one person’s self-injury. Nevertheless, there are
several potential risks factors for self-injury as well as risks of self-
injury that merit discussion as they can help to better understand
what may be involved in people’s lived experience. Therefore, we
now turn to an overview of some of the more commonly cited
factors that can play a role in self-injury engagement.

Self-Injury and Mental Health Difficulties

Perhaps unsurprisingly, self-injury is associated with a wide range of
mental health difficulties. Examples from several reviews and
seminal texts include but are not limited to anxiety, difficulty with
coping and managing emotion, self-criticism, impulsivity, and
negative body image.5,32,33,34,35,36 Similarly, self-injury can also
occur in the context of mental disorders. But, as previously
mentioned, self-injury is not limited to specific forms of mental
disorders, such as BPD, as was previously thought. Indeed, self-
injury has been found to co-occur with eating disorders, major
depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse,
among other forms of mental illness.5,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39 Thus, self-
injury is transdiagnostic in nature. Importantly, although it is the
case that self-injury is associated with an array of mental disorders,
just because someone self-injures does not mean that a mental
disorder is present. Many individuals will self-injure but not meet
criteria for a mental disorder.5,32,33,34,35
Outside of its association with both mental health difficulties and
mental disorders, self-injury has also been found to share a relation
with numerous adversities and difficult life events. For example, self-
injury has been shown to correlate with having attachment
difficulties, parental criticism, and parent loss.5,32,33,34,35 For quite
some time it was also presumed that self-injury was the
manifestation of childhood trauma—in particular, childhood sexual
abuse.40,41,42,43,44 Research, however, has indicated otherwise.34,45
Certainly, self-injury associates with trauma, including childhood
sexual abuse; in other words, people who have experienced such
trauma are at elevated risk for self-injury. However, trauma in the
form of childhood sexual abuse is not a unique predictor of self-
injury.34,45 Rather, researchers have demonstrated that this link is
better accounted for by depression, post-traumatic symptoms, and
other interpersonal factors.39,45 Engagement in self-injury also
associates with other forms of trauma (e.g., emotional and physical
abuse, bullying), yet the presence of self-injury should not signal
that one has a history of trauma.5,32,33,34,35 Not all individuals who
self-injure necessarily have these experiences.5,32,33,34,35

Self-Injury as a Standalone Diagnosis

There have been many cases made to have self-injury included as a
formal diagnosis, much like major depression or post-traumatic
stress disorder.46,47,48,49,50 Although initial efforts did not result in
the inclusion of self-injury within the diagnostic nomenclature this
changed in 2013, with the publication of the Fifth Edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
Although not technically a mental disorder, Non-Suicidal Self-Injury
Disorder was included in Section 3 of the DSM-5 as a condition
warranting further research.51 Box 1.1 outlines the proposed criteria
for NSSI Disorder.

Box 1.1
Proposed diagnostic criteria for nonsuicidal self-injury disorder.

In last year, the individual has, on ≥ 5 days,C. The intentional self-injury

engaged in intentional self-inflicted damage associated with ≥1 of:
to the surface of body of a sort likely to 1. Interpersonal difficulties
induce bleeding, bruising, or pain (e.g., or negative feelings or
cutting, burning, stabbing, hitting, excessive thoughts occurring
rubbing), with the expectation that the injury immediately prior to the
will lead to minor-moderate physical harm act.
(i.e., no suicidal intent). 2. Prior to engaging in the
The individual engages in the self-injurious act, a period of
behavior with one or more of the following preoccupation with the
expectations: intended behavior that is
1. To obtain relief from negative difficult to control.
feeling/cognitive state. 3. Thinking about self-
2. To resolve an interpersonal difficulty. injury that occurs
3. To induce a positive feeling state. frequently, even when it
is not acted upon.
D. Not socially sanctioned or limited
to scab-picking, nail biting.
E. Behavior or its consequences
cause significant distress or
interference in key areas of
functioning.
F. Not limited to psychotic
episodes, delirium, substances.
In neurodevelopmental dx,
behavior not repetitive
stereotypy. Not better explained
by other mental/medical
condition.
 Pursuant to this, much research has examined the utility,
reliability, and validity of the proposed DSM-5 criteria for NSSI
Disorder.46,49,50,52,53,54 Evidence from these efforts have
demonstrated that the proposed NSSI Disorder can be meaningfully
differentiated from other mental disorders such as BPD.49,53,55,56 and
that many of the criteria carry research and clinical usefulness.46
Collectively, there appears to be a growing likelihood that NSSI
Disorder will be formally incorporated in a future revision to the
DSM.52,54,55,57
Despite the many studies investigating NSSI Disorder, it is critical
to consider how individuals with lived experience view the prospect
of self-injury being diagnosed as a mental disorder. Some of our
research has shown that people with lived experience see both
advantages and disadvantages about this.58 Among the potential
advantages, people who self-injure highlight the possibility that NSSI
Disorder being included in the DSM could result in greater
understanding of self-injury (e.g., through more research funding).
They also indicate that this may work to legitimize people’s
experience and enhance both help-seeking and treatment.
Regarding the disadvantages, however, some individuals with lived
experience have expressed caution that inclusion of self-injury as a
diagnostic category may foment stigma and undermine the many
factors underlying self-injury—including those discussed in this
chapter. Thus, if (and seemingly when) self-injury is adopted as a
formal mental disorder, it will be vital that researchers and clinicians
work to address these concerns.

REASONS FOR SELF-INJURY

As we unpack further in Chapter 4, self-injury is unfortunately and
commonly stigmatized.59 One of the many consequences of this are
particular myths and misconceptions regarding why people self-
injure. Perhaps the most common of these is that self-injury is
inaccurately viewed as attention-seeking and manipulative in
nature.60,61 These views are in sharp contrast to a robust literature—
including comprehensive review papers—that points to myriad
reasons for self-injury.62,63 Furthermore, rendering self-injury
attention-seeking and manipulative is reductionistic and unhelpful, as
these views place fault and blame on the individual (e.g., for doing
something wrong or that they should not) and fail to capture the
context in which self-injury occurs.
A review of the literature highlights that there are numerous
reasons for self-injury (see Table 1.1). Most often these have been
conceptualized as falling into two overarching categories, namely
intrapersonal reasons and social (or interpersonal) reasons for the
behavior. Of these, there is significant evidence that intrapersonal
reasons are more commonly reported. Along these lines, by and
large, the most frequently cited reason that people give for self-
injury is that it is used to obtain temporary relief from unwanted and
often intense and very painful emotional experiences.63 In other
words, self-injury is used as a coping strategy. Indeed, many people
report that in response to strong emotions (e.g., anxiety, distress,
sadness) they turn to self-injury, which yields ephemeral relief from
these states.

Table 1.1. Common intrapersonal and social reasons for self-

injury (This is not intended to be an exhaustive list).

Examples of Intrapersonal Reasons Examples of Social

Reasons
To cope with and obtain relief from intense To communicate that one
emotional experiences (e.g., distress, anxiety) is in pain or struggling to
cope
To punish oneself and express self-criticism or self- To communicate a need for
loathing support
To stop feeling dissociated, depersonalized, or To demonstrate toughness
emotionally numb; to feel something when feeling to others
numb or dissociated; to “feel real”
To avoid acting on suicidal thoughts or urges

Supporting the view of self-injury as a coping strategy is a

substantial body of research.62,63 This entails a corpus of self-report
studies64,65,66 as well as lab-based studies in which findings indicate
that both people who have and who have not self-injured experience
less aversive emotion following exposure to a pain-inducing
task.67,68,69 In concert with this, there is empirical support that pain
can be effective in alleviating difficult emotions. This is especially the
case for individuals who report more self-criticism, which is both
common and typically higher among people who self-injure.70,71 It is
therefore understandable that individuals who engage in self-injury
will turn to self-injury during instances of emotional pain. Indeed,
self-injury works to cope with these experiences, as it reduces
intense and difficult emotions. Before discussing other reasons for
self-injury, while emotional pain is typically implicated in the context
of self-injury engagement, it should not be assumed that this is the
only emotional experience preceding self-injury. A range of emotions
may also occur prior to self-injury (e.g., frustration, anger, sadness,
anxiety).62,63
Perhaps the second most common reason reported for self-injury
is to punish oneself or to express self-loathing.62,63 As alluded to
earlier, many individuals with lived experience of self-injury report
high levels of self-criticism; correspondingly, it is not uncommon for
people to also report hating themselves.72 In these cases, self-injury
may be used to either demonstrate or express self-criticism or self-
loathing. At the same time, self-injury may be similarly used to cope
with these intense and potentially overwhelming emotional
experiences. Hence, self-injury may serve more than one purpose at
a given time.
Beyond these intrapersonal reasons for self-injury, others warrant
some attention. Among these is that for some people, self-injury is
used to alleviate feelings of dissociation, depersonalization, or
emotional numbness. It may also be used to generate a feeling
during these psychological states (e.g., to feel real or alive versus
feeling numb). Additionally, self-injury may serve as a means to
mitigate suicidal thoughts and to avoid acting on them.62
Finally, as mentioned earlier, self-injury may be engaged in for
interpersonal reasons. Although typically less frequently reported,
this can involve self-injuring to communicate pain or a need for help,
to establish boundaries between the self and others, and to signal
toughness to others.62,64,65 Because self-injury can have
interpersonal reasons, this may also help to explain—though not
excuse—some of the myths regarding self-injury, notably those
mentioned earlier such as self-injury being misconstrued as a form
of attention-seeking or manipulation. For example, an attempt to
communicate that one is in emotional pain through an act of self-
injury may be dismissed as attention-seeking. However, for some
people, it may be immensely difficult to articulate how much pain
they are experiencing; they may not know how to do this. Hence,
self-injury may be used to express the gravity of their pain, only for
this to be viewed in stigmatizing or otherwise unhelpful ways.
At this point, it should be clear that people self-injure for many
different reasons. Along these lines, there are several considerations
to keep in mind when understanding why people self-injure; these
are summarized in Box 1.2. First, while we have focused on the
more frequently cited reasons in the literature, the reasons
discussed thus far should not be viewed as an exhaustive list.
Indeed, people may have other reasons for self-injury. Second,
people may self-injure for more than one reason. On the one hand,
this may mean that the reason for self-injury may differ across
contexts; it may be that self-injury serves more than one purpose at
a given time. For example, people may self-injure in response to
intense self-criticism to both express how they feel but also obtain
relief from the pain that comes with this view of self. Third, the initial
reason(s) for self-injury may differ from those involved in its
repetition. For instance, someone might initially self-injure to cope
with emotional pain but later use the behavior to avoid acting on
suicidal urges. Thus, people’s reasons may change, and these
changes may occur at different points (i.e., not limited to the initial
onset and then repetition of self-injury).

Box 1.2
Summary of key considerations regarding reasons for self-injury.
Reasons For Self-Injury: Key Considerations

Although people most often report using self-injury to cope with painful
emotions, this should not be assumed. There are many reasons for self-
injury.
People often self-injure for more than one reason.
The initial reason for self-injury may differ from the reason(s) self-injury
continues.
Reasons for self-injury may vary across contexts and time.
People may have difficulty explaining why they self-injure (e.g., due to stigma,
not knowing how to express underlying difficulties).

It is also important to bear in mind that sometimes individuals

may have difficulty expressing why they self-injure. This is
understandable. It can be hard to share experiences that are painful
or that are stigmatized, and it can be difficult for people without
lived experience to fully understand why someone might
intentionally hurt themselves. One final note regarding reasons for
self-injury pertains to how people describe why they self-injure.
Much of what we summarize in this section of the chapter comes
from research using questionnaires or interviews that ask direct
questions about why someone might self-injure. However, the
language used in these approaches may not perfectly align with how
someone might describe their experience. Therefore, when trying to
understand someone’s reasons for self-injury, situating them as an
expert in their own experience and actively listening to their
description of what self-injury does for them is essential.

