Signum temporum

I am considering a moral mean in USA moral and political sign of a behavior that has transgressed the constitution. The Supreme Court of USA has trailed that a citizen has made crime to distribution of leaflets against the send of troops against Bolshevik revolution to Russia by President Wilson, the told of crime says: “JACOB ABRAMS was arrested in New York City on August 23, 1918. He and several friends had written, printed, and distributed copies of a leaflet that severely criticized President Woodrow Wilson and the U.S. government. The leaflet opposed President Wilson’s decision to send a small U.S. military force to Russia during the civil war that followed the communist revolution of 1917. Abrams and his friends were arrested for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. These laws made it a crime to write and publish disloyal or profane statements that were intended to interfere with production of goods necessary to the defense ofthe United States during wartime. However, the 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law. . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Opinion of the Court Justice John H. Clarke, writing for the Court, decided against Abrams’s claims that his 1st Amendment rights were violated. Clarke based his decision on the “clear and present danger” and “bad tendency” tests stated… According to these two tests, which Holmes used interchangeably in Schenck, free speech and press could be limited if they were intended to cause an illegal action or if they threatened national security. Justice Holmes denied that Abrams’s actions and intentions represented a danger sufficient to justify limitation of his freedom of expression.”. The citizen Abrams was right, because the constitution of USA has said that: “First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”, thereupon  action of Supreme court is illegal, or it is other? Certainly it is other, and explication of cause is in same trial: “…an illegal action or if they threatened national security”, a leaflet certainly could not subvert a nation, but we must consider times, this is 1919, and then the State was important and relevant to every citizen therefore we can sight a deeper mean, what? The State also in nation less statist on the word transgressed the first amendment of constitution because the security of nation has menaced, by a leaflet, or by opinion that this leaflet was discussing? Certainly by ideas, but this reaction means two consideration very meaningful first is the weakness of govern of USA and second that other ideas no were accepted, neither to propaganda; this is a authoritarianism, but no formal or to laws thereupon no explicit but alone moral, therefore unofficial, coward.

Alessandro Lusana     

    

 

Art of don’t see: Pontormo

Historical men of art study art but may don’t see what they comment; a monography about Bronzino(1503-1572), Italian painter has painted, according to opinion of a critical of art this painting(Fig.1) belongs to Bronzino; unfortunately this painting is of master of Bronzino, this is Pontormo; why? I think that is sufficient see very well this painting: the loaded brush of color is typical of Pontormo(Figs.2-3), after the cloth of figures, the folds are very schematic(Fig.4) that we can confront to the Visit(Fig.2), the light is other characteristic of Pontormo, very intense and brilliant is present in Deposition and other paintings(Figs.3-5-6); furthermore the face of this figure remembers other face in Deposition(Fig.7) aforesaid, and the fingers(Figs.9-10) remember some of this figure in same Deposition(Fig.9), hair is very similar(Figs.7-8). This painting is certainly a act of devotion to Catholic believer but we must consider that emerges the original consideration to posture and total absence of drama, it seems a natural gesture of a figure, but no certainly a martyrdom, a natural posture of a man during a moment; we can recognize this subject alone to attribute of arrow, then it is exemplar of laicism predominant in Florence during 16^th century.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Fig.10

 

Constant economy

Now we can consider, otherwise no, because this assay is about rules of economy, that are constant, because the human necessities are every time same, thereupon is an economic book is written on 16^th century or published the day before yesterday result is same; to this observation we must consider again Thomas Mun(1571-1641), because he describes strategy of exportations, from England, and as I have said he caught from his experience as merchant; in fact he tacitly makes it. Because his strategy is from his job: anyway he said in the his book England's treasure by forraign Trade : “In our exportations we must not only regard our own superfluities, but also we must consider our neighbours necessities, that so upon the wares which that so upon the wares which they cannot want, nor yet be furnished thereof elsewhere…But the superfluity of our commodities which strangers use, and may also have the same from other Nations…”, the comment is it’s rational and logic, (then we have found the American continent, because nobody has explored this land until now), but these words are in 16^th century, this is important, and it gives to us motive to reflect about a question, why? I repeat because human necessities are no certainly similar, but same, specular, equal thereupon economy is same. Other step says: “For we have found of late years by good experience, that being able to sell our Cloth cheap in Turkey…”; certainly his experience aforesaid, but today a nation buys a ware where it is cheap, because during 16^th century because it is behavior; but today is same, because first interest of government is nation, or should be it, but a nation that must gives to people a ware but it must be cheap, then the cloth of Turkey that has mentioned Mun, during 16^th century, I repeat, is suitable, and proof is after in other step: “and the Venetians have lost as much in the utterance of theirs in those country…”, because evidently Venetian cloth was very costly, and again: “ And on the other side a few years past, when by excessive price of wools our cloth was exceeding dear…”, this is reality of Mun book’s and today is same; and :“The State in some occasions may gain most, when private men by their revenues get least”, private citizen last(least) something. These rules and rational methods are economy of 16^th century? No it are methods today, then economy and human necessity are same.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 Some notation

