The semiotic of dark: Saint Thomas

Saint Thomas from Aquino(1225-1274), author of Summa teologica, is protagonist of this essay because he has mentioned and explained, although alone through the mention, the meaning of dark, when he speaks about the knowledge : “It seems to me excluded from the words of Saint Paul about not forgot of knowledge, because they have known God they haven’t worshipped  as God, neither they have tank him, but they were fall in love of their thinks, and their heart was involved in dark”; we must consider that Saint Thomas was a man of Middle age, and he could think alone in his time; but must also consider contradiction, because among the knowledge  is also Aristotle that Saint Thomas often mentioned in his Summa theological, actually he is  one primary reference for the Saint; today we can laugh on this affirmation, because we have a clean subdivision of time of Aristotle and of Saint Thomas, in fact we can  beat time both one and other; furthermore the step of Holy Bible, as the Exodus(10,22) the step says that God ordered to Moses: “Extend your hand toward to sky, end up Egypt a5re the dark so intense that it is going  to be touch; but the knowledge that the Egyptian are subordinate to the dark that is the sin of unreligious; hence the sin above mentioned in normal, I repeat for us it is laughable but during the middle age it was more than sure, because time was divided between religious, this is Christian and Pagan. Other mention of the Saint: “God takes from herself the vision of dark, not take it otherwise from the light”; God can take alone herself a concept because is the universal knowledge; after: “There is who that is eliminated from the evil; and it is the good directly against to that evil; as the light is totally eliminated from the darks”; this is the concept of sin, that overcome the goodness, thence the sin has outstripped the goodness. There is finally a good that is partially modified from the evil, but not certainly eliminated; and it is the good is the habit of a man toward determined acts”; the acts here not described are, we can imagine, the acts of the prayer and religious life. The almighty of God is in this step: “I am the God and other aren’t. I create the light and the darks…”; therefore we can think that God is the creator of sin, and he knows perfectly the good and the evil, that he has given to kinsmen, from Adam and Eve. But the step very meaningful is the following: “So the life of faithful and right men, compared to the life of sinner, is called the light: Saint Paul says: Then you were darks, but now you are light in the God”; the light is the grace of God against to darks that was the sin. And the omniscience of God is in the following step: “In the distinction  between the light and darks, these last we can think the sins of diamonds, whereby this distinction regard the Divine prescience…hence Saint Augustine says that: “Could distinguish the light from the darks alone who could preview, before than failed”. We must consider whereby that the sin is the darks, and the light the goodness and religious life.

Alessandro Lusana      

                   

 

 The semiotic of light

The light is natural phenomenal that every day we can ascertain and that allow to us of to see, to distinguish and to recognize everything in fact when it isn’t we can’t make the actions above mentioned; but the light has also  a semiotic nature beyond the appearance; the light is  in the Holy Bible has the semiotic valor because in Isaiah(9-2) the text says: “The people that is walking in the dark, seen a great light…”naturally the explication is alone semiotic  or better it is theological, the light is salvation in the Christian semiotic, it is the Christ that is salvation of mankind that before his birth was saved from its sins, and saved from the dark. Always Isaiah(42-6) says: “ I the lord have called you in the justice, I have hold you by the hand and I have protected you. And I have wanted that you become make of peace of people, and the light of nations”, and same(49-6)I have made you light of people”, and: “You not is going to have the sun for the light of day…but God is going to be light eternal”. John evangelist(1-5) says: “And the light shines among the dark”, and the same(8-12): “Christ said to them, I am the light of word”, and the semiotic in this step is dominant: “Christ said them: the light is in you again for short time. Walk until you are going to have the light, so that the dark not catch you. The light is the faith and the salvation of word, why this assimilation? Simple because the enables of to have certain, inasmuch also to be secure by dangers or evil other.  In painting the light has other valor and it depends by the style of painter and the costumer, fro example:  in Venetian school the historical art men known that the color  is the first element, this is the intense colors that that Titian Vecellio(1488-1576) has used for his painting, as his master Giorgione(1477-1510), and thank to these two painter the Venetian school is identified through the color, but also the light the intense light that both Titian, Giorgione, Giovanni Bellini (1430-1516), Giovanni Antonio Canal(1697-1768), called Canaletto; and always for the painting the intense meaning has given from Caravaggio, this is Michelangelo Merisi called Caravaggio(1571-1610) that has showed the reality but with theology in, for example: the first version of saint Matthew(Fig.1) that everybody think is destroyed during the second world war(Fig.2) instead  it is in basin  of a museum of Moscow, because it was steeled from a soldier of red army during the year 1945; anyway  the light is very theology because the angel that leads  the hand and the same  saint are illuminated from God, the light is God; the light that illumines  saint Matthew in the call(Fig.2) and the sinner besides is other theological meaning, What is? Simple  that Christ is salvation for the saint and sinner that ignores Christ because he is counting the money. The light hence has much meaning and various representation to you the choice.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Fig.1