CONSEQUENCES OF SELF-INJURY
Beyond what may contribute to initial and continued self-injury,
there is also a range of consequences that stem from self-injury
itself. Certainly, by virtue of engaging in self-injury, individuals are at
risk for a range of injury types which will vary based on the self-
injury method and medical severity. Relatedly, self-injury may result
in residual scarring. A growing body of research indicates that
scarring from self-injury is highly salient among many people with
lived experience. For example, it may play a role in the context of
recovery as well as in the stigmatization of self-injury.73,74,75,76 In
line with scarring being involved in the context of stigma, self-injury,
in general, can evoke significant stigma.59 In this way, individuals
who self-injure may experience stigma from others as well as
internalized stigma. For these reasons, we address stigma and
recovery in a more fulsome manner in Chapters 4 and 11,
respectively. Outside of this, individuals who engage in self-injury are
also at greater risk for suicide. Given the centrality of this risk and
the import of understanding how self-injury and suicide are
interrelated, we dedicate the next chapter to this topic.

SUMMARY
Notwithstanding the documented myths and misunderstandings
concerning self-injury, the significant strides in research over the
past decade or so have vastly increased our understanding of self-
injury. These collective research efforts have established that self-
injury is a common, serious, but highly complex behavior. Numerous
factors can contribute to self-injury and each person’s experience will
be, to varying degrees, unique. Likewise, people may have different
reasons for self-injury (with some people having more than one
reason or reasons that change over time). Given this, and congruent
with recent shifts in the field, a person-centered approach—that
emphasizes people’s lived experience—is needed when
understanding self-injury and in the context of supporting people
who self-injure.77,78,79,80 In our view, doing so is paramount to
ensuring people with lived experience are supported and
understood. Hence, we have structured this book to facilitate and
deepen how self-injury is understood while also providing practical
information that can promote greater well-being and better
outcomes for people with lived experience.
 2

SELF-INJURY AND SUICIDAL

THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIORS

AN ISSUE OF TERMINOLOGY
Historically, exploration of self-inflicted harm has been hampered by
definitional inconsistency and ambiguity. In fact, self-injury holds the
unfortunate position of having countless terms used to describe a
behavior. Among the terms used throughout the literature are: “self-
mutilation,” “self-inflicted violence,” “self-abuse,” “deliberate self-
harm,” “self-harm” (with the “deliberate” qualifier seen as implicit),
“nonsuicidal self-injury,” “self-injury,” and “parasuicide.” In some
cases, self-injury has simply been referred to as cutting, fostering
the misunderstanding that cutting is the only form of self-injury.
Terms such as “self-mutilation” and “parasuicide” quickly fell out of
favor as they were considered pejorative, and seen as unhelpful by
people with lived experience of these behaviors.
Today, the terms “self-harm” and “non-suicidal self-injury” (NSSI
or simply “self-injury”) are more commonly used. Yet there is still
confusion regarding which behaviors constitute self-harm. For some,
self-harm means any nonfatal, self-inflicted behavior irrespective of
intent (including suicide attempts1); others include only behaviors
enacted without conscious suicidal intent.2 As seen in Figure 2.1,
self-harm might best be conceptualized as a broad umbrella term
that encompasses self-injury, poisoning, suicide attempts, and
culturally or socially appropriate forms of harm (e.g., religious or
cultural practices). To aid in the differentiation of these behaviors,
the International Society for the Study of Self-Injury2 explicitly
defined self-injury as the deliberate, self-inflicted damage to body
tissue without suicidal intent, and for purposes not socially or
culturally sanctioned. While intent can be difficult to determine, and
fluctuates over time,3 failure to make this distinction can result in
inaccurate risk assessment, inappropriate treatment, and
unnecessary hospitalization.4 For these reasons, throughout this
book, we focus our attention specifically on self-injury.

Figure 2.1. Conceptualization of self-harm.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELF-INJURY AND
SUICIDAL BEHAVIORS
On the surface, self-injury and suicidal behaviors can appear quite
similar. Both are deliberate acts of damage against the self. Both
have been associated with severe psychological distress and mental
illness, including major depression, anxiety disorders, and substance
use disorders.5 Both self-injury and suicide attempts are more
common among females (although death by suicide is more common
among males). Although we do not have accurate epidemiological
data, some studies report that among people who report a suicide
attempt, 68% also report a history of self-injury.6 Similarly, some
studies report that among people who engage in self-injury, 33%
report a prior suicide attempt,7 suggesting some overlap across the
behaviors.
At the same time, there are many differences that support the
idea that self-injury and suicidal behaviors are distinct. The primary
distinction is the intention underlying the behavior; self-injury is
usually engaged as a means of coping with distressing or upsetting
emotional states while suicidal behaviors are engaged as a means of
ending life.5 In other words, one is used to cope with adversities in
life and the other is engaged with the intention of ending life. Not
surprisingly then, self-injury is engaged more often than suicidal
behaviors, has an earlier age of onset, and usually involves less
lethal means (e.g., skin cutting vs. hanging5).

HOW ARE SELF-INJURY AND SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR RELATED?

In line with the definitional ambiguity, there has been ongoing
debate in the literature as to whether self-injury and suicidal acts are
truly separate behaviors, or whether they exist on a continuum of
self-harming behavior, with self-injury at the less severe end of the
spectrum and suicide attempts at the most severe. Proponents of a
continuum approach argue that self-injury typically precedes suicidal
thoughts and behaviors, but that when the underlying distress is not
resolved, more lethal means of self-harm are used to permanently
end the distress.8 In this way, self-injury is seen as a gateway to
suicidal thoughts and behaviors, similar to how marijuana use is
perceived to be a gateway to use of more harmful illicit drugs.
Supporters of the notion that the behaviors are separate point to the
fact that suicidal thoughts and behaviors can fluctuate, and that
people can, and do, engage in both suicidal and nonsuicidal
behaviors across the lifespan.5 Further, the two behaviors differ in a
number of features, including descriptive features (e.g., means of
injury), demographic characteristics (e.g., gender), and psychosocial
variables (suicidal behavior is accompanied by a sense of
hopelessness rather than one of trying to cope with life).5
Another point of view is that there is a common third variable (or
set of variables) that underlies both self-injury and suicidal behavior.5
Both self-injury and suicidal behavior are associated with
psychological distress and psychological disorders, which may
themselves increase risk for both behaviors. However, research
comparing individuals who report self-injury, individuals who report a
suicide attempt, and individuals who report both, shows that these
groups can be differentiated on levels of distress and mental illness.
If these factors were the cause of both self-injury and suicidal
behavior, the psychological profiles would be similar.
Bringing all these conceptualizations together, Hamza and
colleagues5 proposed an integrated model. In particular, they clearly
differentiate self-injury and suicidal behavior, but suggest a direct
link between self-injury and suicidal behavior (consistent with the
Gateway theory). They also propose that this relation may be
impacted by additional variables common to both behaviors
(consistent with the third variable model). Finally, they outline a role
for acquired capability for suicide, consistent with Joiner’s
interpersonal theory of suicide9 (discussed in detail below). In doing
so, Hamza and her colleagues propose that we do not need to
adhere to any one conceptualization of the association between self-
injury and suicidal behavior, but that all accounts warrant
consideration.
HOW DO WE EXPLAIN THE RELATION BETWEEN SELF-INJURY AND
SUICIDAL THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIORS?
Perhaps the most widely used theory linking self-injury and suicidal
behavior is Joiner’s interpersonal theory of suicide.9 Joiner proposed
that in order to die by suicide an individual must have both a desire
to suicide and the ability to take their own life. Contributing to the
desire to die by suicide are an unmet need to belong, termed
“thwarted belongingness”, and perceiving oneself to be a burden on
others, termed “perceived burdensomeness.” Both thwarted
belonging and perceived burdensomeness are considered to be
multifaceted constructs that encompass a number of known risk
factors for suicide (e.g., loneliness, child abuse, loss of loved ones,
family conflict, unemployment, homelessness, self-hate, low self-
esteem; see Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Joiner’s interpersonal model of suicide.

The ability to take one’s life is referred to as acquired capability for

suicide. Joiner proposes that in order to feel one is capable of taking
their own life they need to lose the fear of death, and have a
capacity to endure pain that may arise from the means of suicide.10
As humans, we are evolutionary programed to strive for life and
avoid life-threatening situations. When exploring reasons for living,
many cite a fear of death as a reason they do not attempt suicide.
As such, the ability to take one’s life requires that enough of this fear
has dissipated that it no longer presents a barrier to suicide. In
addition, methods of suicide often involve physical pain. To have the
capability to die by suicide an individual needs to be able to
withstand this self-inflicted pain. Pain tolerance is something that
varies widely from individual to individual, yet there is reliable
evidence that individuals who have engaged in self-injury have a
higher tolerance for pain than individuals with no history of self-
injury or suicidal behavior.11 Of course, an individual may have a
different tolerance for different types of pain, and this likely informs
the means of suicide an individual will choose.
Joiner uses the concepts of habituation and opponent processes to
explain how someone may develop acquired capability for suicide
over time.9 With repeated exposure to fearful or painful experiences
one’s level of fear and pain tend to dissipate; this is known as
habituation. Opponent process theory suggests that emotional
responses often comprise two competing (or opponent) processes.
For example, a fear of suicide may also be accompanied by a sense
of anticipated relief or escape. With repeated exposure the primary
process (fear) tends to reduce while the strength of the opponent
process (escape) is amplified. To demonstrate how habituation and
opponent processes work together, Van Orden and colleagues use
the example of an individual who goes bungee jumping. Their initial
reaction is likely to be one of fear (primary process). However, with
repeated exposure this fear will reduce and the opponent process of
exhilaration will increase.10
Of note, Joiner mentions self-injury as one factor that, through
repeated acts, can increase the capability for suicide. Specifically, he
argues that the initial response (primary process) to self-injury may
be fear and an expectation of pain. However, self-injury also
produces emotional relief (the opponent process). Over time, self-
injury becomes less fearful, and the association with emotional relief
becomes stronger. Repeated self-injury may also increase pain
tolerance, as an individual becomes more comfortable with
deliberately hurting themselves.9
Supporting this theory, people who repeatedly self-injure feel
calmer and more relieved following self-injury than people who self-
injure less frequently, suggesting the opponent process of relief
becomes more reinforcing with greater repetition of the behavior.12
In experimental tasks, people who self-injure generally endure
painful stimuli for longer than people who do not self-injure,13 and
the relation between self-injury and suicide attempts is stronger for
people with high levels of pain persistence.14 After conducting a
meta-analysis of prior studies, Koenig and colleagues11 noted that
individuals who engage in self-injury exhibit a greater pain threshold,
greater pain tolerance, and lower pain intensity compared to
individuals who do not self-injure.
Among college students, self-injury prospectively predicts acquired
capability for suicide.15 In a direct test of the model among sexual
minority youth, Muehlenkamp and colleagues16 found that self-injury
was related to suicidal thoughts and behaviors, working though
acquired capability. Extending the original model, Chu and
colleagues17 noted that self-injury was also associated with thwarted
belongingness and perceived burdensomeness among young adults.
Further, self-injury prospectively predicted suicide ideation, through
perceived burdensomeness. Similar patterns have been observed
among military service members and veterans.18 The link between
self-injury and acquired capability has become so accepted that
many researchers use measures of self-injury as a proxy for acquired
capability for suicide.19,20

