Anthony Tempesta in Sistine hall

The hall that I consider her is a hall that now isn’t, because between 1860 and 1887 this build was demolished and in this town was built actual station for train of Rome; this hall has had 6 kilometres and it was would for cardinal Peretti, after pope Sixtus 5^th at 1570, bought land for to build this hall, that was finished at 1581 on project of Domenico Fontana, very important Sistine architect(Figs.1-3). In this hall was painted a frieze with allegories of virtues and other, but painters of this frieze are today in majority unknown. Some published photos that I took let me identify very easily both Antonio Tempesta(1555-1630), painter that I have studied very much during my second thesis; usually we think that during Sistine pontificate Tempesta was excluded for commissions but for this frieze we must consider an exception; in fact for Felicitas stabilis, this Stable happiness(Fig.4), Tempesta anticipated some character of his style engravings that were after; we can consider very similarities between painting and engravings, the neck of this allegory is very specular to three figures on engravings of Tempesta(Figs. 5-7), toes are very specular to Europe kidnapped by Jupiter(Fig.6), the face(Fig.7) of this allegory is specular to Europe before mentioned, but she is very similarities to neck of Ciparissus, on other engraving of Tempesta(Fig.8), and last but it isn’t certainly less important than others the cloth, folds of fabrics are very specular to allegory, equally strong and heavy, that we can find both on this painting and on engraves(Figs.9-10); therefore after Geographical Maps Gallery in Vatican certainly Tempesta worked for this hall, and since painters in this Gallery of Tempesta and are very little he was busied to this Gallery for very little time, and he could painted this frieze.

Alessandro Lusana

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

Polybius, this is historical work

The read of think about policy of Polyibius(206 b.Ch-118 b.Ch), he was a Greek ancient historical and he told about much wars of Roman empire, and today we have alone five books of his Historias, this histories, about Punic wars; but interesting is that he in this book about method work of historical he expresses some concept that today should be normal for historical work, but often lack, this is truth about question more or less important, he says: “I let that historical can inclines to his town but no certainly that they make false tales for an own gain”, this question, very ancient and today actual again, shows how that historical lie is very ancient, and above all for same motive, favours or gain; this is important for to understand, and Polybius advises to reader about it, that: “Then readers must diligently to understand this lies and the historical must avoid it”; this is no certainly original advise, but simply a right historical work. This concept he repeated in other step of this book, and he says: “…and neither we must trust to historical that subordinates historical truth to own interest”, and “The history joins very much persons and future generations, while discourses are to present occasion alone, so historical must consider very much truth…”. Other advises he given, this is: “Two genders are about lie, one is for ignorance and other for will. We must forgive lie for ignorance but we must turn away who lies for will”. Certainly these advises are today normal behaviour, but we must consider that often these advises are forgotten because we have some interest so that this forgetfulness happens, therefore Polybius was right when he says that everyone has interest and because of this interest we forgotten; then Polybius is very nasty, because he says to man what are men.

Alessandro Lusana     

               

 

 

