Speculative tales: Confucius

We have at last heard the name of Confucius(551-479 b. Ch.), that has given teaches in a period of China when the moral decadence was dominant; his teachings are mots that, always, took the elementary logic of speculation, and they are obvious but he wanted given the analysis of reality. Some example: one of primaries maxims: “I don’t dislike because everybody knows me but I worry because I don’t know the men”, in fact it is true because when we think that we know a person, also a friend, during time we recognize that of this friend we known very scant; but because we don’t know the human gender and his behavior in particular context. Other maxim is: “Who governs through the virtues is comparable to the polar star, that is immobile while the others come around”, Confucius known certainly, that the stars are immobile, but with this maxim he has wanted give an example of good govern; but he hasn’t considered that he could have given also a maxim about the pimps that usually are around the power men; a little advisement, type: “It is advisement: the execution immediately for the pimps”. Other maxim that we can apply to speculation of political man: “You must see what a man makes, look the motives that move him and look that he like. What can he hide to you?”; it is the truth because you can know perfectly what he likes, hence he difficulty could hide something. Other: “The acknowledge isn’t a tool that is set for a alone motive”, in fact when Socrates advised his pupils, although he didn’t consider herself a master, of attend the wises because from them was possible know, and it is a duty of wise, to given advisement and teaching. A pupil of Confucius asked about the wise, and Confucius answered: “Before he become his words, and these are consequent to his actions”; it is a lesson that millions of persons should follow, because speak about of something is very easy, but make that is alone verbal concept is very coherent and it is the immense difficult. Always around the wise: “The wise is universal and no particular, the vulgar man is particular  and no universal”; it is true but to be universal is otherwise to be abstract, because nothing teaching is universal, because we live in this word, therefore we must be particular. Other truth: To study without meditation is useless, and meditate without to study is danger”, in fact we risk to infer something that is very mistake. And an motto that seems Socratic: “Yu do you want know what is the knowledge? It is that that you know say that you know, but what you didn’t know you must say that you don’t know, it is the knowledge”, Socrates was usual to say: “I known that I don’t know”. Other note: “Lin Fan asked what is the essence of rites…and Confucius answered: “In the ceremonies of holiday the sobriety is preferable to prodigality, in the funeral ceremonies the heartfelt dolor is preferable than to external acts”, it is the preference of sincerity than hypocrisy.

Alessandro Lusana 

 

The hierarchy of grammar

The semiotic of grammar there isn’t, but it isn’t an essay about the semiotic or grammar, because the pain in the neck would be superhuman instead a charge to Aja court would be sure, and right; hence I want alone consider the semiotic regard the grammar, but not certainly the meaningful of words, that is from centuries, but the semiotic valor, the important in hierarchy; every word in a concept or discourse are necessary, otherwise a discourse without a subject and verb is useless; but we can, I repeat, we can, no must absolutely, we can appraisal the relevance of some form in the discourse, that it is written, oral or though, for example we can consider the Latin language necessary to understand this concept: the verb, every verb in Latin language is fundamental, because it is more important size of discourse, because without the verb, the discourse isn’t, but the verb, at last in Latin and Italian, that is a modern Latin, the verb allows to identify the subject, because the persons of verbal declination are different, instead in English language the subject is necessary, because every, or almost every person of declination is equal; hence in English important  is the verb certainly, but equal importance has also the subject, that in Italian is secondary, because in English to say: “I make” has sense, but: “make” alone the first question is: “who?”, therefore the importance of verb is equal to subject, because both are necessary to understandable of proposition, in French language, the oral communication the pronounce is very similar hence the subject is necessary always, because the subject can be confused; the similarity of pronounce is a affinity to English language, also because the French is a language that has certainly took from Latin but not how the Italian and Spanish, that as Italian can excludes the subject; it is because the Spanish is the second Neo Latin language, in Europe, that is derivation directly from the Latin, in fact the grammar Italian and Spanish and almost every word is equal, for the German the same way for French and English, the subject is fundamental. This essay want represent the hierarchy in the discourse, and the differences present in different languages; the hierarchy is present in human gender and also in what the human gender bring always, this is the word; in fact the rhetoric is important every specific size of discourse, because it must be persuasive, thereupon every word is important, the logic is fundamental but also the adjective or pronoun or the adverb is fundamental , because the sake is persuasion; if a politic man pronounces a discourse without the right emphasis, right verb and right conviction he would to blow a raspberry; in discourse also private these are essential size of discourse, that have a hierarchy, and from it nobody can apart. But also in grammar is importance and less importance.

Alessandro Lusana

                

 