DOES SELF-INJURY INCREASE RISK OF LATER SUICIDAL

THOUGHTS AND BEHAVIORS?
Although a link between self-injury and suicidal thoughts and
behaviors is commonly accepted, there are very few longitudinal
studies that allow us to determine whether self-injury is a unique
risk factor for later suicide. In one study with adolescents, a history
of self-injury conferred a threefold risk in concurrent or later suicidal
thoughts or behaviors, with youth who engaged in 20 or more acts
of self-injury most at risk.8 Among college students, a prior history of
self-injury is associated with a 5.5 times greater risk of a subsequent
suicide attempt.21 This risk is increased to 330 times the risk for
students who meet proposed DSM-5 criteria for Non-Suicidal Self-
Injury Disorder.22 Thoughts of self-injury, in the absence of the
behavior itself, are associated with later suicide ideation and making
a plan for suicide. Further, self-injury differentiates students who
report suicide ideation and act on these thoughts from those who do
not attempt suicide.22 Consistent with Whitlock’s work with
adolescents, young adults who engage in more than 20 acts of self-
injury are at increased risk of suicide attempt. In clinical samples,
frequency of self-injury appears to predict subsequent suicide
attempts, with more frequent self-injury increasing risk of later
suicide attempt.23
In a meta-analysis of risk factors for suicide, Franklin and
colleagues24 observed self-injury to be the most reliable predictor of
a suicide attempt; individuals reporting a history of self-injury were
four times more likely to report an attempt than individuals who had
no self-injury history. However, the authors also noted that predictive
effects were quite weak and caution against using any one predictor
as an indicator of suicide risk. When specifically analyzing studies
reporting on the relation between self-injurious thoughts and
behaviors, and future suicide ideation, attempts, and death, Ribeiro
and colleagues25 again observed that self-injury was the most
reliable predictor of later suicide attempts. However overall
prediction was weak, with individuals reporting a history of self-
injury only twice as likely as those without a history to later record a
suicide attempt.
In sum, it seems that people who self-injure are more likely to
report suicidal thoughts and behaviors than individuals with no
history of self-injury, whether this be in the past, concurrent with
self-injury, or in the future. However, there is no accurate data on
just how many people who self-injure will engage in future suicidal
thoughts and behaviors. The statistical modeling that has been
conducted suggests there is a reliable association between self-injury
and future suicide risk, however this effect is small, and self-injury
should not be used as the sole indicator of suicide risk.

A PERSON-CENTERED APPROACH
It may be apparent from reading this chapter that the link between
self-injury and suicidal thoughts and behaviors is complex. Issues
with terminology, consideration of the overlap between self-injury
and suicidal behavior, as well as the important distinctions, and a
lack of solid evidence regarding the prospective relation between
self-injury and later suicidal behavior all hinder understanding of this
relationship. However, despite these concerns, the research
consistently points to elevated rates of suicidal thoughts and
behavior among people with a history of self-injury. For this reason,
consideration of suicide risk is important when supporting someone
who self-injures.
To ensure a complete understanding of an individual’s experience
it is important to focus on each instance of self-inflicted harm, rather
than assume the motives and functions of all acts of harm are the
same. As noted earlier, suicidal thoughts can fluctuate over time, and
while one act of self-injury may be nonsuicidal in nature, a later act
may be underpinned by thoughts of suicide. Likewise, someone who
has attempted suicide may subsequently engage in nonsuicidal self-
injury. Rather than making assumptions, it is critical to adopt a
person-centered approach to ask the individual what is going on for
them, at that time. Individuals can adopt a respectful curiosity to
empathically enquire about their experience.26 Here, a genuine
interest in understanding one’s lived experience with self-injury is
communicated. This approach is particularly effective as it conveys a
genuine commitment to wanting to understand what self-injury, or
suicidal thoughts and behaviors, mean for the individual.
Given fluctuations in suicidal thoughts and behaviors, it is
important to ask about suicide, and if necessary conduct a suicide
risk assessment. Ongoing monitoring of suicidal thoughts and
behaviors—without over monitoring—is warranted. Many people
become anxious talking about suicide, afraid that talking about it will
increase risk for vulnerable people. However, this is not true.
Instead, talking about suicide opens the doors to better
communication and fosters support seeking for someone who is
currently struggling.27 One could start by simply asking, “Do you
ever have thoughts of suicide when you self-injure? What about at
other times?” The response to this question is likely to determine the
level of care or intervention required. Avoid minimizing the person’s
feeling (e.g., “You have everything to live for”), or promoting stigma
(e.g., “Suicide is selfish,” “People who die by suicide are weak and
just can’t handle life”). The important thing is that you take the time
to listen to what is going on for this person, at this time.
In talking about suicide, or suicidal thoughts, the language we use
is important.28 Like self-injury, suicide carries significant stigma, and
it is important to ensure the language used does not further promote
or worsen stigma. Terms such as “committed suicide” associate
suicide with criminal acts or being involuntarily committed to a
mental institution, and risk stigmatizing both the person who dies by
suicide and those bereaved by the death. Instead, use terms such as
“died by suicide” or talk about someone who “took their own life.”
Likewise, when considering suicide attempts avoid terms such as
“failed suicide attempt” or “unsuccessful suicide,” which have an
emphasis on failure (see Table 2.1). For the individual who survives
an attempt this could be construed as one more thing they were not
able to achieve, and could exacerbate a sense of hopelessness—a
key factor in risk for suicide. Instead, talk about someone who has
“attempted to take their life.”
 Table 2.1. Practical tips regarding language and asking about
suicidal thoughts and behaviors.

Language to avoid Instead use

Commit suicide • Died by suicide
Successful suicide • Took their own life
Failed suicide • Attempted to end their life
Unsuccessful suicide • Nonfatal attempt
Questions to ask about suicidal thoughts and behaviors
Do you ever have thoughts of suicide when you self-injure? What about at other
times?
How much do you feel like acting on these thoughts right now?
Why do you think you feel this way?
I know that talking about suicidal thoughts or feelings can be hard. Know that I
am here when you are ready to talk.
Have you thought about how you would end your life? (The point here is not to
focus on the method, but to determine if the individual has a suicide plan, which
indicates increased risk)
Have you thought about talking to a professional to help with these feelings? I
can come with you if you like.
What can I do to help?

DEVELOPING A SAFETY PLAN

The gold-standard approach to preventing suicide among people
experiencing suicide ideation is to develop a safety plan.29 A safety
plan may also be a useful tool to help people engaging in self-injury
—whether this is accompanied by suicidal thoughts or not. When
people feel particularly distressed it can be difficult to think about
alternate coping strategies. The distress or emotional pain can feel
overwhelming, and people can develop “tunnel vision,” seeing self-
injury or suicide as the only solution. Developing a safety, or
support, plan provides individuals with strategies to help them see
other options they could use instead of self-injury or suicide (see
Table 2.2).
Taking a person-centered approach, a safety plan is individually
tailored for the person, and does not make assumptions about their
experiences. Safety plans can be completed alone, or with the help
of a friend, or mental health professional. When developing a safety
plan it is important that the individual finds a time when they are
calm, and are in a safe place, that allows them to clearly think about
their self-injury and alternative strategies that could be used. The
first step of safety planning involves recognizing an individual’s
warning signs. These are potential triggers that increase risk of self-
injury or suicidal behavior. These might be a fight with a loved one,
poor performance at school or work, or just a build-up of many little
stressors over time. The second step is to ensure the individual’s
environment is safe. In the case of suicide safety planning this might
mean restricting access to means to suicide. With self-injury this is a
little more difficult, as almost anything can be used to self-injure.
However, some people might find that limiting access to their
preferred means of self-injury may reduce their engagement in the
behavior. Next, the person outlines reasons they do not want to self-
injure. These might be short-term or long-term reasons, but will
serve as a reminder when urges are strong that the individual has
identified reasons that they do not want to self-injure. Many people
report ambivalence about wanting to completely stop self-injury,
recognizing that it is an effective, although not ideal, way to alleviate
distress.30,31 A reason not to engage in self-injury might be as
simple as “I do not want to self-injure at this point in my life,” which
does not take self-injury off the table indefinitely, but may give
someone the motivation they need to resist an urge to self-injure in
that moment. The impact self-injury has on family and friends is also
commonly reported as a reason not to engage in the behavior.
An important step of safety planning is to identify alternate coping
strategies. As noted above, when feeling distressed it can be really
difficult to think of other strategies that have worked in the past and
self-injury (or suicide) can seem like the only viable option for
managing, avoiding, or escaping distress. Writing down a list of
alternatives that have previously worked means the person does not
need to think of them while distressed—they are already written
down, and can serve as reminders of what else has worked in the
past. Touching base with family and friends, even if it is just to vent,
can be important to re-establish that sense of belonging and gain
social support. Finally, the individual should write down a list of
professional resources and supports that they can call on if things
get really bad. Again, having these at hand means not needing to
look them up during a period of heightened distress.

Table 2.2. Sample safety plan to be individually tailored (by filling

in the extra space).

CONCLUSION
Although not engaged with conscious suicidal intent, self-injury and
suicidal thoughts and behaviors often do co-occur. Moreover, self-
injury is the most reliable predictor of later suicidal thoughts and
behaviors. Adopting a person-centered approach means
acknowledging that an individual may engage in a range of self-
harming behaviors, for different reasons at different times.
Compassionately asking about suicidal thoughts provides a space for
open communication, without judgment, and may foster
understanding of an individual’s experience. Developing a safety plan
may be one strategy an individual could use, both to limit use of
self-injury or to avoid acting on suicidal urges.
 3

A PERSON-CENTERED, STRENGTHS-
BASED FRAMING OF SELF-INJURY

THEORETICAL MODELS OF SELF-INJURY

Experiential Avoidance Model

One of the first efforts to explain the initiation and maintenance of
self-injury, the experiential avoidance model1 posits that self-injury is
maintained by a cycle of negative reinforcement, through the
avoidance of unwanted emotional experiences. Central to this model
is the idea that individuals have varying degrees to which they can
sit with their emotions, or wish to avoid them. Individuals who self-
injure are thought to be more likely to want to avoid intense or
unwanted emotions. As such, unwanted emotional experiences are
likely to trigger this desire to avoid them, and self-injury is used as a
means of doing this. Further, the relation between the unwanted
emotion and avoidance can be amplified or attenuated by an
individual’s levels of distress tolerance, emotional intensity, and
emotion regulation.

Nock’s Integrated Model of Self-Injury

Matthew Nock’s2 integrated theoretical model of the development
and maintenance of self-injury considers risk factors for self-injury as
well as factors that maintain the behavior. Both distal (e.g., genetic
predisposition) and proximal (e.g., stressful events) are considered,
as are intra- and interpersonal vulnerability factors, such as poor
communication skills and poor distress tolerance. Nock asserts that
self-injury can be reinforced either by regulation of one’s emotion or
by regulation of a social situation. Unique to Nock’s model is the
presentation of a number of self-injury-specific vulnerability factors.
These are hypotheses regarding why someone may engage in self-
injury rather than an alternative behavior and include: modeling the
behavior from others, self-punishment, communicating distress, the
ease with which self-injury can be engaged and the effectiveness of
the behavior, reduced pain sensitivity, and identifying as someone
who self-injures.

Emotional Cascade Model

The emotional cascade model3 was developed as a means of
explaining the occurrence of dysregulated behaviors, like self-injury,
in the context of borderline personality disorder. Central to this
model is the notion that intensely ruminating on negative emotion
can amplify the emotional experience. This can develop into an
“emotional cascade” whereby continued rumination leads to
increasingly intense emotion. Ultimately, the emotion reaches an
intensity that cannot be downregulated through coping strategies
such as listening to music or going for a walk, but requires a
strategy that matches the intensity of the emotion and allows the
cycle to be interrupted. Self-injury achieves this by distracting from
the cycle of rumination and emotion, as the individual focuses on the
injury, the sight or blood, wound care, or other aspects of self-injury.