Philosophical criterions and critical studies

This essay is about art history and involves pilosophical criterions for critical studies, this is some criterions research that we can see in ancient philosophers and that we can use also to art history; we must consider that these are general criterions that we can involve every field research, from Eubolides, a philosopher of 3th century b.C. we can take a concept that in art history, history, economic and other studies is essential, this is relativism, this is every thing is realitive to other and every concept is realitve other concepts, therefore we can involve art history with a basic concept, this is that art history is connected with space and economic state, and public of this space, this is people of a town that can understand a painting or no; questions that artist had to ask his self, therefore everything was relative, about economic matter we can consider that a commission can guarantee other commissions if place was rich or, better, if a place  was important for policy or other; then much purchaser can make commissions, and culture of place because this factor could guarantees other works, but this is factor was connected with culture of place and culture of purchasers. Other criterion is the dialectic; this is fight between generations of artist and styles, in Rome cultural fight between Cavalier d’Arpino and Caravaggio, this is between Mannierism and realistic painting, then fight between two schools and two styles; but after this consideration emerges the third philosophical step, this is the Hegelian synthesis, this is the fusion of contrary principles, and this fusion at last about Caravaggio is to the first version of Conversion of saint Paul, very next to Mannierism, and very little realistic, but this dynamic energy of dialectic is present also in head of artist, models and styles that are fighting among them and after they take synthesis, and final style is collected in painting, then we can find much cultural addresses in one single painting; then a painting of Sementi, an Italian painter of 17^th  century, that for an altarpiece he used Pieter Paul Rubens, Charles Saraceni, Guy Reni and Cavalier d’Arpino, together in one painting, today in Sermoneta; every artist takes and transfers much models that he chose and that have fought in his head for dynamic dialectic, then relativism, dialectic and synthesis are principles of philosophical think that we can use in art history also.

Alessandro Lusana     

     

 

 

Life is dream

Delia was a librarian of a great library and she had usually dreams of women, her age was 44 years and she wanted a family with a husband and very much sons and daughters, usual dreams that she lived every day because she awaked at 6:00 A.M. she prepared breakfast to her family and after clothed sons and daughters, they were six, she at 9:00 was to job; she considered always herself a librarian but she was director of library. Delia was lover of read, she red philosophy, literature, history, theologian, semiotic and other, she loved her job, and she wanted always librarian, in fact she helped students with Latin and Greek literature, history and other, students loved hers and she loved help them, she wander around in library because she ordered books and after she red it, she wanted see how students studied  and she made private lessons in library; in fact every student was ready always; she when begun read of a book she left knowledge of time and she was involved in read always, she tried with fantasy, and she imagined scenes that she red, therefore Shakespearian dramas and Divine Comedy of Dante Alighieri and others therefore her life was all between books. The night she slept in her home and she didn’t dreamed never; her husband, very expert psychologist, asked often what she dreamed, but she answered that nothing, and her husband give oneself same question: “Why?”, and she answered that her life was very boring then nothing was exciting; but a day Philip, her husband, during a very romantic dinner at their home, he asked: “Can I know age of your lovers?”, Delia with goggle eyed fixed Philip, and he asked again: “Do you want salad, I advise it because is very good”, therefore: “What is age?”, Delia was very embarrassed looked other side of room, and Philip seen hers and: “Delia, I know it from much time, and I understand perfectly it, this is I want that you are very happy, but you must remember that you have six sons and daughter, and I must consider that I neglected you, and you need of emotions because your job is certainly interesting but you are a beautiful woman, you are redhead, thin and very fine woman, I understand that some student or your colleague has failed in love to you”. Delia asked “Why do now you ask it alone?”, and Philip: “Because I want that you practise your emotions”, Delia fixed with eyes Philip and: “Why?”, and Philip after eat a bit of cookie, and drunk a glass of wine: “Because among some minutes will ring alarm clock”, then Delia seen clock and: “Duty calls, and we must sleep, otherwise our dream will end”, and “Alexander is his name, and his age is 47 years; he is a right-wing or better a pure Nazi and he is stranger, and he is extremist to study also”, and Philip: “When do you will meet him?”, and Delia: “To next hours, now we must sleep then live, because we have six sons and daughters”, and Philip: “I am sorry but I don’t understand because we can live when we sleep alone” and Delia: “Because life is a dream, good night love, now we must sleep because otherwise we will be late, among fifteen minutes I will open library, I am director, I can’t be late”. Then he plug off light.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