Fig.2

        

 Hide Caravaggio

This essay begin for a specification this is that stems from a conference that Maurizio Marini(1942-2011), the major  student in Europe of Caravaggio, this is Michelangelo Merisi(1571-1610), called Caravaggio, very famous painter in Rome and in Italy, that has influenced much painters during the first years of 17^th century; anyway among  the painting of Caravaggio one seemed lost during 1945, in Flakturm Friedrichshain in Berlin, but already it has seated to the Kaiser-Friedrich Museum; this painting not has destroyed during the second world war, but has stolen  from a soldier of red army and Martini informed us that this painting is the original first version of saint Matthew and an angel. The controversy about the refusal of this painting has involved very much historical art men, for the nude foots, but also in the second version the foots are nude; Marini has explained this refusal for the figure of angel why? Because the young angel is truly the nephew of cardinal Contrail, that was costumer of this painting, and Caravaggio portrayed the nephew of cardinal, this is Francis, then very young, dressed very short, it is has determined the refusal; the presence of nephew have determined the scandal, because this painting is in year 1602 two years after the jubilee, and the costumer was a cardinal, the scandal would be very great. The theft  there was in 1945 a soldier brought  this painting to Moscow, where today is hide, why the Russian not goes back this painting? Simple because the Germany could ask the compensation because this painting was stolen and not given, hence among the damages would cost very much, and the Russian hasn’t the sufficient money; anyway the image of this painting on internet said that this painting was destroyed, but truly it is the original. Giovanni Baglione(1573-1644) painter and enemy of Caravaggio said that the painting was refused  and removed from the altar of chapel  because vulgar and nobody has liked it; naturally the Baglione the author of the book The life of painters, sculptors and architects, published 1642, has had motives very personal  to give this judge, since Caravaggio during a witness in court said: “I don’t know nobody painter that judge Baglione a painter”; after Giovanni Bellori(1613-1696), a Italian writer, repeated same question and he said also that  the figure of saint was indecorous, because it seems a common people; this opinion was used from very much historical art men, because other weren’t , but thank to Marini we know where is the original and because was refused.

Alessandro Lusana    

 The Christian syllogism

I won’t tell around  of Aristotle(b.Ch.384-322) and his syllogism but consider alone  the mechanicalness of a basis that after goes until to the Christian troth , this is God; the mechanicalness has took from the  syllogism of Aristotle; Saint Thomas(1224-1274) that mentioned very much Aristotle, and he called him the philosopher, and that he has known through the translation of the Analytics of Boethius (480-526), and his translation of syllogism, that Saint Thomas could read because the Latin language was explained on the major authors, both Christin and pagan; anyway mechanical dynamic of think that for Saint Thomas is natural to God., in fact in the book De magistro the saint says that the description is useless if it isn’t accomplished from an explication about the substance, this God, that is the true motive for the everything; it is the mechanical dynamic  of syllogism, in fact Aristotle, that begin from objective reality although logic, and I use the conjunction although because the rational logic that  is fundament  fro the think, but we must also consider that every matter has its logic, enclosed the syllogism, that is mechanical always, and Saint Thomas has took this dynamic , and he used in his major books this is the Summa theological: “If other philosophical matters is necessary admit other science. It seems that isn’t necessary other matters, in fact: “The man inform us the Holy Bible not goes toward that is superior of his brain, not search the things that are too much difficult to you”, it is an example that shows the reference to Holy Bible, because that the voice of God, the mention continues: “Now that is rational is given from philosophical matters. Consequently other isn’t necessary”; it is the dynamic of Aristotle. Other step says: “The science isn’t that not consider the God, in fact we know alone the true, that coincides to the God. The philosophy treats every being and also about God, in fact a part of philosophy is called also theology, this is the divine science, in opinion of Aristotle”, and: “The holy doctrine is a science. We must know that is present a double gender of sciences.. Some in fact come from principles known alone through the natural light of intellect ,as the arithmetic and the geometry, other instead come from principles known for the light of superior science…For this way the holy doctrine  is a science  because it is lays on the known principles for the light of a superior science this is for the science of God.”. This mechanical dynamic of think is a result from Aristotle, for Saint Thomas the unique truth was the Holy Bible, and in fact he took alone from there for his explications, other isn’t, but he used the same method of Aristotle, hence he has founded the Christian syllogism.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