The problem of immigration in USA is very important and radical are differences between two parties, federalist and antifederalist, because so names of two parties, in origin, this is after the war to independence; I don’t think that s revolution because some document certifies that in 1782 the states were independent; this is a act of congress to a question about New Hampshire, that is very useless but some names is important, the first is Congress and the president , that are mentioned in this session: “That in answer to the remaining part of the letter, which represents that the state of New Hampshire was over-rated in the requisition made by Congress…” but the Congress is impossible if these states were colonies; therefore is historical a right declaration of independence, but I think that British kingdom had just renounced to these lands. I understand that somebody is going to be irritated, but he must consider that we must divide between history that has occurred truly and propaganda that other question and necessary to other framework;  we must study the history and no certainly the lies of propaganda, that every nation uses because it must justify new regime or consolidate the present; today in politic is same, Churchill said that during a war the first victim is the truth; and today to every politic has adopted lie and truth in conformity to interest of nation; it is normal, above all after bloody events. Other notation is a step of constitution of USA that shows the persistent immigration to USA, we can read this step: “No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United. States…”, a question, why alone seven years American citizen? Evidently because immigration was very important and limit that constitution has given; important I think consider that an act of 1790 of Congress said: “That any alien, being free white person, that shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of United States for the term , may be admitted to become a citizen thereof two years…”, why this limit is decreased? From seven years to two alone, with limits and other rules, but why this diminution? May because much immigrant were outcome from USA, or because a nascent nation has had need of citizens? I think that it is motive, because USA needed of worker, and limits were very serious, therefore beyond the native, in Latin jus soli, this is who born in a nation is citizen of this nation; in USA it is reality, but evidently in 1790 chosen was difficult, because immigration was very scarse.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

From practice to theory:Thomas Mun

We must consider that in field economy of is theory, and after it is become practice, it is usually method to learn something, but in trade principal taught is experience; certainly it is normal, but today is very different from past centuries, because now we have learned by university; thereupon from theory, and after we become practical men, but by theory, that has taught us as become practical; but I repeat during past centuries it was contrary, above all in trade dynamic, and we can understand it by a theoretic treated of Thomas Mun (1571-1641) England’s treasure by foreign trade his methods to trade; he has e trade man and he has written in 1621 a book necessary to trade and he has very exact and truthworth, we can ask why?, answer is very simple, because he has took from experience his taught; in fact this step is meaningful: “The particular ways and means to encrease the exportation of our commodities, and to decrease our Consumption of forraign wares.he revenue or stock of a Kingdom by which it is provided of forraign wares is either Natural or Artificial. The Natural wealth is so much only as can be spared from our own use and necessities to be exported unto strangers.”, we can think that it is theory alone, but it isn’t, because is practice and after it was become theory, thereupon Mun has took his experience and he has given it to a book, other step says: “  The Artificial consists in our manufactures and industrious trading with forraign commodities, concerning which I will set down such particulars as may serve for the cause we have in hand. First, although this Realm be already exceeding rich by nature, yet might it be much encreased by laying the waste grounds (which are infinite) into such employments as should no way hinder the present revenues of other manufactured lands, but hereby to supply our selves and prevent the importations of Hemp, Flax, Cordage, Tobacco, and divers other things which now we fetch from strangers to our great impoverishing”. It is normal and mechanic think, but I want concentrate my attention on phenomenological occurred; a process that set theory after that experience, we must learn to write and after we can become writer, but now is contrary; he has took from reality theory. And other step is very meaningful, in fact it says: " Yet might they easily beamended by enforcing the observation of such good laws as are strictlypractised in other Countries against the said excesses". It is nothing if we read it but not consider that he has mentioned other countries; during 1664, year of pubblication of this treated, certainly informations from other countries were very scarse, but he said other countries, how he know it? Because by trade that he undertaken he has took these learns and he has translated in this book; and since trade and its prices is variable, he didn't report name of caountry, but we can understand that he has took by experience. 

Alessandro Lusana

 

Historical “particulare”(particular) of Guicciardini

Francesco Guicciardini(1483-1540) an Italian historical man has descripted history of Italy above all during 16th century, and he has described some character of human gender, that we can ascertain today to everybody; an important notation about this character is the particular, what is? Ibn conformity of think of Guicciardini the particular, in Italian language of 16th century is “particulare” is personal interest or propriety; in fact Francesco has thought that to defense of cities is necessary soldiers and armies, but the first are ready to betray in front of a best offer, this is “particulare”, honor is absolutely secondary, but the chief can foresee, to men and soldiers, that other chief could take all proprieties going to can sequestered and given to his men; then he can say that you aren’t defend me but your interest, your proprieties, your money, your richness; thereupon they are very ready to defend city and their proprieties. Comments are: “It is normal, you haven’t discovery that with cloudy sky are almost always it’s rain”. It’s normal I know perfectly it, but that it method has been used  during 7th century in Byzantium by imperator Heraclius(610-641 b.Ch) it is to me very new; he has created the στρατιώτικα κτηματα has been fields that imperator given to farmers, or soldiers that were become farmers, so that they could defend their proprieties through armies; same strategy that Rome used to barbarian populations because the German people has been transferred in different land and region of Roman empire to defend borderlines. This strategy has been ruinous because German people just was in empire because they has transferred their people in Rome or other cities of empire, but they has accessed peacefully and in fact they were servants or waiters in the villas of Rome or rich families; but I want remark that the particular is present in every moment of history, and Guicciardini has given the name to a habit and human instinct; but this human behavior is present from centuries, because Roman empire is before of Byzantium and Guicciardini is after Byzantium; therefore it’s human gender and human habit, Francesco has told it and he has written that history and other, in other eras has made.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 