Cognitive-Emotional Model
The cognitive-emotion model4 builds on prior emotion-focused
theories of self-injury to incorporate elements of social cognitive
theory.5 Specifically, the model allows for anticipated consequences
of the behavior to feature in the decision to self-injure. That is,
outcome expectancies, or what a person believes will happen if they
self-injure, operate to guide behavior, with anticipated positive
consequences increasing likelihood of self-injury and anticipated
negative consequences decreasing likelihood of the behavior.6 These
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 dal Milanese, devono per l’armi ancora tornare alla dominazione
austriaca». Vedi anche l’Histoire des cabinets de l’Europe pendant le
Consulat et l’Empire, par Armand Lefèvre, 1840.

54. La rivoluzione aveva divorato tre bilioni di proprietà del clero, cinque
bilioni di proprietà degli emigrati; gli argenti e le campane e le gioje delle
chiese, i beni della Corona; imposte infinite, tasse e prestiti forzosi,
creato assegnati per 33,430 milioni: dall’89 al 98 aveva speso
novantasei bilioni, oltre cinquanta bilioni a cui era fallita nel 97, e quando
Napoleone, reduce d’Egitto, volea mandar un messaggiere in Italia, non
trovò nell’erario millecinquecento franchi da ciò.

55. Esiste il conto originale delle spese sostenute nel 1436 per condurre
una grossa bombarda ed altre artiglierie per l’assedio di Chivasso,
traverso al gran Sanbernardo. Cibrario, Memorie di Savoja, 350.

56. Il generale Soult assicura che, alla battaglia della Moglia fra gli
Appennini, i suoi soldati privi di pane e di munizioni, si buttavano sui
cadaveri degli Ungheri e li mangiavano. Mémoires, tom. iii. p. 51.

57. Ho sempre creduto della massima inutilità alla storia le descrizioni di

battaglie. I lettori ordinarj non capiscono; i militari non imparano, e
ricorrono alle opere speciali. D’altra parte una battaglia succeduta sotto
gli occhi nostri, nel maggior profluvio delle gazzette, dei bullettini, delle
memorie, è narrata diversissimamente dai diversi: e senza citare il
Botta, chi l’abbia letta in Thiers, che pur vanta aver avuto alla mano i più
preziosi documenti, stupisce di trovarla affatto differente in due generali
che vi presero parte, Marmont e Soult. Qui come altrove noi crediamo
bene cercar le cause, abbreviare le particolarità, e affrettarsi alle
conseguenze.
Il sepolcro di Dessaix all’ospizio del gran Sanbernardo è opera di Moitte,
morto il 1810; e lo rappresenta in atto di cader morto dal cavallo,
sostenuto dal colonnello Lebrun. Bourienne confessava che le
circostanze della morte di esso e il discorso messogli in bocca, gli erano
stati dettati da Napoleone; e che in realtà nessun lo vide o lo udì in
quella confusione. Era romanzesco pure il bullettino quando gli faceva
dire: — Andate a riferire al primo console che muojo col dispiacere di
non aver fatto quanto basti per vivere nella posterità».

58. Ercole Rinaldo, ultimo duca di Modena, moriva a Treviso il 14 ottobre

1803.

59. Proclama del 1º gennaio 1801.

60. Almanach catholique pour 1801.

61. Mentre il conclave eravi adunato, morì il patriarca Giovanelli, sant’uomo,

ed ebbe insigni esequie. Alla chiesa di San Giorgio, nel cui convento
s’eran accolti i cardinali, il nuovo papa regalò magnifici candellieri, che
poi il Governo d’Italia portò via per ornare la cappella reale di Milano.

62. Motu proprio, 11 marzo 1801.

63. Tal era a Milano Petiel, dove la commissione componeasi di Melzi,

Aldini, Sommariva, Paradisi, Ruga, Arauco, Birago, Visconti, Bargnani:
nella consulta de’ quaranta entravano Moscati, Luosi, Testi, Opizzoni,
Serbelloni, Maniscalchi.

64. Furono Diego Guicciardi segretario di Stato, Spanocchi grangiudice,

Felici ministro dell’interno, Bovara del culto, Prina delle finanze, Veneri
del tesoro, Pino della guerra, Maniscalchi degli affari esteri.
* Capo della commissione legislativa era l’avvocato Sommariva, che
meglio degli altri profittò dei mezzi di guadagno offerti dal disordine. Nel
rimettere il potere in mano del vicepresidente, al 16 piovoso anno i della
repubblica italiana, diceva: «Non dissimuleremo che la moltiplicità degli
obblighi contratti, e i pesi straordinarj ci determinarono a provvedimenti
spiacevoli ma necessarj. Per sostenere l’economia pubblica abbiamo
dovuto colpire la privata; ferire i cittadini nel vivo, e riaprire piaghe vicine
a rimarginarsi. Ma de’ mali passati ci consola l’idea che i nostri
successori, animati da fervido zelo, e secondati da circostanze migliori,
potranno coronare i voti di un popolo che, stanco di tante vicende, ha
diritto di finalmente godere la felicità a cui aspirava».

65. Il bilancio del 1803 stava su novanta milioni di lire milanesi (sessantotto
milioni di franchi); di cui cinquantadue al ministero della guerra: cioè
venticinque e mezzo per l’esercito francese, ventidue e mezzo pel
nazionale, quattro per le fortificazioni.
Il conte Sclopis, in un bel libro pubblicato dopo il nostro, diè fuori due
preziosi rapporti del vice presidente Melzi a Napoleone sopra lo stato
della Repubblica. Il Melzi si diffonde sulla propria incapacità. «Sì,
cittadino presidente; senza la vostra grand’ombra che ci protegge, non
saremmo che caos e sventura. L’Europa n’è convinta: ogni passo nostro
n’è novella prova... Troppo grandi ragioni e troppo ben giustificate
dall’esperienza vollero che il capo del nostro Governo fosse a Parigi,
anzichè a Milano. Guaj a noi se fosse altrimenti!
«Più avanziamo, la strada non sembra allargarsi che per offrirci nuove
difficoltà. I Giacobini e i ladri sono collegati; e le loro speranze, nudrite
da intriganti lor pari, che son a Parigi, van sino al generale
sovvertimento: e poichè sembra che ogni nostra forza è in voi, non vi
risparmiamo punto... La nazione è contenta, poichè essa gode il riposo
ch’era il suo primo bisogno. La confidenza nel Governo è ristabilita
perchè si spera: ma tante speranze io non le trovo nè in me nè attorno a
me. La mancanza d’uomini è grande più che non l’avrei pensato».
E dipingendo i varj ministeri e i varj corpi dello Stato, sovente ritorna
sull’apatia pubblica a fronte de’ Giacobini, come sempre chiama gli
antichi repubblicani. «I legislatori che mostrarono sempre buone
intenzioni, son troppo pochi: tutto il resto ostentò una leggerezza, una
trascuranza che troppo contribuì ad avvilire quel corpo nell’opinione
generale. Più volte mi sentii afflitto, umiliato udendo che legislatori, in
assenza di stranieri che ci spiano, nelle assemblee, al ridotto, ne’
palchetti sfogavansi a coprir di ridicolo e d’odio le stesse leggi ch’essi
aveano fatte il giorno prima. E ciò non per vedute determinate, ma ben
peggio, per mancanza totale di sentimento e interesse per la cosa, non
dissimulando nè la loro diffidenza sul destino della repubblica, nè la
persuasione che i nostri sagrifizj non andrebbero a profitto di essa, fino
a guardar il Governo come trastullo o complice... Per evitare il grande
sconcio della discussione pubblica si stabilì nella Costituzione la
discussione privata fra gli oratori e i consiglieri, e non se n’ebbe che
meglio... Voi conoscete tutte le persone che le circostanze fecero
entrare nel consiglio legislativo. Certo v’è del merito, e cognizione, e
zelo, ma anche troppi interessi e vedute personali, mancanza assoluta
delle abitudini richieste dalle loro funzioni: non contegno, non segreto,
non sentimento di far parte del Governo; tendenza evidente a
separarsene per far più liberamente gli interessi de’ dipartimenti, e
compiere intenti affatto personali.... Il maggiore imbarazzo de’ ministri
non consiste tanto nella farragine degli affari, quanto nella mala volontà
de’ loro dipendenti. L’antico Governo (della Cisalpina) aveva creato
un’immensa falange d’impiegati, diffusi in tutti gli uffizj, che divennero
una fazione numerosa quanto pericolosa pel nuovo Governo di cui
erano i nemici naturali...
«Uno de’ maggiori impacci ch’io incontrai fu di trovare impiegati capaci
di buon lavoro. Stiamo abbastanza bene quanto alla ragioneria;
malissimo nel resto. Gli antichi secretarj sono morti, o via: i nuovi sono
mediocri e mal educati, lavorano poco e non bene. Se trattasi di cosa
che dovrebb’essere scritta in modo distinto per la forza della logica o per
l’accuratezza dello stile, non si sa come fare. Quei che sanno scrivere
 non han la minima idea d’affari: quei che lavorano negli affari non sanno
scrivere.
«I dipartimenti ci offrono uno stato morale affliggente. Quei dell’antica
Lombardia recansi in pazienza, per effetto dell’abitudine, la dipendenza
dalla centrale; gli altri vi ripugnano più o meno, e s’ingegnano sottrarvisi
in ogni modo, tendendo ad assoluto federalismo. L’idea che bisogna
accentrar tutto per esser forti non entra nelle teste, giacchè nessuno
attacca importanza a questa. La forza nazionale, ch’è in contrasto con
tutte le idee e le abitudini ricevute... L’esercito essendo il grande oggetto
della spesa annuale, è la causa che allontana i più; e può dirsi che per
l’esercito italiano non v’è altri voti che quei dell’esercito. Tutto il resto gli
è contrario, più o meno apertamente; prova dell’assenza completa di
spirito nazionale, e il massimo ostacolo a crearlo. Nobili, clero,
campagne, popoletto delle città, salvo poche eccezioni, non sono per la
repubblica, se anche non le son contro. Il resto, che si chiamano patrioti
di molte gradazioni e fazioni, non è per essa, giacchè ognuno la
vorrebbe per sè, e ognuno in maniera diversa... Fra gli elementi discordi,
la fazione del Governo anteriore, cioè quello dei ladri, ha il miglior
giuoco; diffonde le idee più opportune a screditare il sistema, e seminare
l’inquietudine e lo sgomento...
«È un nascer morti il cominciare con un deficit nelle finanze: e noi siamo
in quel caso...
«S’è più volte notato che la mia condotta fu più conciliante che
imperiosa, più dolce che forte. Confesso che la mia maggior fatica fu
diretta a non dover ricorrere alla forza, perchè non ne avevo il
sentimento. Bisogna aver il piede assicurato per batter forte; ed io non
sono in questo caso. Quando avrò i mezzi di chetare i clamori de’
sofferenti, di alleviare i pubblici carichi, di sostenere spese straordinarie,
allora solo il Governo potrà prender un altro tono...
«Io non trovo altri spedienti d’assicurare radicalmente la tranquillità,
conquistare la volontà generale in favor del sistema, e sottrarne così la
repubblica ai mali onde l’Italia è minacciata, che migliorare dal fondo la
sorte de’ suoi abitanti». E suggerisce la diminuzione d’imposte, e la
attenzione di quel genio paterno, che è la prima come l’ultima speranza
della patria.