Nationalist without nation

Johann Gottlieb Fichte(1762-1814) was a Dutch philosopher that during Napoleon wars pronounced some discourses about qualities of German people and he with aim to incite this people to defend his lands; this is right if we consider that after fight of Austerlitz Napoleon conquered all Europe, or at last major nations. Fichte in these conferences spoken about qualities and spirit of German, he is very nationalist, and we must connect this right spirit to historical context; danger was very next, Napoleon was to doors of Germany, all was serious and condition of Germany was very precarious. Therefore this spirit is certainly opportune and right, but we must also consider that when Fichte spoken a German nation not was; Germany was divided among very much states, and it was unified alone between 1867 and 1871; therefore Fichte, with very much idealism, spoken to a nation and lands that not were; and nationalist spirit is present, with very much sharing, when Fichte spoken about religion, because Protestantism is very good on contrary of Roman Church, and when he spoken qualities that to other German peoples of north Europe are alone copy and not original spirit also to languages. These thesis are very laughable today, because we know perfectly that every people has his history and costume and character, therefore we must read these conferences and considering that nationalist feel begin alone when historical moment demands that a people is ready for to defend his nation; politically every moment is opportune for to uphold a nation above all when it is in danger, therefore this historical moment can justify also the very much exaggerated considerations about to Germany.

Alessandro Lusana  

               

 

 

Ancient origin of fableuax

In the medieval literature, we can find much reference to Latin literature because study of Latin language and Catholic schools very attentive to study of ancient literature, it is evident because in schools of convents was studied also Aesop (6^th century b.Ch.) and Phaedrus (15/20 b.Ch.-51 after Ch.); about first Aesop certainly some his tale was present, although he written with Greek language, but some translated collection was present although author isn’t Aesop. These tales have a motive moral merely; in fact in these tales with animals twice authors tell episodes very strange but with moral teaching, and sentences that are necessary for to understand what is teaching of history. The fabliaux written between 1159 and 1170 and 1340, and we know at last two authors this is Jean de Condé and Jean Bodel, but other are anonymous; on the contrary of mentioned authors now episodes are merely human, and sentences are similarities, and teachings are very meaningful; but now adventures of lovers and punishment to wrong behaviour are present for every men; therefore husbands betrayed by their wives, lustful priest and lovers that have their perfect love dream. I think also Plautus is present for write of these tales, because some mistake is original from Plautus, at least suggested by Plautus. Some tale has a spirit very laic, some priest that feigns posture of cross fixed, and some husband that wants revenge oneself with castration because Christ  not was naked on cross; it happens because a husband known that his wife made love with priest. Therefore we can consider that in Middle age laic spirit was very present and these tales are written by priest and monks that, evidently, were informed about costumes of convents; then these tales are social documents, very important for to understand that sexuality in Middle age was more free than in Renaissance, and costume were very much free. This document shows that conception about life was, during Middle age, very free also for religious women and men; in fact sexual meet are told with very natural behaviour, therefore then it were very natural, as about other writers of Middle age. The courtly life and elegance costume that we now consider about Middle age and with formal protocol then was present but alone in precise contest, this protocol employed, during 16^th century, by middle class that tried of delete his popular origin and took alone formal behaviour. From 16^th century to now this protocol grown about all social class, today every class wants be elegant and polite, and this behaviour keeps every spontaneous behaviour; but during Middle age this formal posture not was, because spontaneous life was natural; the evolution of moral costume has limited very much behaviour, but we are habited to think that Middle age was a time very chaste and demure, but truly is contrary this is, about sexual freedom we today live in Middle age, on contrary the Middle age was very free.         

Alessandro Lusana      

                      

