De honestate narrationis

The work of historical man is, certainly, to keep the events, to further others men are going to can read, and today it is very scant, because we don’t consider these histories important, because we are living, and now are daily, thereby very transcurable, also because we can, today give a interpretation, because we know very much informations, and thereby we can interpreter every episode; the hostest historic is very rare, because we can read the history that are very pimp and elogiative history that very scant regard the inquiry of history, also because the historical men were payed by lords that have commissioned these histories, thereby, except Machivelli, they lived in court, and to speack about a costumer was very inopportune, because others historical men, or so allegeted, were very much adulator, today they could have said: “I must eat too”, thereby I must adulate this lord, and stop! Thereupon when we can read an indication and witness of dignity as that of Niccolò Machivelli(1469-1527), that in prologue of Florentine stories he written, to his costumer, this is pope Clemens 7^th from Medici family: “Since from your Sanctity…was commissioned that I write that the Florentine people, I have used all diligence  and art, that the nature has given me, and experience to

sodisfy…, and as from your beatitude was ordered that I write that your forefather has made, that was manifest that I am distant from every adulation distant(as very much to men hear both true and fake praises…”. It is a scart notation, that machiavelli given and that teaches what is dignity of historical man, but beforethe historical is man, because if the man is unwhorty, his narration is going to be so. This longe example is necessary to underline that other historical man, in ancient Rome, Tacit(55a.D.-117a.D.) accuses the imperator Neron of burn of Rome, but the imperial villa of Neron the Domus aurea was undone, and an imperatore that burns a city so that his home or villa is burned, is very foolish, or we must consider that Tacit was a pride repubblican, this is lover of republic regime, and then was imperator, thereby the judge of Tacit is determined alone to ideological cause; thereupon we must consider that an unbiased history nobody they will be written, in conformity to Hegelian said. But we must also consider that sometime we can find an historical man that has right, because during the read of William of Malmesbury(1095-1143) is very honest when he writes, about a king of Britain, and he was English: “Erat eo tempore rex Britaniae Wortigernus nomine, nec manu promptus, nec consilio bonus, imo ad illecebras carnis pronus, omniunque fere vitiorum mancipium…”, this is: “Then  king of Britain(5^th century) was Wortigernus, neither to hand and advice”, we can think that it is very scant, but it is a example of dignity, because William of Malmesbury wasa monk, but he could write a elogiative history of kings of England, but he has told the truth? We can believe that he has made it, but we must consider that the source of William, in 5^th century, could have written very much truths or very much liers, to motives that we have seen regard Tacit, but I think that we can value the right of William that has written a history that has considered also the wrong wits.

Alessandro Lusana