66. Nelle Memorie del conte Miot, che fu poi ministro del re Giuseppe a
Napoli e in Ispagna, esso Giuseppe si lagnava della nessuna libertà che
il fratello gli lasciava già da quando era console. «È vero ch’egli mi ha
offerto il posto di presidente della repubblica italiana, posto tanto da me
desiderato: ma voleva mettermivi in catene, e ridurmi alla parte che ora
 vi fa il Melzi: ond’io, che conosco a fondo mio fratello, e che so quanto il
suo giogo sia pesante, e che preferii sempre un’oscura esistenza a
quella di fantoccio politico, dovetti ricusare. Io esigevo che il Piemonte
fosse riunito alla repubblica italiana, che mi si lasciasse ripristinare le
principali fortezze, che si ritirassero dal territorio italiano le truppe
francesi. Ottenendo tali condizioni, sarei stato vero padrone. Dipendevo
dalla Francia pel gabinetto, per le relazioni politiche, ma non
materialmente. Mio fratello, d’ambizione smisurata, non volle consentire
a tali patti, e si fece nominare presidente».
Quanto poi si trattò di mutare quella repubblica in regno, non avendo
potuto farne accettar la corona a Giuseppe, Napoleone voleva darla al
figlio di suo fratello Luigi, fanciulletto sul cui conto la cronaca aveva a
che dire; Luigi governerebbe fin alla maggior età di esso. Ma Luigi ricusò
risoluto: «Finchè vivo, non consentirò nè all’adozione di mio figlio prima
dell’età assegnata dal senatoconsulto, nè ad altra disposizione, che a
scapito mio collocandolo sul trono d’Italia, resusciterebbe le voci sparse
sul conto suo. Se volete, andrò in Italia, ma a patto di condur meco mia
moglie e i figli». L’imperatore montò sulle furie a segno, che afferrò Luigi
alla vita, e con violenza lo spinse fuori del suo appartamento. Mém. du
comte Miot, tom. ii. p. 257.

67. Entusiasmo s’intende de’ soliti ciurmadori e ciurmati, e di quella

plebaglia che vuol feste e dimostrazioni. La consulta di Stato dirigeva al
ministro Marescalchi una memoria sullo stato dell’opinione pubblica,
dove diceva: «In genere i dipartimenti, e viepiù la città di Milano verso il
nuovo ordine di cose non mostra che apatia profonda: colla differenza
che i dipartimenti potrebbero essere scossi e riscaldati al minimo
vantaggio che loro si proponesse, mentre Milano, i cui abitanti sono
dabbene ma alquanto inerti, e hanno prevenzioni cattive più che altrove,
è sempre difficile a muovere ed eccitare». Rapporto del 15 aprile 1805.
Esso Marescalchi scriveva a Napoleone, che erasi fermato a Stupinigi:
«Ne’ tre giorni dacchè son a Milano, non perdetti un istante per far
conoscere V. M. e le sue intenzioni. Devo confessarle che v’è molti
ostacoli. Trovo le porte dei gran signori chiuse; gli spiriti preoccupati da
prevenzioni funeste e ridicole... Sol la presenza di V. M. può operar il
miracolo di convincerli e acquistarli. Spero riuscire a far organizzare una
guardia d’onore. Se l’ottengo, chiedo a V. M. di presentarle a Stupinigi
una deputazione de’ principali proprietarj per pregarlo a voler accettarla,
ecc. ecc.»
Così questi codardi cortigiani mentono l’opinione pubblica. E M. Thiers
dice che il regno d’Italia fu sempre l’objet de toutes les prédilections de
Napoleon (Histoire du consulat, t. v. p. 372.)
68. Le spese annuali erano di nove milioni e mezzo, cioè quasi il doppio di
quel che costava la repubblica aristocratica; e le entrate non toccavano i
cinque milioni. Vedi Annali della repubblica Ligure dal 1797 al 1805.
Genova 1853.

69. Dispaccio 11 agosto 1805 da Boulogne.

70. Mazzarosa, Storia di Lucca.

71. Girolamo Lucchesini (1752-1825), scolaro dello Spallanzani che

l’ammirava come un nuovo Pico, stette buon tempo a Milano poi a
Vienna; ma poichè Kaunitz nol lasciava penetrare nelle grazie di Maria
Teresa, passò in Prussia, dove Federico II lo apprezzò e lo prese a
segretario particolare. Anche il re successore l’adoprò in cose di Stato, e
Mirabeau, nel codardo libro sulla Corte di Prussia, ne dice ogni male. Fu
spedito in Italia per guadagnar i principi contro l’Austria. Benchè
ostilissimo alla rivoluzione francese, risedette a Roma ed altrove, ebbe
parte a tutti i trattati d’allora, benchè non fosse robusto negoziatore, ma
piuttosto insinuante. Alla Prussia spiaceva si sacrificasse Venezia,
accrescendo così forze all’Austria, e mandò Lucchesini a dissuaderne
Buonaparte, nelle cui grazie s’introdusse colle adulazioni, e gli mostrò
come la Prussia il seconderebbe nell’umiliare l’Austria: ma Buonaparte
era già d’accordo coll’Austria. Lucchesini ebbe mano nello sfasciamento
dell impero germanico; poi come a Jena fu sconficcata la Prussia,
ricoverossi in patria, e fu maggiordomo e devotissimo suddito di Elisa.
Cesare suo fratello (1756-1832) scrisse la storia letteraria di Lucca ed
altre cose molte.

72. Napoleone avea stabilito che ai veterani di Francia, invece di soldo, si

dessero terreni sul Reno e in Piemonte, e cinque campi avea destinati
fare con sei milioni di beni nazionali presso a Fenestrelle ed
Alessandria; istituzione che non ebbe poi effetto.

73. Trattato di Pietroburgo 11 aprile 1805.

74. Vuolsi menzionare anche Francesco Apostoli, che di buon’ora viaggiò in

Germania, poi fissossi a Vienna, donde accorse a Venezia a propagar le
idee demagogiche; sbandito ricoverò nella Cisalpina; tornati i Tedeschi,
fu deportato a Cataro, e que’ patimenti descrisse nelle Lettere Sirmiesi;
liberatone, fu a Parigi, piccolo ambasciadore della piccola repubblica di
San Marino; poi venne nel regno d’Italia, vi fu fatto censore, e negletto e
povero morì nel 1816.
75. È divulgato il titolo di Semiramide di Lucca, che Talleyrand dava ad
Elisa. Pure ella era tutt’altro che un’intelligenza vulgare, e fece molto nel
piccolo ducato di Lucca, moltissimo nel regno d’Etruria, e avrebbe fatto
di più se non fosse stata l’onnipotenza di Napoleone, col quale teneva
un carteggio vivissimo. Il 9 marzo 1806 gli scriveva: «L’abitudine del
lavoro è divenuta per me quasi una passione: mi tien luogo d’ogni altra
idea, e quando entro nel mio gabinetto, vi resto con tanto piacere,
quanto alla festa più brillante». Essendosi fatte passar delle truppe sul
suo territorio nell’estate del 1808, essa ne rivolse vivi richiami al fratello.
«Se V. M. riunì i miei principati al grande impero, renderò senza
rincrescimento la mia sovranità a quello da cui l’ebbi. Ma se ella mi
lascia al mio posto, io non soffrirò che la sorella del più gran monarca
sia trattata con disprezzo, e il suo territorio come un paese conquistato.
Lo dico francamente a V. M. Io ero felice nella mia vita privata; ma
d’essere un sottoprefetto di Lucca non può nè dee convenirmi».
Vedi Sclopis, La domination française en Italie, Paris 1861.
Abbiamo dall’archivio dell’Impero a Parigi una relazione fatta da Menou
a Napoleone sull’ordine giudiziario in Toscana. Espone i miglioramenti
che vi aveva introdotti Pietro Leopoldo, pur rispettando molto di quel che
era precedentemente. È notevole questo passo: «Farà meraviglia che i
delitti commessi nel regno di quel principe, e singolarmente negli ultimi
tre anni, siano men della metà di quelli processati in egual tempo sotto
la regina d’Etruria, benchè riformando la legge del predecessore, essa
abbia aggravato i supplizj, ristabilito la pena capitale, e moltiplicato i casi
d’applicarla. Pure quest’enorme differenza bisogna ricondurla alle cause
principali, cioè 1º alla maggiore agiatezza diffusa nelle classi della
popolazione al tempo di Leopoldo; 2º alla sua polizia, divenuta così
attiva e penetrante ch’era quasi insopportabile; e tutto quel che le pene
aveano perduto in intensità, era stato convertito in una sorveglianza
minuta e quasi personale».

76. Il Puccini era riuscito a trafugare da Firenze in Sicilia la Venere de’

Medici: ma Napoleone la voleva, e avendo indarno insistito con modi da
Verre, riuscì per frode a ottenerla dal ministro Acton.

77. Adda con Sondrio, Adige con Verona, Adriatico con Venezia, Agogna
con Novara, alto Adige con Trento, alto Po con Cremona, Bacchiglione
con Vicenza, basso Po con Ferrara, Brenta con Padova, Crostolo con
Reggio, Lario con Como, Mella con Brescia, Metauro con Ancona,
Mincio con Mantova, Musone con Macerata, Olona con Milano, Panaro
con Modena, Passeriano con Udine, Piave con Belluno, Reno con
 Bologna, Rubicone con Forlì, Serio con Bergamo, Tagliamento con
Treviso, Tronto con Fermo.
Fra le celie del Botta, le denigrazioni del Colletta, le ammirazioni del
Pecchio e le critiche del Coraccini (pseudonimo del francese La Folie) è
difficile che paja giusto lo storico del regno d’Italia; nè dalla critica de’
nostri tempi può sperarsi tanta lealtà che ai fatti opponga de’ fatti,
anzichè delle parole.

78. Augusta di Baviera, della quale, col nome di Amalia, i Milanesi

conservarono cara memoria, e che noi stessi, a Monaco, udimmo poi
ricordare con desiderio gli anni qui passati, era tenuta per la più bella
principessa di Germania. Alla pace di Presburgo, Napoleone la destinò
sposa al Beauharnais, ma essa era invaghita e promessa al principe
Carlo di Baden. Il padre le scriveva dunque il 25 dicembre 1805: «Se
v’avesse lampo di speranza che mai poteste sposare Carlo, io non vi
pregherei a ginocchio di rinunziarvi. Nè insisterei, mia cara e amata
Augusta, perchè voi deste la mano al futuro re d’Italia, se questa corona
non dovesse esser garantita da tutte le potenze alla conchiusione della
pace... Pensate che voi farete la felicità non solo di vostro padre, ma de’
fratelli e della Baviera, che ardentemente desidera quest’unione.... M’è
grave l’amareggiar il cuor vostro, ma io conto sulla vostra amicizia,
sull’attaccamento che sempre mostraste a vostro padre; nè voi vorrete
avvelenarne gli ultimi giorni. Pensate, cara Augusta, che un rifiuto
renderebbe tanto nemico l’imperatore, quanto ora è amico della casa
nostra. Risparmiateci il dolore d’una spiegazione, che potrebbe
diroccare la mia trista salute. Rispondetemi per iscritto, o per mezzo di
vostro fratello. Credete, cara amica, che mi costa infinitamente lo
scrivervi così, ma le circostanze più che imperiose, e il mio dovere di
badar agl’interessi del paese confidatomi dalla Provvidenza mi vi
costringono...»
La principessa lottò, poi gli scriveva: «Mi obbligano a romper la fede
data al principe Carlo. Io vi acconsento per quanto mi costi, se ne
dipende il riposo d’un padre amato e la felicità d’un popolo. Ma non
posso dar la mia mano al principe Eugenio se la pace non è fatta, e
s’egli non è riconosciuto re d’Italia. Io rimetto la mia sorte nelle vostre
mani: per quanto crudele deva essere, mi sarà addolcita dal sapere che
mi sono sagrificata per mio padre, per la mia famiglia e la mia patria. In
ginocchio vostra figlia domanda la vostra benedizione: essa m’ajuterà a
soffrir con rassegnazione il tristo mio destino». V. Mémoires du prince
Eugène, Parigi 1858, tom. ii. p. 16.
Lo strano è che Eugenio non sapea nulla di quest’affare; e Napoleone,
dopo tutto conchiuso, al 31 dicembre gli scriveva: «Son arrivato a
 Monaco. Ho combinato il vostro matrimonio colla principessa Augusta:
fu già pubblicato. Essa è molto bella, ve ne mando il ritratto, ma la è
molto migliore». E al 3 gennajo seguente: «Dodici ore al più dopo
ricevuto la presente, partite in tutta diligenza per Monaco». Nella
risposta di Eugenio non v’è motto del matrimonio. Arrivato che fu a
Monaco, Napoleone cominciò a beffarlo de’ suoi mustacchi, e ch’erano
troppo marziali per conquistar una fanciulla, e glieli fece tagliare. Vedi
Darnay, Notices historiques sur le prince Eugène.