Justiniani lex

The character of our jurisprudence is very Roman document of sociality and very modern and sometimes, also contemporary, behavior; we can take it from some steps of Justinian code(a.Ch. 529), i.e. we can ascertain it in this step: “but if sons are son of family they must take consent of these parents under they are living…”, this is normal during Roman empire but today to allow of knowledge of future wife or husband is very past, or no? No certainly it is now present and it is from ancient custom, that has took from laws that are precedent to Justinian law, because this code is collection of laws both contemporary to 529 after Christ but also precedent to it; thereupon when somebody says you must knowledge my parents, beyond condolences we can think it is from Roman right. About the slavery, a ground of ancient societies, certainly Roman society, has been more indulgent because, a step about slavery says: “it was thing inhuman that they can give liberty to slavery, is other cause don’t’ prevent it…”, thereupon every slave is free; somebody can comments that it is motive of Christian religion, it’s right but religion is followed to Roman right, after Christ, because the freedmen, in Latin liberti, were ex slave, that has been got up social hierarchy and they have got liberty, and furthermore: “Today nobody man under our law is allow to rage to a slave without motive to law…”, and: “in conformity of Antoninian constitution who slays his slave he can suffers same penalty, as he has killed a slave of other host”, this is certainly a clear sign of other sensibility, that shows evolution of society, that now ascertain his barbaric custom, and tried improve it. To adoptions same right is present: “Not only the natural and legitimate sons they are under parental authority but also the sons that we have adopted, the adoption has two ways or emperor allow or judge”, it is natural today but we must consider that it is from ancient time. Adoptions are more curated because this step underline that major interest is to baby or young: “When a bay is adopted  to directly will of emperor this cause is considered to interest of baby, today is same.

Alessandro Lusana  

  

 

F. A. Hayek father of economic Europe

Friedrich August von Hayek(1899-1992) a liberal economist is father of Europe, father to sense that we can consider so because he has written a book in 1976, and he has foregone and anticipated a theoretical thesis that today is European costume, this is the euro money, and he seems have foregone also discomfort, alone momentary; it is enough read a step of his book Denationalisation of Money, certainly European reader understand very better this dynamic of this process: “ Initial advantages of government monopoly in money. Perhaps when the money economy was only slowly spreading into the remoter regions, and one of the main problems was to teach large numbers the art of calculating in money (and that was not so very long ago), a single easily recognizable kind of money may have been of considerable assistance. And it may be argued that the exclusive use of such a single uniform sort of money greatly assisted comparison of prices and therefore the growth of competition and the market. Also, when the genuineness of metallic money could be ascertained only by a difficult process of assaying, for which the ordinary person had neither the skill nor the equipment, a strong case could be made for guaranteeing the fineness of the coins by the stamp of some generally recognized authority which, outside the great commercial centers, could be only the government. But today these initial advantages, which might have served as an excuse for governments to appropriate the exclusive right of issuing metallic money, certainly do not outweigh the disadvantages of this system. It has the defects of all monopolies: one must use their product even if it is unsatisfactory, and, above all, it prevents the discovery of better methods of satisfying a need for which a monopolist has no incentive.”, other step is important: “If the use of several concurrent currencies is to be seriously considered for immediate application in a limited area…”, so in fact is economic Europe the actual coin of 20 countries in Europe has adopted the euro, 20 on 27 countries, in 2000 year these were 11, although this coin was invisible, because it become really coin of Europe from 1th January of 2002; and other step said: “…it is evidently desirable to investigate the consequences of a general application of the principle on which this proposal is based. If we are to contemplate abolishing the exclusive use within each national territory…”, this is certainly strategy of European Union that I think is took directly from Hayek, because the steps of this coin is perfectly correspondent to think of him; it demonstrated that sometime a think can certainly to be important, above all if it has been literally; and I think that European Union has made it.

Alessandro Lusana    

                                                                          

 

In historia veritas

Alexander 6th pope and History

History: Good morning Alexander you can tell me your truth and…

Alexander: No! Absolutely, I want tell veritas and stop, because your followers, this is historical men has told and written more than worse about my papacy. They have written that I have corrupt every cardinals…

History:   It is false or no?

Alexander: To come to Conclave every cardinals and I was among them, passed seven control steps, and we were all searched every time; therefore how can I hide gold and other to corrupt cardinals, can you explain it?

History: I don’t know it.

Alexander: Me neither, but your followers has written it and other very much infamies about me and my family.

History: Why?

Alexander: Because I am from Aragon, and then to be from Aragon was very malediction.