 The theatre out the theatre: Edmond Rostand

Edmond Rostand(1868-1918) is an French author, more famous for his comedy Cyrano of Bergerac, and this comedy is very important, because represents the theatre out the theatre, where the public instead of to be a element absolutely marginal and external become the coprotagonist, the personages of the comedy speak among them of the verses or other that is inherent to theatre, for example a personage, a marquis  says: “And we enter in theatre so as the little bourgeois! Without disturb nobody and without to tread on someone toes?”, it is an example of soliloquy that now has became theatre, actually dialog to the public and one present personage, Ragueneau is confectioner of actors; hence Rostand  gone out from the theatre, and he take the life , the true life, because in the dialogue between the confectioner and an other personage, called Lionerie the confectioner look around and he says: “I don’t see the mister Cyrano it is very strange that he isn’t”, and Lionerie asks why, and Ragueneau answers: “Because to night recites Montfleury”; it is can seem a cue alone but a personage of this comedy that mentions other personage of same comedy; it is the theatre out the theatre , and the cue after is more meaningful for this motive, the first the marquis asks: “Who is Cyrano?” and the confectioner answers that the absence of Cyrano is very anomalous, because he hates Montfleury, that prohibited to Cyrano of recite for a month; it is the tell that involves also the theatre, but the confectioner tells something that is external to theatre; the acme is in the cues that shows a spectator  says: “They have confirmed it, and a murmur of public: “Shut up! He seems, no, yes, the cardinal?”, these are alone cues and stop, but the public says it, therefore the public is participating of the comedy, and Cyrano take part to comedy through and ask: “Rogue, I have prohibited  to you to recite from a month” but it is said from the stalls, that has protested for the disturb of Cyrano, and he has reacted defying the public to duel; it is alone comic, but it has a meaning very deep, because the public now participant to comedy, and the comment of Cyrano to some verse of Balthasar Bato(1596-1650), a French poet, determined the reaction of some women from the gallery, that protest for this judge, and Cyrano that answers to a spectator: “Old mule the verse of Bato are nothing”; it is the real conversation in theatre  among the friends on the a question that involves the style and the recitation, but Cyrano while says it, he is in public, this is in the stalls. Rostand has brought the theatre out the theatre.

Alessandro Lusana

 

             