Siciolante and his masters

With plural substantive masters of title I want alone remark two models for two paintings of a Italian painter, Girolamo Siciolante(1521-1575), but alone one painter was master of Siciolante, who for his first painting, that isn’t that Vasari indicated, this is Virgin, Child and saints(Fig.1), now in castell Caetani in Sermoneta, and dated 1541, but a panting with Conception(Fig.2), now in cathedral of Sermoneta, that Siciolante almost copied from his master, Leonardo da Pistoia, master of Siciolante, this is Immaculate and saints Rock e Francis in the church of saint Francis and Mary in Potenza(Fig.3), Italy, certainly Siciolante could study this painting and he, for his first commission from Caetani family, for church of Immaculate, in Sermoneta, today saint Joseph, he took this model and followed it almost to copy; if we see well painting of Siciolante and that his master we can see that they are almost specular, substantial cloud, same hand with long fingers, face is almost equal, posture is same, and same cloth, heavy with fold. Between this painting and second work of Siciolante(Fig.1) difference is very remarked and evident; it is possible because Siciolante could see other master, now in Bologna, this is Francesco Rossi(1510-1563), called Salviati, and he could study his altarpiece in church of saint Christine della Fondazza((Fig.4). Siciolante, I think, could goes to Bologna as member of court of Cardinal Niccolò Caetani, that was member of court of Pope Paul 3th Farnese to Bologna during 1541, same year of altarpiece of Sermoneta; we can see very similarities: almost same posture for saint John Baptist(Fig.5) and a saint of altarpiece of Salviati(Fig.6), same fingers and same posture in contrary, face of Virgin is almost specular to face of Virgin of Salviati. Therefore  Siciolante could take these models and he could paint this altarpiece for Abbacy of Valvisciolo, for commission of Caetani family. Other peculiarity is on the date, this is it is only painting with date of Siciolante, 1541, but why it? Because at same year Cardinal Niccolò Caetani gone with his cousin Pope Paul 3th Farnese, and this was first official task in age of 15^th years, therefore is possible that Niccolò or family Caetani would remark this date, because very important for a Cardinal and during this very young age.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig,3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

 

 

Marivaux this is empty theatre

Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de Marivaux(1688-1763). Was a French writer both to romance and theatre, some his comedy is very empty; he born in aristocratic family, during ancient regime, and before that French revolution, he tells every behaviour of aristocracy, with all his devoid, he to comedy of The tied, performed at 1736, he writes dialogues that are very empty, full of formal words and posture; therefore he describes life of higher class, that unknown condition of middle class, and common people; the France of revolution not was certainly poor, in conformity with opinion of  Tocqueville, but needs alone political reforms for to give possibility to middle class, In fact French revolution was a long process begun by middle class; but we must consider that this think was unknown both Merivaux and aristocracy. Anyway this theatre is very useless, everything is worked with formal behaviour, and deep sense of comedy is lost among words and cutes very incoherent with principal occasion, the love is a formal confession lacking of feel, alone confessed because it is formal right behaviour; The play of love and case, performed at 1730, other comedy is also worse than first; in this comedy is evident the vacuity of aristocratic class; history or logic is lost, and from begin to and is a whole of useless words; but this performances, describe a costume and a time, that we must consider during his events, but we can also consider that today is not much different from then, formal behaviour, formal words and alone formal posture are also present; therefore the mangender is same during every time.

Alessandro Lusana

Dumas speculative of a life

Alexander Dumas (1802-1870), French writer was a prolific author that was specialist of historical romance, but he written also some theatrical comedy, as Kaen. This character was real actor, and his name was Edmond Kaen, born in London at 1787 and died in Richmond at 1833, he was a squanderer his richness, because he gained very much for his theatrical works, and he squandered as much. In this comedy of Dumas moderates role of Kaen, this is he moderates squander and other excesses of this actor, died very poor, naturally, for his vices. During read of this comedy alone sometime is manifest impetuosity of character of Kaen, sometime his egocentrism and formal politeness, in conformity with British costume, also during Kaen shows his love for Helen, a woman that Principe of Wales loves, he is always formally respectful but very determined, in conformity of character of actors; therefore Dumas tells about a theatrical life and a society, he documents the life of a man that we can consider, in conformity with Hegelian concept, universal spirit of human gender; therefore he is speculative, with Latin exception this is observer a life, that may he can’t see never, but he imagined, and after he translated to this comedy.  