History: But you was nephew of pope

Alexander:  It isn’t important I have had very sin from Aragon, and Spanish after Italian popes from Council of Constance, and both Roman and Italian forgiven it never.

History: They has accused you to have had sons…

Alexander: Nephew and niece, Lucretia, Caesar and Francis; sons of my brothers, and Paul 3th pope had four sons and he has given his last name, nothing accuses, he was very honest man and cardinal, but he has had very important honor.

History: What?

Alexander: He was Roman, thereupon every sins has had allowed, and pope Gregory XIIIth has had one son, but he was Italian.

History: Who has said about corruption?

Alexander: Historical man of Guicciardini, that has written: “In same year died pope Innocent and has been elect Rodrigo Borja, from Valencia, and nephew of pope Callist 3th, and he was elected to favor of simony, this is money, offices and benefits…it is thing very abominable. I want remark that Guicciardini has said from Valencia, why? Because it is my crime.

History: Your uncle was Spanish.

Alexander: But he has interested to Turks, on contrary I the reform of internal Church.

 History: But He has said it may he has known it…

Alexander: (interrupting) Where are the proofs, every historical man must give documents or other proofs, where are it? Answer, where are?

History: I don’t know.

Alexander:(smiling) You don’t know, Guicciardini doesn’t knows, everyman same ignorance, but I am corrupt and incestuous, I haven’t sons and I have not had money to corrupt, but somebody has said it…

History: What is origin of this lie?

Alexander: Simple, after my election, as every pope, I have gift my cloth and other to cardinals that has voted to me, this is motive and origin of corruption.

History: He has said: “a man to nature full of cheats, insatiable of avidity…and to very hate to France”, why do you hate France and king Charles 8th?

Alexander: Do you have seen sometime a people that has loved his invader?

History: No certainly!

Alexander: I should love invader of Rome?

History: No certainly! Because…

Alexander:  Pope Boniface 8th has loved Philip 4th king of France?

History: Other time

Alexander: But same method, same matter.

History: What matter?

Alexander: Predominance of France on south reign, and very easy to attack the Church, as pope Boniface.

History: Danger is very near.

Alexander: Same geographical context of pope Gaetani, and danger next because, from Napoli reign and Church distance is very small, and now no Philip 4th but Charles 8^th and avidity of richness and power was French alone.

History: But you have given power of Napoli reign to Louis 12^th and king Ferdinand from Spain.

Alexander: Certainly! I have to defend the Church, and reign of south was very near. And to Guicciardini: “He doesn’t shows historical impartiality when he sais about France…I won’t say that this matter he has betrayed the truth, but may altered to personal passion…”. It is evident when he reproach the popes, although they were very generous to him, very much benefices…but may he hasn’t got all”, and a judgment about Guicciardini is from Voltaire that has called Guicciardini a liar.

History: Do you remember Burkard and his diary?

Alexander: A little writer and he told about matters and happened very irrelevant, and he doesn’t nothing of important.

History: And do you have something important?

Alexander: I think that it are very small important, that Constantinople failed in 1453, and that Turks power and Islamic power menace Christianity and Catholic nations…

History: In 1453, but you has been elected in 1492, time is past.

Alexander: Because do you think that a menace ended when an aim is reached?

History: Certainly!

Alexander: A power works when is possible conquest, and economic conquest is possible through territorial conquest, you know perfectly it!

History: The menace of Islam was further.

Alexander: But Hussites were very near, and present to danger of Christianity. The luxury is in clergy plague, some luxury that I won’t in the Church, and the reign of Saint Peter is involved among familiarities. The enemies of Christianity powers are enemies and it are armed the one again other to fight among them, Rome is condemned to fall to homicides and robberies, and we can give compassion.

History: Why do you has been elected?

Alexander: I can quote a cardinal that has said: “You, collaborators of divine will, you must think alone to whom is very worthy to honesty, to intelligence and acknowledge of things. You must reached a very good chief, and you can identify him if you hear Plato, he has said that you must choose who is expert to every field of life, and he is known to his reputation, and that he has made alone the better to this State, otherwise this State is going to fall”, and “ Lion pope  advertisement you to elect whom whose life until now be spent to service of Church, and to behaviors and fatigue is the first” and “You must fair the sentence of God that sais, the have elected a chief to them and no certainly to me”

History: Thereupon you haven’t corrupted?

Alexander: YES!!!Through food.

History: Food?

Alexander: Unique way to communication to external space was a very small door on the door of exit and it was closed through two keys one internal and other external, that has been opened on precise hours to food, thereupon through a roast chicken I has been elected.

History: Do you are joking?

Alexander: No certainly historical men have written very much, it is going to be worthy, certainly!

History: You can speak to somebody through this small door.

Alexander: To whom? Behind the small door was a curtain and I can promise something somebody, but I could not see him, thereupon I can promise everything to somebody, a cardinal, a milkman or waiter, that don’t vote, but it is very negligible particular.

History: You are joking again.

Alexander: No, I am following the wit of bullshits that your following has written.

History: Who does given judgement about your corruption?

Alexander: The cardinals no elected pope, that has called wrong faithless elected, thereupon usually voices about corruption and sold.