79. «Napoleone aveva in disegno di rigenerare la patria italiana, riunire gli

Italiani in una sola nazione indipendente.... Era il trofeo immortale ch’egli
alzava alla sua gloria... Tutto era disposto per creare la gran patria
italiana... L’imperatore aspettava impaziente un secondo figlio per
menarlo a Roma, coronarlo re d’Italia, e proclamare l’indipendenza della
bella penisola sotto la reggenza del principe Eugenio». Memorie dettate
a Montholon. — Ma nell’esiglio Napoleone pensava, o i suoi gli faceano
dire tutt’altro da quel che sul trono.
* Quando Napoleone III conquistava la Lombardia nel 1859, io ebbi a
dirgli d’essermi sempre mostrato avverso al suo gran zio perchè esso
non avea voluto dare all’Italia l’unità, e almeno l’indipendenza che stava
in sua mano. Egli mi rispose che tale fu sempre il suo pensiero, ma le
circostanze glielo impedirono: e seguì coll’altre ragioni che del resto
aveva già esposte ne’ suoi scritti. Io non potetti che augurargli d’essere
esecutore delle volontà del grande zio.

80. Si occupò la villa de’ Durini, i quali mai non assentirono nè vollero
riceverne il prezzo, che perciò fu deposto in una cassa pubblica, donde
il ritirarono sotto la succeduta dominazione.

81. Scrive a Eugenio: J’ordonne que le Corps législatif termine ses séances.
Mon intention, pendant que je résiderai en Italie, est de ne plus le réunir.
J’avais trop bonne opinion des Italiens; je vois qu’il y a encore beaucoup
de brouillons et de mauvais sujets... Ce n’est pas l’autorité du Corps
législatif que je voulais; c’est son opinion... Si vous tenez à mon estime,
à mon amitié, vous ne devez sous aucun prétexte, la lune menaçât-elle
tomber sur Milan, rien faire de ce qu’est hors de votre autorité... Vous
êtes le premier qui m’ayez fait avoir tort avec trente au quarante
polissons, cioè il Corpo legislativo. E il 15 luglio 1805: Si la loi sur
l’enregistrement ne passe pas, je la prendrai de ma propre autoritè, et,
tant que je serai roi, le Corps législatif ne sera point réuni... Faites leur
bien entendre que je puis me passer d’eux, et que je leur apprendrai
comment je puis m’en passer puisqu’ils se comportent ainsi envers moi.
 Anche dal suo segretario Duroc gli facea rispondere forti rimproveri,
svillaneggiando l’opposizione italiana; e conchiudendo: Par exemple, si
vous demandez à sa majesté ses ordres et son avis pour changer le
plafond de votre chambre, vous devez les attendre: et si, Milan étant en
feu, vous lui demandez pour l’éteindre, il faudrait laisser brûler Milan, et
attendre ses ordres. 31 luglio 1805.
Eugenio, l’11 luglio 1805, scriveva a Napoleone: Les Italiens sont
réellement comme des enfans. On peut les comparer à des gens qui
dorment, et qui ne veulent pas se réveiller pour être heureux. E
Napoleone rispondeva il 27: Vous avez tort de penser que les Italiens
sont comme des enfans: il y a là-dedans de la malveillance. Ne leur
laissez pas oublier que je suis le maître de faire ce que je veux. Cela est
nécessaire pour toutes les peuples, et surtout pour les Italiens, qui
n’obéissent qu’à la voix du maître. Ils ne vous estimeront qu’autant qu’il
vous craindront, et ils ne vous craindront qu’autant qu’ils s’apercevront
que vous connaissez leur caractère double et faux. D’ailleurs votre
système est simple: l’empereur le veut. Tom. i, dei Mém. et
correspondance du prince Eugène, publiés par M. Du Casse. Paris
1858.

82. E ancora, tutto era guasto dall’adulazione de’ nostri gaudenti, a segno
che Napoleone scriveva al vicerè: «Gl’indirizzi che vi fanno gl’Italiani non
sono decenti: e’ non pesano le parole come si deve. Il rimedio è di non
stamparli mai. Questa sia la vostra regola». Lettera del 4 febbraio 1806
nella Correspondance du prince Eugène.

83. Rapporto ministeriale 11 dicembre 1806, che accompagnava il progetto

del codice di procedura. Nello studio delle scienze civili merita di non
esser dimenticata la Collezione dei travagli del codice penale pel regno
d’Italia. Brescia 1807, 6 vol. in-8º.

84. E la Cena e il Teseo furono poi, dalla sopravvenuta dominazione

austriaca, trasportati a Vienna, dove ora s’ammirano. La statua di
Napoleone, riposta ne’ magazzini di Brera per sottrarla all’indignazione
popolare, fu ora collocata in pubblico.

85. La scuola del genio militare era stata, dal valente matematico Leonardo
Salimbeni di Spalatro, istituita a Modena, mettendovi maestri il Cassiani,
il Venturi, il Ruffini modenesi, e chiamandovi da Verona il Cagnoli, il
Maffei, il Bidasio, il Tramontini.

86. È notevole il numero di valent’uomini che somministrò allora il piccolo

ducato di Modena: Veneri ministro del tesoro, Luosi della giustizia,
 Fontanelli della guerra, Testi degli affari esteri, Vaccari segretario di
Stato, Paradisi presidente del senato, dell’Istituto e del consiglio di
Stato, Lamberti Giacomo senatore e diplomatico e fratello del letterato
Luigi; Venturi matematico, e ministro presso la Confederazione elvetica,
Dall’Olio commissario della contabilità nazionale, i professori Ruffini,
Jacobi, Fattori; Bolognini ingegnere in capo del dipartimento del
Cróstolo, Soli architetto, Filippo Re agronomo. Su di che vedasi la
Bibliografia del conte Luigi Valdrighi, pel prof. Bosellini, Modena 1863. Il
Valdrighi, pure modenese, fu procurator generale della corte di
cassazione. Il generale Zucchi fu di questi paesi come Pellegrino Rossi.

87. Scriveva al Cesarotti: — Il Governo mi ha comandato, e m’è forza

obbedire. Batto un sentiero ove il voto della nazione non va molto
d’accordo colla politica, e temo di rovinare. Sant’Apollo m’ajuti, e voi
pregatami senno e prudenza». Eppure finiva quella Visione così:

Vate non vile

Scrissi allor la veduta meraviglia;
E fido al fianco mi reggea lo stile
Il patrio amor che solo mi consiglia.

88. Lo sforzo dello Sgricci (-1822) fu poi emulato dal romagnuolo Luigi
Cicconi (-1855) che a Parigi sostenne gara col Pradier, il quale tentò
simile esperimento in francese. Non va dimenticato il Menchi, che nella
montagna pistoiese andava improvvisando, e di cui si ripeterono a lungo
il Napoleone a Mosca e l’Alessandro a Parigi: ultimo forse di quei
cantastorie popolari, che un tempo abbondavano principalmente in
Toscana e in Romagna. Anche Valerio di Pos, nelle alpi di Canale
d’Agordo, poetò fin agli ottant’anni, e talora bene, e una sua biografia è
anteposta dal dottore Paolo Zanini alle Poesie di Valerio da Pos
contadino delle alpi Canalesi. Venezia 1822. Spontanea improvvisatrice
era pure riuscita la sua compatriota Angela Veronese, che dal Cesarotti
educata, divenne celebre col nome di Aglaja Anassilide.

89. Il divinizzare Napoleone fu un luogo comune de’ nostri retori. Pietro

Giordani, nel panegirico, dove si vanta di «altamente sentire la dignità
del secolo», abbonda d’espressioni simili a queste: — Il mondo è venuto
in potestà di tale, non oso dir uomo... Dirò pure salva la riverenza alla
tua maestà, o divo Napoleone, quest’unica delle umane cose io veggo
esserti impossibile, non essere eccellentemente buono... Invitando
gl’Italiani a considerare e adorare la grandezza de’ suoi benefizj...
Augusto principe, in cui la nostra nazione adora il più caro benefizio che
riconosca dall’imperatore in Italia. Sorgeranno statue al divo
 Napoleone... avrà in ogni cittade un tempio, in ogni casa un altare...
Quale altro che uno Iddio, o virtù somiglievole agli Dii, poteva fare sì
stupenda consonanza?... La virtù di questo divino spirito non ci lascia
sembrar temeraria qualunque speranza». È vero ch’egli chiamava divino
anche il Leopardi, e divina amica la contessa Cicognara, e mio adorato
signore un direttore della polizia, galantuomo del resto. Quel panegirico
parve non abbastanza lusinghiero, e non gli furono regalati che mille
franchi.
Esso Giordani nel 1825 scriveva al Leopardi: — Vanità detestabile
celebrar ciò che l’armento umano mai non potrebbe esecrar
abbastanza, voglio dire i suoi distruttori. Io non voglio dire che, se non vi
fossero poeti lodanti le conquiste, non vi sarebbero conquistatori; poichè
vedo che senza poeti vi sono assassini e corsari. Dirò che tutti gli
ammazzatori o rubatori si hanno a detestare e maledire da tutti...
M’inviteresti ad amare chi m’uccide il padre o il fratello? e mi chiami ad
ammirare chi uccide un popolo? Taci, o vilissimo, taciamo tutti, se pur
non osiamo gridare quel che si dee. Ci potranno trovare scuse al
silenzio: ma dov’è il Nerone, dove il Tigellino che v’abbia cacciati tra ’l
morire e l’adulare?» Egregiamente! ma allora da undici anni le conquiste
erano finite.

90. La lettera di scusa che diresse al vicerè, egli anima sì forte, oggi per
certo nessuno la scriverebbe: tant’è lontana l’abjettezza d’allora.

91. Sciolti di Timone Cimbro a Cicognara, invettiva contro i mali dell’Italia

nel 1802. Leopoldo Cicognara fu destituito da consigliere di Stato. Al
tempo della coronazione, Napoleone gli stese la mano, dicendogli: — La
nostra pace è fatta»; ma soggiunse parole aspre contro la moglie di lui,
coltissima donna, e troppo memore di Venezia sua perchè volesse
adularne il distruttore. Essa teneva un circolo frequentatissimo:
bastarono quelle parole perchè fosse deserta da tutti, eccettuati Ippolito
Pindemonte e Carlo Rosmini, due forze pacate. Il Cicognara ebbe poi
alti posti, ma nella sua autobiografia dice essere stato l’unico italiano
che «ottenesse a forza la demissione dagli onori, dalle cariche, dagli
emolumenti, nel convincimento che nulla poteva farsi in tale stato di
cose per la vera e reale felicità dell’Italia».