Alessandro Lusana      

• 
  

              

Epicurus a Socratic man

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher, born in Samos around 342-341 before Christ, he attended school of Senocrates in Athens, and after he built his school in Athens around 307-306. Philosophical think of Epicurus has interpreted always as a search of pleasure and enjoyment, but it is not so, because with read of letter to Meneceus around happiness he shows a Socratic ground; we must consider that with Socrates an anthropological period of philosophy begun, and Epicurus on this letter he wrote: “The necessity is irresponsible, luckiness unsteady, but our will is free, and we can merit praise of reprimand”, I understand that this concept is very common today, but I want search origin of this concept that is in Socratic individualism, this is we can decide around all, in fact he wrote again: “The sage knows that is vain to believe that fate is owner of all, because everything happen to necessity or will of luckiness or to our will”, this last step is very important, because “our will”; then Epicurus levelled  human will to fate, therefore he consider man as similarly to fate, that now are two entities different and similarly important. Other question that attributed to Epicurus is atheism, this is certainly a lie from contemporary of Epicurus is from schools competition and after during Middle age is was enforced, but Epicurus as all Greek believed to gods, in this letter we read: “The gods exist, it’s evident…”, but Epicurus didn’t consider never the gods as common think, he wrote: “Then is unreligious who refuses people religion, but alone who refuses judges around gods of people”, then I can think gods in my opinion and not alone in conformity common think. About enjoyment Epicurus writes: “The simple tastes give same pleasure of more finest, and brad and water give same pleasure to whom lacks.” and then: “When we say  that pleasure is good, we won’t mean the simple enjoyment of pleasure-loving…but we mean that helps body don’t bear pain and soul to be serene”, then we can consider Epicurus over the common think, and we can think Epicurus a Socratic that seen man as promoting of his fate.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Dialecticts

A man was set on the chair at middle room, he turns around and looked some book on the table, he got up and red titles: Change, then he took this book and opened it, and he was very interested; a woman set on other chair in front of man, and she asked: “What do you are reading?”, and he without astonishment for this new presence, answered: “Do you know how much I was waiting you?” and woman: “No and I don’t give damn”, and man with a smile: “In conformity with rules  of politeness a man must wait woman! I made it”, a woman: “In fact I am here now, but what do you are reading?”, and man showed title on the spine and woman: “Well but lacks my name”, and man: “What’s your name?” and woman: “Dialectics”, and man: “What is inherence between you and change?”, and woman: “Change is possible with dialectics alone!”, and man: “Why?”, and woman: “Because the dialectics is fight and contrast and in conformity with opinion of Hegel, the war is between two principles, and fight and contrast are two essential motives for change!”, and man, much interested to this philosophical argument, asked: “Some examples, please”, and woman: “Two political revolutions, the first French and second American; with first in France has born democracy with people decides trough election day” and man: “Yes but was took power Napoleon he become like king, and…”, and woman: “Well, you said, like; therefore Napoleone not was king never, and in Italy he leaded democracy”, and man: “He conquered alone Italy, although he created republics, that formally were republics, but alone formally”, and woman: “Yes certainly, but this change was present, and popes and kings were dethroned”, and man: ”Yes but nobility class rested”, and woman: “Yes, because it was present centuries before Napoleon, and it changed very much during Napoleon time; in fact much nobilities men were with Napoleon, and this is change”, and man: “Yes, but they become Napoleonic for interest and no certainly because they convinced by Napoleon ideals”, and woman: “Certainly, but I want consider that change was, and this change was motive after in Europe for other changes”, and man: “The king in France turned with name of Louis 18^th, therefore where is this change?”, and woman: “Time after when Louis 19^th was king of France for twenty minutes, and he was son of Charles X last king, and he abdicated during revolution at 1830 in France, and after Henry 5^th, that not was king never”, and man: “Yes, but Louis Philipp I was king!”, and woman: “Yes but with other principles, in fact he was called by people as Philippe Equality, or Égalités fils; in fact he given constitution to France people that was approved by two chambers; in fact in conformity with opinion of Adolphe Thiers: “He reigns but doesn’t governs”; he was very much democratic because also Parliament could to decreed laws; therefore was present very much change, and these are possible alone for dialectics fight and revolution, therefore where is dialectics are changes, also radical changes”. And man: “Yes and in USA what were changes?”, and woman: “In USA very little, because revolution USA was independence war, and monarchies or king or political systems with centuries historical not were, therefore revolution was and very little change; we can certainly to say that dialectics was to changes by original model, this is from European monarchy, that in USA never was present, and therefore USA didn’t fight against somebody for take liberty, because rights were present always; but change was through difference from European political, then changes were, but dramatic less than France, because dialectics is also change without blood, but change is always present”.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Marcus Aurelius the power of philosophical think