History: Are frequent these judgements?

Alexander: Otherwise it could be a conclave.

History: After some Italian other Spanish was very well.

Alexander: Do you think it? After Avignon and very much French popes from Basel council alone Italian, and from a country that has given alone two popes during 15 centuries, and from that state Aragon that has determined much problems to Church.

History: Why the families very noble as Caraffa and Riario that were predominant in Pontifical State and Neapolitan, or Conti, Savelli, Colonna, Orsini, Medici?

Alexander: Because these families are too much important, and they could favorite their families.

History: Historical men said that…

Alexander: Who are? Guicciardini and Giovio? The first very distant to time and space and second very enemy of Church and pope, thereupon they written very wrong and accused me and cardinals of corruption and other.

History: Stefano Infessura?

Alexander: He has exaggerated and he has beatified me, he has written: “he given his goods to poor, and to cardinal Orsini his palace and Castel Monticelli and Suriano” and other. These are lies because my palace I didn’t give nobody.

History: Other historical man has told about corruption.

Alexander: Do you are thinking Comines, French historical man that has followed judgements of cardinals that has dreamed papacy and haven’t reached it; this is simple deduction.

History:  Charles 8^th during attack to Rome he could elect other pope an antipope

.Alexander: He has not had power, because the Church was very strong. Regard my election a written witness has told that: “On day 10^th August on night of Saint Lorenz the cardinals come to a room and they decided one name of prothonotary. Furthermore historical man Sigismondo de’ Conti said that: “Quibus rebus factum est , ut omnium Collegarum judicio dignus summo Pontificatu est habitus”, this is: “These things made every judgements to worth and supreme pope is behavior”, thereupon I ask: The hypocrisy, the simony and silver and gold to corruption where are?

History: Your family?

Alexander: My family can claim dukes, princes, military captain, judge, vice king, bishops, cardinals e two popes and finally a saint.

History: Your family from Spanish, and precisely is from?

Alexander: From a region called Ataresia after name is Borja to a small castle that my forefather Peter Ataresia, has helped king Alfonso first during the fight to Islamic. Same thing has thought my uncle that has written: “ I pope Callist 3th swear to God that to saint Trinity to persecute the Turks, very enemies of Christian name, through armies, and other manners until it is going to be possible…”, and first action of my uncle has been declaration of war to Turks, owner of Jerusalem and Constantinople, and he has sent to Europe ambassadors to promote a crusade, and he has together an army and fleet to Ripa in Rome…

History: This is your judgement because he has been your uncle and…

Alexander: This is voice of Bartholomew Sacchi and he has said about Callistus3th: “Callistus during his life has had fame of integrity, and to his praise when he was bishop and cardinal he won’t nothing benefit, and he usually said that he was very happy to marry one alone wife, and both to public and private life he has given always to poor”

History: But you have your rule to your uncle!

Alexander: It is normal in Rome Curia, because a friend voice is necessary, because formally we are brothers but it isn’t because is power is envoy and hate. Paul 5th Borghese and former Paul 3th Farnese has made same thing, but nobody has condemned it.

History: Other judgements very execrable are from Napoli reign.

Alexander: It’s normal!

History: Why?

Alexander: Because Callistus 3th refused legitimize king of Napoles reign, unlegitime Fernand, and Pontano has called him: “Interea Callistus Pontifex Maximus Alfonsi beneficiorŭm immemor”, this is Callistus didn’t remember benefits of Alfonso”, but every popes worked to Church and against avidity of every king both French and Neapolitan.

History: Why he has worked so?

Alexander: Because legitimate heir was king John, that was legitimize to successor to his brother, and in fact very much refused obey to a bastard as Alfonso.

History: Regard families very aristocratic, what do you think of Caetani?

Alexander: I was asking myself when you have use this argument, I have answer, because now; compliments, you are history and you don’t understand policy.

History: What is answer?

Alexander: Simple, Sermoneta has been a very important fortress to Saint Peter state, and very near to ports of Terracina and Gaeta, feud of Caetani.

History: I didn’t understand what motive to attack.

Alexander: Motive is one and merely military.

History: What is?

Alexander: The Caetani family could be part important to Alfonso king of Naples and enemy of Church, that could has and reached ports afore mentioned, and the state of Church could be weaken to support and aid of roman families that could held position of Alfonso against Borgia pope, because other family; thereupon Alfonso have not to enter is Saint Peter state, and Sermoneta was important military center to contrast this will; hatred of Borgia against Caetani is false

History: Why?

 Alexander: A stone that said: “Annus Domini 1452 Federicus imperator 25^th martii hospitatus est hic et diva Eleoneora 27^th huisdem etiam”, this is: “In the year of God Frederick imperator  25^th march is hosted and Eleonor also”.

History: It doesn’t demonstrate nothing.

Alexander: The absence of hate to Caetani, because this stone could be destroyed by Valentino my nephew, on contrary it is present and document that hate isn’t, and it demonstrates that Sermoneta has been a strategy alone, a fortress necessary, this motive to reinforce  the castle.

History: You could give Sermoneta to other very faithful.