92. Napoleone a Eugenio il 15 settembre 1808: Je n’ai jamais supposé que

le chemin de Pordenone à Osopo dût coûter 1,500,000 fr.: si cela est, j’y
renonce: que le canal de Palmanova dût coûter 3 millions, on m’avait
assuré qu’il coûterait 500,000 fr.; s’il doit coûter 3 millions j’y renonce. Je
n’ai jamais pu penser non plus que la digue de Mantoue coûtât un
million. Causez avec les officiers du génie sur ces trois objets, et faites-
 moi connaître leur opinion. Mon intention est que les 300,000 fr. que j’ai
accordés cette année, soient employés à la digue de Mantoue. Nella
seduta del 25 febbrajo 1813, Montalivet ministro dell interno presentava
al corpo legislativo francese la situazione dell’impero, dalla quale
caviamo ciò che concerne l’Italia. La strada da Parigi a Torino per la
Morienna e il Moncenisio, e quella dalla Spagna all’Italia pel
Monginevra, erano aperte con immensi sforzi, e col costo di ventidue
milioni e mezzo, e il progetto totale sommava a trenta milioni. La strada
da Lione a Genova pel Lantaret dovea costare tre milioni e mezzo, e già
n’erano spesi un milione e ottocento mila. La strada da Cesane a
Fenestrelle pel colle di Sestriera, compimento della precedente,
ottocento mila. Con sei milioni e mezzo erasi stabilita la comunicazione
fra Nizza e Ventimiglia, e fra Savona e Genova; con due milioni e
seicento mila quella da Savona ad Alessandria per l’Appennino: più di
tre milioni per quelle da Porto Maurizio a Ceva, da Genova ad
Alessandria pel col dei Giovi, da Genova a Piacenza, dalla Spezia a
Parma. Tre milioni e mezzo pel ponte sul Po a Torino; un milione e cento
mila pel ponte sulla Dora a Rondissone; cinquecensessanta mila per
quel sulla Sesia a Vercelli; trecento mila per quel della Scrivia. Per la
navigazione del Tevere, e per abbellimenti a Roma, sei milioni; poi
ducento mila lire annue erano assegnate per sanar le Paludi Pontine,
ma il nessun esito venne attribuito all’aver lasciato quell’immenso tratto
nelle mani di trenta livellarj, anzichè spartirlo in piccoli appezzamenti.
Nessun vantaggio pure si trasse dalle spese fatte per introdurre la
coltura del cotone e dell’indigo e la fabbrica dello zucchero. Le
fortificazioni d’Alessandria costarono venticinque milioni.

93. Durante la repubblica s’erano soppresse le cattedre di belle lettere, e di

lingue orientali e greca, come anche di storia e numismatica; sicchè
Foscolo, Mezzofanti e ventiquattro altri si trovarono sul lastrico.

94. Il 16 settembre 1805 scriveva ad Eugenio: Il ne faut pas vous

épouventer des cris des Italiens. Ils ne sont jamais contents: mais faites-
leur faire cette seule réflexion, Comment faisaient les Autrichiens,
comment faisaient ils?.... Arrangez vous de manière à pouvoir toujours
être le maître de la couronne de fer, et à l’enlever sans qu’on s’en
aperçoive.
E il 14 aprile 1806: Quant à l’établissement de l’hérédité, je n’ai point
l’habitude de chercher mon opinion politique dans le conseil des autres,
et mes peuples d’Italie me connaissent assez pour ne devoir point
oublier que j’en sais plus dans mon petit doigt, qu’ils n’en savent dans
toutes leurs têtes réunies. A Paris, où il y a plus de lumières qu’en Italie,
lorsqu’on se tait et qu’on rend hommage a l’opinion d’un homme qui a
prouvé qu’il voyait plus loins et mieux que les autres, je suis étonné
qu’on n’ait pas en Italie la même condescendance.
Il 21 aprile, del qual giorno esistono ben cinque lettere ad Eugenio: Il ne
doit pas être question de rembourser à Venise les deux millions de
contributions, qui lui ont été imposés. Ne dirait-on pas, à entendre les
Vénitiens, qu’ils se sont donnés à moi par pure volonté?... Mon intention
n’est pas d’appeler aucun Italien, ni aucun Vénitien aux duchés qui
doivent être la récompense exclusive de mes soldats. J’ai traité Venise
comme pays conquis, sans doute. L’ai-je obtenu autrement que par la
victoire? Il ne faut donc point éloigner trop cette idée; mais le droit de
victoire terminé, je la traiterai en bon souverain, s’ils sont bons sujets. Je
vous défend de laisser jamais espérer qu’aucun Italien Vénitien puisse
être nommé à aucun des duchés.
Il 7 agosto 1806: Je vous envoie un exemplaire du catéchisme qui vient
d’être adopté pour toute la France. S’il pouvait sans inconvénient l’être
pour le royaume d’Italie, ce serait un grand bien: mais ce sont des
matières très-délicates, sur lesquelles il faut être très-circonspect.
Consultez le ministre des cultes. Le mieux serait que quelque évêque le
publiât dans son diocèse comme catéchisme diocésain: mais il faut
mettre à cela beaucoup de prudence et de secret.
Infatti quel catechismo fu tradotto, e nella sez. vii si legge:
D. Quali sono i doveri de’ cristiani verso i principi che li governano, e in
particolare i nostri verso Napoleone I imperatore e re?
R. I cristiani devono ai principi, e noi in particolare dobbiamo a
Napoleone I, nostro imperatore e re, l’amore, il rispetto, l’obbedienza, la
fedeltà, il servizio militare, i tributi per la conservazione dell’impero e del
suo trono. Inoltre gli dobbiamo fervide preghiere per la salute sua, e la
prosperità spirituale e temporale dello Stato.
D. Perchè siamo tenuti a questi doveri verso il nostro imperatore e re?
R. Primo, perchè Dio, che crea gl’imperi e li distribuisce a volontà,
colmando l’imperatore di doni in pace e in guerra, lo stabilì nostro
sovrano, lo rese ministro della sua potenza, e sua immagine in terra.
Onorare e servire il nostro imperatore e re è dunque onorare e servire
Dio stesso. Secondo, perchè Nostro Signore Gesù Cristo colla dottrina e
coll’esempio c’insegnò quel che dobbiamo al nostro sovrano: nacque
obbedendo all’editto di Cesare Augusto: pagò l’imposta: e come ordinò
di render a Dio quel ch’è di Dio, così ordinò di render a Cesare quel ch’è
di Cesare.
 D. Non vi sono doveri particolari che ci attacchino più fortemente a
Napoleone I, nostro imperatore e re?....
D. I doveri che ci legano all’imperatore, ci legheranno anche ai
successori suoi legittimi nell’ordine stabilito dalla costituzione
dell’impero?

95. Nei Saggi di Critica del Foscolo, p. 209, vol. ii, è detto che nel regno
d’Italia i nobili novelli creati da Buonaparte non sarebbero mai stati
ammessi alle feste o ai circoli degli antichi patrizj milanesi. In ciò il
Foscolo non vede che assurda e boriosa ostentazione: dappoi parve
nobile disdegno della servitù straniera.

96. La creazione dei dodici grandi feudi nel regno, e tanto peggio le
aggiunte che poi fece di altri ne’ paesi novamente annessi e nel regno di
Napoli, è uno degli errori di Napoleone, che, figlio della rivoluzione,
retrocedeva sino ai tempi feudali e barbari, quando un capo di invasori
spartiva i territorj conquistati fra i suoi generali, e gl’investiva colla
spada, e creava ai confini del regno le grandi marche, come un tempo
era stata la Marca trevisana. Per indietreggiare fin a questa distinzione
di terre e ai possessi feudali, Napoleone non dava la minima ragione,
salvo la conquista; e ciò ch’è deplorabile ancora più che gli abusi della
forza, non trovo che il minimo lamento ne movessero gli Italiani. Eppure
il loro amor proprio doveva sentirsi oltraggiato da questa istituzione, tutta
a favor dell’impero, di questo vassallaggio del patrio suolo alla conquista
forestiera; ma v’è tempi ove quei che potrebbero e dovrebbero alzar la
voce contro gli abusi, o almeno protestare col silenzio, s’affrettano ad
applaudirli, purchè possano profittarne.

97. Jacopo Morelli, celebre bibliotecario della Marciana, patì immensamente

delle sottrazioni fatte a questa biblioteca ch’egli guardava come propria
cosa. Pranzando un giorno col vicerè, venne richiesto se, fra tante
ricchezze, egli saprebbe indicare i dodici volumi che soli volesse salvare
perdendo gli altri. Impaurito che si abusasse della sua decisione disse:
— In questo momento di piacere m’è impossibile affaticar la mente su
domanda così scabrosa». E il vicerè: — Bene, bene; non si devono mai
svelare tutte le attrattive della propria amante». Il Morelli fu soprattutto
cercatore d’opuscoli, ne lasciò ventimila a quella biblioteca, e volea
scriver un trattato Dell’utilità che si può trarre dagli opuscoli.

98. Lettera 14 aprile 1806 nella Correspondance du prince Eugène.

99. Nel febbrajo 1806 Napoleone scriveva al vicerè: Partez du principe que
j’ai besoin de beaucoup d’argent. On voudrait dans ce pays l’impossible:
 payer peu de contributions, avoir peu de troupes, et se trouver une
grande nation: tout cela est chimère. Quant aux impositions, la seule
réponse à faire est celle ci: Paye t-on plus qu’en France? Anche il conte
di Cavour ripetea sempre: «Bisogna pagare, e pagare, e pagare». I suoi
successori calcano le sue orme.

100. Nei Mémoires tirés des papiers d’un homme d’État, che sono una delle
pubblicazioni più curiose dei nostri giorni, si legge: Prina souple
instrument des exigences de Napoléon, torturait son génie pour trouver
les moyens de pressurer un pays, auquel on avait solennellement
promis tant de prospérité, et il acquérait la faveur de son insatiable
maître au prix de la haine générale. Les projets de ce ministre, qui fut
pour l’Italie ce que le trop célèbre abbé Terray avait été jadis pour la
France, n’était soumis à aucun genre de contrôle: Napoléon voulait, il
fallait obéir. Cependant toutes les ressources de son habilité tortionnaire
se trouvaient épuisées avant qu’on renonçât à y recourir pour de
nouvelles exactions: les améliorations imaginaires pompeusement
combinées afin de couvrir tant d’oppression réelle, et publiées dans les
gazettes comme une preuve des soins paternels du monarque français,
étaient pour la plupart ou suspendues ou abandonnées, d’autant plus
que, de leur côté, les généraux français employaient tous les moyens en
leur pouvoir d’épuiser le pays pour accroître leur propre fortune.
L’Italia francese (escluso il regno d’Italia) produceva alla Francia
quaranta milioni; di cui diciotto pagavano l’amministrazione, polizia e
strade; ventidue per piazze forti, e per mantenere cenventimila uomini a
tutela del paese (1807). Vedi Thiers, Histoire du Consolat et de
l’Empire, vol. viii.