 Caesar and Napoleon, common destiny; the unit

The se historic figures are unified from a common destiny, the salvation of an empire and the second of a nation, why? Simple because Caesar saves the empire because Rome was busied in the civil war and it have determined the end of empire, because weaken the center of power was the end of empire; Caesar hence unified the opposite classes this the aristocracy, this is the high class and the popular class, because he needed of unity because through this is motive to compact the power and enforce it; in fact after the civil war Caesar took the power and for to unify the opposite classes he imposed his personal dictatorship, although didn’t declare, the Rome and the empire has had need of unity; in fact he succeed in this duty, because after his domain in Rome other civil wars weren’t, and who followed Caesar, Octavian(b.Ch.63-14) realized the power affective of Caesar, and he took every power, and he has continued through the policy of Caesar, because he has increased the job through the public commission, has lowed the price of wheat, and as Caesar he has given the fields to veteran, the wheat was other strategy for calm the popular classes that were the major part, and a prefect for the wheat so that he avoids the famine and riots of people, evidently the memory of civil was still present; anyway he tendered to the unity of empire and he enforced the power of Caesar and he took his reforms and he continued on this deal. Napoleon(1769-1821) followed the Revolution, but also he has had need of unity of nation, this is the France, he followed the reform of Revolution, in the schools for example he took from the Revolution, the laic school, that today is normal but then the religious has the monopoly of instruction, the schools have opened to everybody, the equality in front of the law and abolition of feudalism; these are some of reform that the Revolution has given to France, Napoleon ahs continued this deal, that was ploughed from the Revolution; hence he has took the power and he has continued through the reforms until the Civil code of 1804, that has took the laws of Revolution and has ascertained the fundamental principles of Revolution, but he has thrown some law that was inopportune for his power, as the local autonomies, that the Revolution has ascertained, local autonomies are the single city of today, the peer importance of couple, this is the wife and husband, that the Revolution has issued was deleted, and above all the freedom of print; these reform that are very limitation to liberty, were necessary to keep the power, because he, differently from Caesar was elected in 1804 imperator, and his empire was limited in confront to Rome, but was equally stabilizer.

Alessandro Lusana      

 A merchant of 15^th century: Benedict Cotrugli Raguseo

I don’t think that the name of Benedetto Cotrugli Raugeo(1416-1469)can solicit some memory, because he is more known, if somebody knows him, for his book about the merchant where he explains this job, and he begun through the definition of merchant and merchandizes, he explain this distinction: “…we say that the difference between these words, this merchant and merchandise. But under this word of merchandise, we must include everything that we sale, or we bay. And the name of merchandise we must understand the art, or the discipline, or ordination, precept, or constitution, and through these orders the job of merchant must be made or contracted…”; he explains what is the job of merchant, and he must explain it very easy, because the colleagues of Benedict were very ignorant, also because, actually above all, because the knowledge or culture has had a valor very limited in the business. But benedict found also the far origin of merchant he gives this opinion that today is logic but in  during the 15^th century certainly it was very less or nothing: “…(the merchandise)that was ordinated above all, from the nature, for the supplement of human needs…”, in fact Benedict has spoken about the cloths, that after are improved also in aesthetic and from this improvement is born the merchant. He continues: “After the much centuries id past for the much utility of merchants, that for this motive, this is the utility, they have made very much and wonderful inventions…”; it is the explication more clear of merchant job and origin; but we must also consider that this explication are determined from experience, that must be before leaded from the culture, but after the translation to reality must be considered on ground of the case, for this Benedict is so obvious, because the single case makes the experience, now of merchant. But the our Benedict is also attentive to ancient authors, in fact he said about an opinion of Seneca(50b.Ch.-40a.Ch.): “Although Seneca has said that “the town doesn’t the man, although the town doesn’t man the merchant stems for ability of town and for consequence the merchant must choose the town opportune to merchant”; it is the truth, but may Seneca thought to his life, his father was a writer and orator, but not philosopher, and his mother Elvia, has the strong interest for the philosophy but she didn’t write something. Benedict after considers also the aesthetic of the town, usually the dwell of merchant, and he says: “because the town where the merchant dwells, give much of inclination, for the increment or not of merchant…”; it is the daily rule that we use when a stranger or friend come to our home, the first think is the aesthetic of home; but these thinks are from experience that Benedict has had, in fact he continues and advises a salutary town, and long from the war. For to explain the exchange benedict used an example that is too much known for to be alone a hypothesize, I think that is true experience: “The Florentines merchants, more times bring the cloths, to Sicily to sale it for fixed prices: and because the liquid isn’t always available, they that were in Sicily, and willing they that their merchandise ends, they think to the exchange…”; this strategy is certainly took from real example; the clue of this suspect is confirmed from the nationality that Benedict mentioned, this is the Florentine merchant, he could mention the Venetian, Pisan, Genoese merchants instead not, alone the Florentine, why? Simple because he has heard a tale of some Florentine merchant and he has translated here.