Alexander: Whom, somebody could have betrayed me and the Church to corruption? I have needed somebody that was of my family. This is politic no theologian. I hope that this history, that is true is sufficient and I want say that alone men very strong and important are insulted, because nullifies are always ignored.

Alessandro Lusana

In historia veritas

Alessandro VI papa e la Storia

Storia: Buongiorno Alessandro tu mi puoi raccontare la verità.

 

Alessandro: No! Assolutamente io voglio raccontare la verità e basta, poiché I tuoi seguaci, ossia gli storici, hanno raccontato e scritto il peggio del peggio sul mio papato; hanno scritto che i ho corrotto ogni cardinale…

 

Storia: Questo è falso ovvero no?

 

Alessandro: Per andare al Conclave ogni cardinale, ed io ero fra questi, doveva passare sette posti di guardia ed erano ogni volta perquisiti, quindi come posso io aver corrotto qualcuno, lo puoi spiegare?

 

Storia: Non lo so.

 

Alessandro: Neanche io, ma gli storici hanno scritto questo, e tantissime altre infamie sia su di me che sulla mia famiglia.

 

Storia: Perché?

 

Alessandro: Perché io sono aragonese e all’epoca era un delitto grave.

 

Storia: Ma tu eri nipote del papa.

 

Alessandro: Questo non è importante io ero un peccatore perché aragonese, quindi spagnolo; e dopo papi italiani dal concilio di Costanza, sia i romani che gli italiani, non lo hanno perdonato.

 

Storia: Ti hanno accusato di avere figli.

 

Alessandro: Nipoti: Lucrezia, Cesare e Francesco, figli di mio fratello, mentre Paolo III papa, ha avuto 4 figli e lui stesso diede loro il cognome, ma nessuno lo accusa, era un uomo onesto e cardinale ed ha avuto un onore importante.

 

Storia: Quale?

 

Alessandro: Lui era romano, quindi ogni peccato era permesso, anche papa Gregorio XIII ebbe un figlio, ma lui era bolognese, quindi italiano.

 

Storia: Chi ha parlato della corruzione?

 

Alessandro: Lo storico Guicciardini che ha scritto: “Nel medesimo anno morì papa Innocenzo VIII e fu eletto Rodrigo Borgia, valenzano, e nipote di Callisto III, fu eletto per simonia uffici e benefici…questo è abominevole. Ma voglio rimarcare che Guicciardini ha detto valenzano, perché questo è il mio crimine.

 

Storia: Lui ha detto questo perché sapeva qualcosa.

 

Alessandro: (interrompendo) Dove sono le prove, ogni storico deve dare i documenti ovvero le prove, dove sono? Rispondi dove sono?

 

Storia: Non lo so.

 

Alessandro: (sorridendo) Come in un tribunale la colpevolezza di qualcuno deve essere dimostrata e il Guicciardini non l'ha fatto; ognuno gode della stessa ignoranza, ma io resto un corrotto ed incestuoso, quantunque io non abbia figli e non abbia avuto denaro per corrompere, ma qualcuno dice questo.

 

Storia: Quale è l’origine di questa menzogna?

 

Alessandro: Semplice, dopo la mia elezione, come ogni papa, ho donato i miei vestiti ai cardinali che mi avevano votato; questo è il motivo.

 

Storia: Guicciardini ha detto: “Un uomo per natura pieno di imbrogli, insaziabile di avidità…ed un vero odiatore della Francia”, perché hai odiato tanto la Francia e il re Carlo VIII?

 

Alessandro: Hai mai visto un popolo che ama il suo invasore?

 

Storia: No certamente!

 

Alessandro: I dovrei amare l’invasore di Roma?

 

Storia: No certamente! Perché…

 

Alessandro: Papa Bonifacio VIII ha amato Filippo IV di Francia?

 

Storia: Altri tempi

 

Alessandro: Ma il medesimo metodo e la stessa materia.

 

Storia: Quale materia?

 

Alessandro: La predominanza della Francia sul regno meridionale e i molti attacchi alla Chiesa, come papa Bonifacio.

 

Storia: Il pericolo è davvero vicino.

 

Alessandro: Il medesimo contesto geografico di papa Gaetani e lo stesso pericolo; poiché da Napoli alla Chiesa la distanza è veramente limitata, ed ora non Filippo IV ma Carlo VIII; l’avidità di ricchezza e potere era solo francese.

 

Storia: Ma tu hai dato il potere a Napoli a Luigi XII ed a re Ferdinando spagnolo.

 

Alessandro: Certamente! Io ho difeso la Chiesa ed il regno meridionale che era davvero prossimo. Guicciardini ha scritto: “Lui non ha mostrato imparzialità per la Francia…Io non voglio dire che questa materia sia tradimento ma la verità. Ma forse alterata da passioni personali…”. Questo è evidente quando lui rimprovera il papa, sebbene loro siano stati generosi verso di lui, con molti benefici, ma forse lui non ebbe tutto; infine un giudiziodi Voltaire sul Guicciardini che lo definì un bugiardo.

 

Storia: Ricordi il diario di Burkard?