Marcus Aurelius imperator of 2th century after Christ was an example of importance to policy, policy both during Roman Empire and after also; because he adopted his philosophical think and he mentions in his principal book, Memories, all his experience about philosophical think and what he has learned; in fact he employed much philosopher at his time and he written about his culture, but moral culture, and we must consider that word moral, is from Latin mores, this is behaviour and costume, therefore he writes about Rusticus(100-170 a.Ch.) stoic philosopher and master of Marcus Aurelius, Apollonius of Tiana and other. He mentioned them and he remembers that from Rusticus: “Make to me concept that my morals need of correction  and culture, and I no must amuse to imitate Sophist philosophers and don’t write exhortative orations, so that I can excite stupor and success”, and after: “To leave rhetoric, poesy and elegant words as elegant cloth”, and: “During read don’t be satisfied with superficial read but consider with attention all matter”, and by Apollonius to go on with frankness and resolute constancy and don’t vacillate”; during his emperor role Marcus Aurelius worked to modify some moral conception, by now become normal; he thought that slavery was execrable and he given right to slaves and poor, he was a perfect policy man and he was very several to himself but very good with other, and his memories are testify of this think, that he thought and above all he applied to Roman Empire; therefore Marcus Aurelius was perfect coherent to his think, therefore he was almost Socratic, he applied his think to his life.

Alessandro Lusana              

 

Pragmatic Hegelianism

A man was reading a philosophical dictionary, and a woman approached to him and she asked: “What do you are reading?” and man answered “Dialectical life and how is possible translation of this concept in practical life, because to me it is very difficult”, and woman that while was set answered: “To be and nor to be to Hegel are in same spirit, because this encloses all, both positive and negative, therefore present and not present, all and contrary of all”, and man: “Yes, therefore?”, and woman: “In a man is all, because he has positive and negative, and he has ambitions and desire!” and man: “Yes, therefore?”, and woman: “If you want be very strong, while you are very weak, you have a negative condition, because you are very weak but you have desire to be very strong, therefore you have in yourself positive and negative, second is weak but first image of strong and desire to reach it, in yourself you have in same time positive and negative, contrast and effort to reach the strong is dialectical competition, contrast and will to become strong; but you have twice condition; we can think that natural matter, to exemple a piece of marble is alone symbolic art because it is absolutely natural matter, but we think that the work of sculptor is a dialectical effort that transforms matter to sculpture and art, this dialectical effort is during action and struggle between man and matter, matter has always natural matter but very bettered, because is art, therefore thesis, antithesis and synthesis are dialectical become of idea, natural idea but always idea. The effort is dialectical contrast between matter and ideal concept, therefore between that is now present, your ambition and your state, you are matter, natural matter, the ambition is the ideal that you want be”, woman got up and man asked: “What’s your name?”, and woman: “Sophia and last name Philo, goodbye”, and she gone away.