101. L’adulazione postuma, che venne di moda verso il regno d’Italia, fa

esaltare ancora i rendiconti del Prina e le illazioni del Pecchio, che si
appoggia unicamente su quelli, colla fede d’un gazzettiere ufficiale.
Senza cercare altre autorità, adduciamo quella sola del vicerè, che
scriveva a Napoleone il 26 dicembre 1810: «V. M. mi fece l’onore di
ripetermi più volte che diminuirebbe i carichi del suo regno a misura che
s’assoderebbe; e nel lavoro dell’anno passato mi fece l’onore di dirmi
che non avrebbe esatto dal suo regno che cenventi milioni. Di fatto non
è possibile imporgli maggiore aggravio. L’interruzione totale del
commercio, il deperimento delle manifatture di seta e di cotone,
l’annichilamento del prodotto delle dogane sia pel divieto d’introdurre
merci forestiere, sia pel tenue dazio delle francesi; infine la distrazione di
due milioni del prodotto delle dogane per incoraggiare le manifatture di
seta, ordinata da V. M.; tutto ciò impedisce di ripromettersi un’entrata più
considerevole».
102. Nelle Memorie del principe Eugenio, tom. ii, p. 12, riferendosi
l’ammutinamento di Crespino, si dice: Cette révolte était d’autant moins
motivées, que jamais ce pays n’avait appartenu à l’Autriche. Strana
ragione davvero, sol conveniente a coloro che dicono, tutto il liberalismo
degli Italiani consistere nel ribramare i Tedeschi quando sono sotto ai
Francesi e viceversa.
E a pag. 179 è la lettera 21 marzo 1806 di Napoleone: J’ai reçu la
réclamation de la commune de Crespino: je n’entends pas raillerie; mes
drapeaux ont été insultés, mes ennemis accueillis; il faut du sang pour
expier le crime de cette révolte. Si cette Commune veut se laver de
l’opprobre dont elle s’est couverte, il faut qu’elle livre les trois principaux
coupables pour être traduits devant une commission militaire, et être
fusillés avec un écriteau portant ces mots Traditori al liberatore d’Italia
ed alla patria italiana. Alors je pardonnerai à la Commune, et je
révoquerai mon décret.
Dopo la battaglia della Piave, Napoleone scriveva a Eugenio, il 10
maggio 1809: On dit que l’évêque d’Udine s’est mal comporté: si cela
est, il faut le faire fusiller. Il est temps enfin de faire un exemple de ces
prêtres, et tout est permis au premier moment de la rentrée. Que cela
soit fait 24 heures après la réception de ma lettre, c’est un exemple utile.
S’il est quelqu’autre individu qui se soit mal comporté, faites-les arrêter.
Si Trieste vient à être en votre pouvoir, imposez-lui 50 millions de
contributions, et faites arrêter quarante des principaux habitants, pour
vous assurer du payement. Faites mettre le séquestre sur tous les
navires jusqu’à ce que cette contribution soit acquittée. Vous suivrez
cela à la lettre; j’ai pardonné trop souvent à cette ville.

103. Questo proclama è dato come una scoperta, una rarità in una storia
recente, bassamente adulatrice dell’antico Piemonte (Del Gualterio).
Esso leggesi fin nel Botta: in pieno dominio austriaco io lo stampai nella
Storia della diocesi di Como; nè l’Austria se ne ascondeva, dicendo che
tali promesse erano condizionate al ribellarsi de’ paesi: e questi nol
fecero.

104. Il vicerè annunziò aver perduto duemila combattenti e due generali feriti;
gli Austriaci d’averne uccisi ottomila, preso quattromila
seicensessantasei prigioni, dodici cannoni, mentre essi perdettero
tremila seicento uomini. Il Coraccini parla di dodicimila Italiani periti. Fu
stampata allora una Histoire de la campagne de S. A. I. Eugène
Napoléon, in tono così iperbolico, che si dubitò fosse ironia; e la Corte
fece comprare tutti gli esemplari, e ricattare i già venduti.
105. Marzio Mastrilli marchese del Gallo, palermitano, era ambasciatore a
Vienna quando nel 1797 si temè che Buonaparte marciasse contro di
essa, e fu spedito a trattare privatamente con quello. Firmò i preliminari
di Leoben, e più conciliativo di Cobentzel, meglio valse a condur la
pace. Ebbe poi gran parte in tutte le vicende seguenti fino al 1821,
quando adoprò a dissuadere Ferdinando dal tradimento di Lubiana.

106. È un vastissimo piano di 103 chilometri sopra 50, irrigato da fiumi, cinto
da monti e feracissimo; da Alfonso d’Aragona, verso il 1450, fu
concesso in enfiteusi, ed è goduto da pastori, che pagano allo Stato un
canone, fruttante circa sei milioni; e non può esser chiuso da mura nè
siepi, dovendo restar aperto al pascolo vago.

107. Pasquale Borelli m’assicurò che, come segretario della prefettura di

polizia, aveva dovuto compilare il processo contro un tal Abussi che, per
incarico della polizia, avea scritto finte lettere, sopra le quali furono
condannati alla forca il marchese Palmieri, il figlio del duca Filomarino
ed altri. Capo della commissione straordinaria era lo storico Colletta.

108. Vedi la preziosa Correspondance du roi Joseph, Parigi 1853, e

specialmente al vol. ii, pag. 422-433; e le lettere di Napoleone del 6
marzo, 22 aprile, 31 maggio, 9 agosto, 2 settembre 1806, citate da
Thiers, Histoire du Consolat, lib. xxv.

109. Correspondance, tom. ii, pag. 131, 810.

110. Correspondance, tom. ii. p. 121.

111. Pag. 127, 230, 417, 418.

112. È pubblicata nel bullettino delle leggi delle Due Sicilie del 1808, pag.
146. Confermando i provvedimenti già presi, rendeva costituzionali il
ministero, il consiglio di Stato, e introduceva un Parlamento di cento
membri, divisi in cinque sedili, del clero, de’ nobili, de’ possidenti, de’
dotti, dei negozianti; gli altri a vita; possidenti e negozianti eleggibili ad
ogni sessione; il Parlamento non propone, ma tratta le materie
sottopostegli dagli oratori del Governo; secrete le tornate; punita la
pubblicazione dei dibattimenti e dei voti.

113. Nella costituzione siciliana del 1812 leggiamo: «Le angarie e parangarie,
introdotte soltanto dalla prerogativa signorile, restano abolite senza
indennizzo. Quindi cesseranno le corrispondenze di gallina, di testatico,
di fumo, di vetture, le obbligazioni di trasportare in preferenza i generi
del barone, di venderne con prelazione i prodotti, e tutte le opere
 personali e prestazioni servili, provenienti dalla condizione di vassallo a
signore. Sono egualmente aboliti senza indennizzo i diritti privativi e
proibitivi per non molire (macinare) i cittadini in altri trappeti e molini fuori
che in quello dello stesso, di non condursi altrove che ne’ di lui alberghi,
fondachi ed osterie: i diritti di zagato per non vendere comestibili e
potabili in altro luogo che nella taverna baronale e simili, qualora fossero
stabiliti dalla semplice prerogativa signorile e forza baronale».
Da qui appaja quante antiche servitù esistessero ancora. David
Winspeare annoverava che nel Napoletano sussistessero 1395 diritti su
cose e persone, quando vi giunsero i Napoleonidi.

114. Tra il resto, imponeva ai vescovi un giuramento di fedeltà al re, sino ad

obbligarsi di denunziare chi sapessero far trame contro di esso. È il
giuramento che si usa ancora.

115. «Intanto innumerevoli spie son qui mantenute, e tutta Roma, tutto lo
Stato Pontifizio sono in preda alle loro calunnie; il palazzo apostolico n’è
assediato, come fosse un castello munito». Nota del Consalvi a
Talleyrand, 1805.

116. Lettera da Monaco, 7 gennajo 1806.

117. Nella vita del cardinale Fesch, scritta dall’abate Lyonnet, viene
raccontato che un Marseria côrso, emissario del ministro inglese Pitt,
venne ad esortar Napoleone primo console a riconciliarsi con Inghilterra,
e insieme dare a questa la pace interna col far abbracciare il
protestantismo alla Francia. Napoleone avrebbegli risposto che, quanto
alle cose del mondo, fidava nella propria spada; delle cose del cielo
toccava a Roma sola il decidere: che del resto una religione non può
crearsi se non montando al Calvario, e ch’egli non avea di tali voglie.

118. Napoleone scriveva al vicerè: J’ai lu votre lettre au pape. Elle m’a paru
fort bien; mais je doute qu’elle produise quelque chose, car ces gens-là
sont ineptes au delà de ce qu’on peut imaginer. Toute réflexion faite, je
n’écrirai pas au pape. Je ne veux pas me jeter dans les tracasseries
avec ces nigauds. Le plus court c’est de s’en passer.

119. Di Venezia fu nominato patriarca nel 1811 Stefano Bonsignori, già

vescovo di Faenza, ma fu considerato come intruso; e quando nel 1814
cessò di essere amministratore capitolare, vennero sottoposti a
penitenza quanti da lui aveano avuto il presbiterato; a otto giorni di
esercizj spirituali quelli da lui promossi agli ordini maggiori, a tre giorni
quelli ai minori.
120. Lettera di Talleyrand al legato Caprara, 28 aprile 1806.

121. Il Borghese, benchè cognato dell’imperatore, negava cederla, perchè

fedecommessagli; alfine acconsentì, comprendendovi pure i Monumenti
Gabinj: e malgrado la protesta del Governo romano, furono spediti a
Parigi ducencinquantacinque capi d’arte; pagati quattordici milioni
inscritti sul gran libro, o piuttosto ciuquecentomila lire di rendita, a
quanto si disse. Caduto Napoleone, il principe li reclamò; ma Luigi XVIII
non volle rescinder il contratto, e rimasero in Francia.
Dicono che Paolina Borghese posasse avanti il Canova; e avendo una
sua damigella esclamato, — Come! gli steste davanti così nuda?» essa
rispose: — Oh, ma la stanza era calda». I nostri padri la vedeano talora
comparire ad un ballo con un gran manicotto di famosissimo pelo, ed ivi
gettarlo a terra per posarvi i piedi. Delle satire de’ Romani contro di lei
alcune sono sanguinose come quella: Dos ficta, facies picta, v....
refricta, e in occasione dei restauri alle ville Borghesi: Paulus struxit,
Paulina destruxit.

122. Napoleone ad Eugenio il 16 agosto 1807: Le pape est résolu de

m’envoyer le cardinal Litta. Nous verrons ce que ces gens-là veulent
faire. Le cardinal Litta est un des plus mauvais hommes du sacre
Collège. Il passera par Milan. Il faut que le vieux Litta le tance fortement
comme chef de la famille, lui disant qu’ils sont des....; qu’ils veulent
perdre leur temporel: que ce n’est pas le pape qu’on accusera, mais que
le blâmes des hommes sensés en tombera sur les cardinaux qui le
conseillent si mal.
E al 17: Après les renseignements que j’ai pris sur le cardinal Litta, je
me suis résolus à ne pas l’accepter. Si jamais il avait quittè Rome, mon
intention est que vous lui donniez l’ordre de se rendre dans les terres de
son frère, sans qu’ils puisse retourner à Rome, ni se rendre en France.
Faites-lui écrire par son frère qu’il ferait mieux de rester tranquille, et de
ne pas se mettre avec la tourbe des gens qui seulement me contrarient:
que mon intention, s’ils ne se tiennent pas tranquilles, est d’envoyer dix-
milles hommes à Rome, d’en exiler à soixante lieues tous le cardinaux
turbulents, dont lui, Antonelli et Pietri sont du nombre.

123. Istruzioni segrete di Champagny a M. Alquier, 23 gennajo 1808. Fino

Léfèbvre, Histoire des cabinets de l’Europe, cap. 27, che nel tono
consueto de’ Francesi giustifica sempre il forte, qui esclama: — Fa pena
a vedere il padrone della Francia, uomo di tanta forza e tanto genio,
adoprare la bella sua intelligenza a ingannare e abbattere un vecchio, le