 

Alessandro: Uno scrittorucolo che ha raccontato su argomenti ed accadimenti davvero trascurabili.

 

Storia: Tu hai qualcosa di importante?

 

Alessandro: Credo che questi siano davvero irrilevanti; Costantinopoli cadde nel 1453, ed i turchi ed il potere islamico minacciava la cristianità e le nazioni cattoliche.

 

Storia: Nel 1453 ma tu sei stato eletto nel 1492, tempo ne è passato.

 

Alessandro: Perché tu pensi che una minaccia finisca quando uno scopo è stato raggiunto?

 

Storia: Certamente!

 

Alessandro: Un potere opera quando è possibile una conquista sia economica che territoriale, tu questo lo sai perfettamente.

 

Storia: La minaccia dell’Islam era lontana.

 

Alessandro: Ma gli eretici ussiti erano vicini e presenti per pericolo della cristianità. Il lusso è nel clero una piaga, qualche lusso che io non volevo nella Chiesa, e nel regno di San Pietro, ha coinvolto qualche familiare che ho combattuto. I nemici della cristianità sono nemici ed armati gli uni contro gli altri, Roma è condannata a cadere per gli omicidi e rapine.

 

Storia: Perché sei stato eletto?

 

Alessandro: Posso menzionare il cardinale che ha detto: “Tu, collaboratore della volontà divina, tu puoi pensare soltanto a chi è veramente degno per onestà, per intelligenza e conoscenza delle cose. Devi avere un ottimo capo, e tu puoi identificare lui se tu ascolti Paltone, che disse, che devi scegliere chi è esperto in ogni campo della vita, che sia riconosciuto per la sua reputazione, e che abbia fatto il bene solo dello Stato, altrimenti lo Stato cadrebbe” e: “Papa Leone consiglia per l’elezione di colui la cui vita finora sia stata spesa per il servizio della Chiesa, sia i costumi che la fatica è la prima” e “deve temere le sentenze di Dio che dice aver eletto un capo per loro e non per me”.

 

Storia: Quindi non hai corrotto?

 

Alessandro: Si!!! Con il cibo.

 

Storia: Cibo?

 

Alessandro: L’unico modo per comunicare con l’esterno era uno sportello sulla porta di accesso e uscita; era chiusa con due chiavi una interna e l’altra esterna, che veniva aperta in determinate ore per il cibo, quindi io ho corrotto con un pollo arrosto, per questo sono stato eletto.

 

Storia: Stai scherzando?

 

Alessandro: No certamente gli storici hanno scritto molto di più, questo sarà degno.

 

Storia: Puoi parlare a qualcuno da questo sportello.

 

Alessandro: A chi? Dietro lo sportello c’era una tenda e avrei potuto promettere qualcosa a qualcuno, ma io non potevo vedere lui posso promettere qualcosa a qualcuno, un cardinale, un lattaio ovvero un cameriere, che non avrebbe votato, ma questo è un particolare insignificante.

 

Storia: Continui a scherzare.

 

Alessandro: No, io seguo lo spirito delle cazzate che hanno scritto.

 

Storia: Chi ti ha giudicato un corrotto?

 

Alessandro: I cardinali che non sono stati eletti papa, che hanno chiamato indegno chi lo è stato, quindi le solite voci corruzione e vendite.

 

Storia: Sono frequenti queste voci?

 

Alessandro: Altrimenti non sarebbe un conclave.

 

Storia: Dopo qualche italiano un altro spagnolo era davvero eccellente.

 

Alessandro: Pensi questo? Dopo Avignone e molti papi francesi dal concilio di Basilea solo italiani, e da un paese che ha dato solo due papi durante il XV secolo, ossia la Spagna, e da uno stato, l’Aragona, che da dato seri problemi alla Chiesa.

 

Storia: Perché le famiglie nobili come Caraffa, Riario che erano predominanti nello stato pontificio e nel napoletano, ovvero i Conti, Savelli, Colonna, Orsini, Medici?

 

Alessandro: Perché queste famiglie erano troppo rilevanti e avrebbero favorito i loro familiari.

 

Storia: Gli storici dicono che…

 

Alessandro: Chi sono? Guicciardini e Giovio? Il primo davvero distante nel tempo e nello spazio ed il secondo un nemico giurato della Chiesa e del papa, quindi loro scrivono molte accuse e accusano me e i cardinali di corruzione.

 

Storia: Stefano Infessura?

 

Alessandro: Lui ha esagerato e mi ha beatificato scrivendo: “Lui diede i suoi beni ai poveri, ed al cardinale Orsini il suo palazzo e Castel Monticelli e Suriano”, e altro. Queste sono menzogne perché il mio palazzo non lo diedi a nessuno.

 

Storia: Altri storici hanno raccontato della tua corruzione.

 

Alessandro: Stai pensando a Comines, storico francese, che ha seguito i giudizi dei cardinali che avevano sognato il papato e non l’hanno avuto; questa è semplice deduzione.

 

Storia: Carlo VIII durante l’attacco a Roma poteva eleggere un antipapa.