Alessandro Lusana  

     

An American proustian

Reading the The Great Gatsby of Francis Scott Fitzgerald published at 1925 in New York City is a romance of rich American life about twenties years, at last rich middle class, that is told with much particulars that have, in conformity with Hegelian philosophy, universal concept of everything; in fact description of these particulars is, certainly, an experience of read of Marcel Proust, and of his major literary work this is Recherché du temp perdu, published between 1913 and 1927, but at last six books of this work were published at 1925: Du côté de chez Swann, 1913,   À l'ombre des jeunes filles en fleurs, 1919, Le côté de Guermantes, 1920,  Sodome et Gomorrhe, 1921-1922,  La prisonnière, 1923, La fugitive or Albertine disparue, 1925; these are six of all Recherché, that are almost contemporary and previous one than French period of Scott Fitzgerald, in fact he lived in French at 1920, same year of Le côté de Guermantes, and 1921, same years of Sodome et Gomorrhe, when he known Gertrude Stein, an intellectual woman, at 1924 he known Sara and Gerald Murphy an American couple that lived in Côte d’Azur, this is French, and he could red Proust and his books with very much particulars that Proust described long his style of narration; in fact in The Great Gatsby much particulars are present but seem useless because haven’t a continuity, but have their nature and their profile that is essential for romance, and Hegelian nature is in particular because everything is in particular, and life of middle class of twenties both American and European is in particulars, this is in descripted objects of romance, that document standard of living and cultural standard, typical of that period and therefore typical of history, and therefore typical of human gender, therefore universal.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

 

The origin of Feuerbach

The think of Feuerbach above all about religion and his human atheism, he replaces theologian with anthropology, because he thinks that man has created God; this think is mere atheism but his origin is directly from Hegel and from German Protestantism; Hegel was protestant therefore believer, but Feuerbach employed some thesis of Hegel and he translated in his think: when Feuerbach spokes about difference between man and animal, he describes man as a being that has he and other, this is his essence and other man that is similar therefore he can speaks to himself because he is he and other person, that has same essence. The religion is identified by Feuerbach with consciousness and self-knowledge, this is consciousness of his essence; in conformity to opinion of Hegel self-knowledge is possibility to man of knowledge other man. As for object, natural object, in conformity of opinion of Hegel we have one first step with direct and sensitive knowledge, an external knowledge and follows other level of knowledge this is properties that the mind mediates between one object and much properties, this process is self-knowledge; in Essence of Christianism Feuerbach spikes same things: “As for object the man become conscious of himself, conscience of object becomes self-knowledge of man; in himself shows his essence.  Therefore we can think and consider that Feuerbach has red and red again Phenomenology of spirit of Hegel; but he has also took from German Protestantism, that has become human or better much human religion; in fact he spikes about Protestantism as religion that has become man as God, and human gender as laic.

Alessandro Lusana  

                                                               

 

Christian compare

I hope that nobody will feel offended for my opinion but I consider that George Fox(1624-1691) fonder of Quaker movement to some step of his Diary is very exaggerated, and he certainly was enclosed by his spirit and his ideal religion, but some inconsistency is very evident: at 11^th age he become conscious od purity and right behaviour, and he says that he answered yes or no always; but this step is directly from Matthew 5.37; therefore he took steps of Gospel  and he tells his life in conformity with Gospel. At this age is impossible that a man can aware that God has inspired oneself; more over very good emotional memory, I think neither Proust could so; at 1646, when he tells that his family wanted that he gets married and he refused this will, and he was very sorry; it is very impossible that a man can remember this sorry. But maximum is a step that he very sacrilegious, he says: “When God sent me on the word”; everyone knows that God sent his son Jesus and not certainly George Fox. More over an episode, told at 1649,attests that this Diary is alone a translation od Gospel; Fox tells that he was boated in a church and after he was brought to judge by faithful, after the same took a whip, this is flagellation of Christ that Fox could see on some painting of engraving, after it is worse because he has brought in front of judge that discharged him; it is Pilatus that discharged Christ and he wished his hands. More over when Fox tells that he a woman was recovered after he prayed God, it is alone compare with recovered of Christ of blind Bartimaeus, and recover of deaf and dumb in Decapolis city; therefore this Diary is portrayed on Gospel this is Ancient an New Testament.

Alessandro Lusana   

    

A true feminist

When somebody speaks around French revolution one matter that is important, although alone theoretical, is Declaration of rights of man and citizen, we must consider this document alone theoretical because very much abuse have made also during French revolution to political opposing and other questions that were very document of a secular order that then must be changed by middle class, and this happened because aristocracy was by now ended; in fact with revolution all was changed but we must consider that this change followed a course, a rational and logical course, this is historical course, and I mention a Italian writer, Giovan Battista Vico that said: “Order of ideas musts follow in conformity of order of thing”, in fact with Napoleon order in French was hardened; order was that one alone leads a country as monarchy has made for centuries, but now leader is a member of middle class, this is Napoleon. Regarding social order one member of French revolution, a woman was very original and combative, Olympe de Gouges, pseudonym of Marie Gouze(1748-1793), was a French writer and much active in political contest, so active that she written a Declaration of right of woman and citizen, she written this declaration at 1791, very revolutionary woman, and she was a true feminist, because she asked alone a principal today common, equal right between man and woman, it’s normal today, but at 1791 it was a revolution in revolution, because women were inferior and alone men could take part to policy, but with this declaration Olympe de Gouge declares that woman and man is physical different alone, she written on first article: “Woman free born and she has same rights of man.” Second article: “Aim of political association is alone keep the natural rights of woman and man. This is are freedom, property, security and opposition to oppression”. Third article: “The principle of sovereignty is in Nation, and this is union of woman and man… Article fourth: The liberty and justice are to give other that is their, so is natural right of woman that has alone border of tyranny of man. This border must be reformed by rational and natural rights.” Maximum expression of feminism of Olympe is sixth article where she written: “The law must be expression of general will. All citizen men and women must contribute personally or by their representative to former this institution. The law must be equal to all, men and women, with equal dignity, with public employee, with their ability, and above all without discrimination but alone to ability”. Intelligence of this concept, true feminism because asks alone respect and consideration is very notice by Olympe on seventh article: “Nobody woman is exception; she will be accused, arrested and imprisoned in conformity of law. Women obey as men to law.”  On tenth article, the rights of women are notice also in front of death: “The woman has right go up scaffold as tribune provided his think doesn’t disturb public order”. I end with this article because it seems prophecy, in fact Olympe de Gouges has guillotined at 1793 because she discorded with capital sentence to Louis XVI. She was very intelligent woman and feminist because she asked rights and brought forward very much demands that today are normal; she didn’t ask abstract demand but alone natural right, that at her time, 1791, was unnatural.

Alessandro Lusana

      

Middle class veil

The Lifted veil of George Eliot, this is Mary Ann Evans(1819-1880)(Fig.1), Britain woman writer, that used this pseudonym because then was almost mandatory for success of a writer woman that they use a male name, also because female literature was banished to second town; anyway she wrote at 1859 this tail, a history very middleclass, usually marry for opportune and very much indifference if isn’t hate; I think that Mary, I use this name because is her name, told her life with George Henry Lewes(Fig.2), a philosopher that was married and Mary lived with him for twenty years; this life, very aseptic, I think that was tell of rapport between same Mary and her companion; during Victoria queen, in Union Kingdom, moral life was more important than same life, therefore a scandal for living together with a married man was very execrable; then human rapports both in married life and in lovers rapports was very cold; Mary I think that we can identify with Bertha, aseptic protagonist of this tail, she tells with much attention and much particulars emotion and fell of this woman and this is very suspect, and we can think that feel of Bertha is that of Mary, and following this think we can imagine it because feel of Latimer, husband of Bertha are intense; I think that unique horror that we can find during read of this romance is rapport between husband and wife; but this is a painting of Victoria life in Union Kingdom, that we can find everywhere, then as now, but this rapport is very true, on contrary too true to be invented alone, we can think that this tail is lived, therefore Mary tells her life with George.

Alessandro Lusana 

Fig.1

 Fig.2