 

Alessandro: Lui non ebbe il potere, poiché la Chiesa era davvero forte. Riguardo la mia elezione un testimone scrittore ha detto che: “Il 10 agosto, nella notte di San Lorenzo, i cardinali sono andati in una stanza e hanno deciso un nome del Protonotario; inoltre lo storico Sigismondo de’ Conti dice che:“Quibus rebus factum est , ut omnium Collegarum judicio dignus summo Pontificatu est habitus”, ossia: “Queste cose sono state giudicate da ognuno veramente degne”, quindi chiedo: l’ipocrisia, la simonia e l’argento e oro per la corruzione dove sono?

 

Storia: La tua famiglia?

 

Alessandro: La mia famiglia può ricordare duchi, principi, militari, giudici, vice re, vescovi, cardinali e due papi e anche un santo.

 

Storia: La tua famiglia dalla Spagna ma precisamente da dove?

 

Alessandro: Dalla regione di Ataresia, poi il nome divenne Borgia da un piccolo castello, che un mio antenato, Pietro Ataresia, aiutò re Alfonso I durante un combattimento con gli islamici. La medesima cosa ha pensato mio zio, che ha scritto: “Io papa Callisto III giuro a Dio e alla santa Trinità di perseguire i turchi come nemici della cristianità con le armi e altre maniere fin quando questo sarà possibile…”, e la prima azione di mio zio fu di dichiarare guerra ai turchi che avevano conquistato Costantinopoli e Gerusalemme, e lui inviò alle corti europee i suoi ambasciatori per promuovere la crociata; infatti raccolse un esercito ed una flotta a Ripa, in Roma.

 

Storia: Questo è il tuo giudizio perché era tuo zio.

 

Alessandro: Questa è la voce di Bartolomeo Sacchi e lui disse su Callisto III: “Callisto durante la sua vita ebbe fama di integrità, e la sua lode quando era vescovo e cardinale, lui non volle alcun beneficio, e dice anche che lui era davvero felice per avere una sposa e sia in pubblico che in privato dava spesso ai poveri”

 

Storia: Ma tu hai avuto il ruolo di Protonotario per tuo zio!

 

Alessandro: Questo è normale nella curia romana, perché una voce amica è necessaria, poiché formalmente siamo fratelli, ma dove c’è il potere c’è l’invidia e l’odio. Paolo V Borghese e prima di lui Paolo III Farnese hanno fatto la stessa cosa, ma nessuno li ha condannati.

 

Storia: Altri giudizi dal regno di Napoli erano davvero esecrabili.

 

Alessandro: Questo è normale!

 

Storia: Perché?

 

Alessandro: Perché Callisto III rifiutò di legittimare il re di Napoli, ossia l’illegittimo Ferdinando, e Pontano ha chiamato lui: “Interea Callistus Pontifex Maximus Alfonsi beneficiorŭm immemor”, cioè Callisto III che non ricordò I benefici di Alfonso, ma tutti i papi hanno lavorato per la Chiesa, e contro l’avidità di ogni re sia di Francia che di Napoli.

 

Storia: Perché ha agito così?

 

Alessandro: Perché lui ha legittimato Giovanni, che era il successore del fratello che, infatti, rifiutò di obbedire ad un bastardo come Alfonso.

 

Storia: Riguardo alle famiglie aristocratiche, cosa pensi dei Caetani?

 

Alessandro: Mi stavo chiedendo quando avresti usato questo argomento; quindi ho una risposta; complimenti, tu sei la storia e non conosci la politica?

 

Storia: La risposta?

 

Alessandro: Semplice, Sermoneta era una importantissima roccaforte per lo stato di San Pietro, e davvero vicina ai porti di Terracina, e Gaeta, feudo dei Caetani.

 

Storia: Non capisco quale motivo per attaccare.

 

Alessandro: Il motivo è meramente militare.

 

Storia: Quale?

 

Alessandro: La famiglia Caetani poteva divenire parte importante per Alfonso re di Napoli e nemico della Chiesa, e poteva anche fruire dei porti menzionati; quindi lo Stato della Chiesa poteva essere indebolito, perché aiutato dalle famiglie romane,  Alfonso non doveva entrare nello Stato della Chiesa, per cui Sermoneta era un importante centro per contrastare questa volontà; e l’odio dei Borgia verso i Caetani è falso.

 

Storia: Perché?

 

Alessandro: Una pietra commemorativa recita: “Annus Domini 1452 Federicus imperator 25th martii hospitatus est hic et diva Eleoneora 27th huisdem etiam”,ossia: “Nell’anno del Signore  Federico imperatore il 25 marzo fu ospitato e il 27 anche Eleonora”

 

Storia: Questo non dimostra nulla.

 

Alessandro: L’assenza di odio per i Caetani, poiché questa pietra poteva essere distrutta dal Valentino, mio nipote, invece questo è un documento presente, che attesta l’assenza di odio e dimostra che Sermoneta fu solo una mossa strategica; una fortezza necessaria, questo il motivo per rafforzare il castello. spero che questa storia, che è la verità, sia sufficiente, voglio aggiungere che soltanto gli uomini veramente forti ed importanti sono insultati, perché le nullità sono sempre ignorate.

Alessandro Lusana