The human evolution of travel: Montaigne and Goethe

The evolution of title is referenced to two travels in Italy of two different persons, this is Michel de Montaigne(1533-1592) and Johan Wolfgang Goethe(1749-1832), that during different centuries visited the Italy, at last to the principal cities, and they registered their description, very boring; the evolution means the capacity of these two writers of to pick the imagines and episodes in every city, and it attests also the evolution of man during centuries and the evolution of sensibility; certainly we must consider that the difference between the writers, but we must also consider that both were wise humanistic, but we must also consider that the cities visited were changed during centuries. Montaigne anyway is the first that we consider, the first stopping place is in Meaux near Paris, on the river Marl, and the description of city is sufficiently long: “The Meaux that is small city on the Marl is formed from three parts, the city and suburb are on the left of river, toward Paris, and beyond the bridges is other suburb called merchant …where is great quantity of residents and houses.”; but the morality of Catholic French emerges from the following words: “Once upon this city was fortified with very strong walls and towers; but during our complots of Huguenot , since that the major part of residents was adherent to this party, the fortifications were destroyed…”; this second plot occurred in year 1567, when during the visit of Charles 9^th , king of French, the Huguenots tried to kidnap the king. Continuing the description, Montaigne says: “This part of the city bore the assault of English, when the city was already failed…”, this assault occurred in 1421 during the war of hundred years, and the siege there was between October 1421 and May 1422. These information are certainly gone to Montaigne from some pride citizen of Meaux, and I can say it and I can infer it from my personal experience, during 17 years of job of guide; every citizen of a small city is always pride of some heroic episode inherent to his city, it is the parochialism and stop, anyway Montaigne continued: “…and for award every resident is free from taxes”, and the my opinion s above mentioned, is supported from the followings words: “In middle of Marl they indicate a long island, that they say it was a knight thrown in the river from the English for destroyed the suburb of Merchant”, this knight was a machine for siege necessary to destroyed the walls of defense; but the popular fantasy, after centuries, has mythicized this episode and transformed it through a mythical version. And this wit continues for two tombs, certainly Medieval, because the Montaigne’s description suggests it: “Among the things there is a ancient tomb and venerable  with image of two knights laid…they think that they are the corps of Danish Ogiery and other knight…”; after this description Montaigne visited a religious Justin Terrelle, and he has believed to everything that this religious has said, because in conformity of narration of Montaigne, he was a very wise in French, and he has been in Egypt and Jerusalem and he has lived for seventh years in Constantinople, and Montaigne indicated also the age of this religious, 60 years old; Montaigne written his travel to Italy during 1580-1581, it is means that this religious lived in Constantinople and he was sent there for to buy Greek books. From Meaux to Charly and after Dormans, and from Espreney the narration is boring because nothing of interesting is. For Goethe that has travelled to Italy for two years, 1786-1788, other impressions and other places, it is normal, but the evolution of title is in the notations that Goethe in other time, in confront of Montaigne, he specified, and it is document of other writer but also of other time, other sensibility, it is the evolution, in Rovereto, Italian city in North Italy, where the first impression of Goethe is for the language: “There I am in Rovereto where the language is changed suddenly, toward North is again between the Dutch and Italian…and the hotelier he doesn’t speak Dutch: and myself must try the my knowledge of language. But I am very happy that this language , that I love, is hereupon the live language used from everybody”; sincerely I didn’t understand because Goethe was so happy, but we must consider that Goethe has been so happy, may for the sincerely and informal character of Italian, may was the human warm that made him happy, very different from the formal context of high classes, and it is confirmed from the words: “…used from everybody…”, because this pronoun, everybody, means that he could have the human contact to other citizens, hence the human contacts could be grown; I think it because the formal context I have known and during time of Goethe it was the rule. Other town is Torbole, a small town but evidently has arouse enthusiasm Goethe, because he says: “I would that my friends were here for a moment with me, for joy of sight that I have in front now! This night I could to be to Verona, but among scant steps there was this majesty lake of Garda, and I wanted not renounce to it”. Evidently this landscape has very liked to Goethe, because he has even drown it, or he has tried it; but we can infer that the education of highest classes ordered that the children learned also the drawing. Other note that today is very strange is that: “…the first is that the doors haven’t locks,…the hotelier assured me that, if I have diamonds”, and regard the Italian nature, Goethe self has stressed it: “The hotelier has announced me through Italian emphasis that he would be happy to server to me a trout…”, certainly low episodes that haven’t nothing that can interest, but we can infer that the Italian character has arouse enthusiasm Goethe. The evolution is both human and cultural; through these episodes we can understand that the reactions of stranger face to some ruins of landscape, and we can find both some behavior very near to us and also customs that are very distant, and that are determined from the different times, form episodes very irrelevant in Montaigne and some episode more amusing in Goethe, the human gender is changed but very short.

Alessandro Lusana           

 

 

Deus vult: religion peace, 14th April in years 1598

The allegory of policy explained the motives of its existent, and it took an religion and political motive : “The policy is so: Henry 4th was a king and he made his conversion to Catholicism because the major part of French was Catholic, and they could have approached to Spain, where king Philip 2th was ready to attack the French, with aid of its citizen”, and Richelieu: “They would have betrayed their country?”, and Policy: “Then the concept of nation or country there isn’t, the identification was to religion, because it was the matter fit to the people, because the religion is destined to everybody, hence the rich and the poor classes, therefore the popular classes can feel near to superior classes”, and Richelieu: “But the Catholic was the major, why king Henry 4th has stipulated a treat of Nantes, and he conceded the freedom of cult also the Protestant?”, and Policy: “because the same, or in Latin language specular, intention, this is the accord to Protestant nations, could made the Protestant, and the German princes and the England queen could have made an action against the French, because the Protestant in French were minor, but they were consistent, and the French would has been pray of German and England, and other Protestant nations, instead through an accord, Henry 4th has hold the power and the internal peace, because the conflicting believe have to a civil war, and the French would has been pray of other nations that with motives of religion they could have took the territories in French”, and Richelieu: “What territories?”, and Policy: “From North the England and Holland, because it had sent soldiers and armies, and England finally would have won the famous was of hundred years, and would have conquered the Normandy, instead the Spain, from South, would have took the meridional French, and this nation would has been half Spanish and half British, and the civil war would be continued between Catholic and Protestant until a treat between these two nations that would have divided the French between them, and the French would be disappeared”. Richelieu hence asked again: “But we have had the armies and strong necessary to face a war”, and the Policy laughing: “Do you think it truly? Certainly you are a very good pupil, because you don’t see the reality, a statesman must see the state of his nation, and several famines have had starved the French, and an army starved didn’t obey, but is easily corruptible, and whereby the French have to face two armies without the armies”, and Richelieu: “And our armies? Would be corrupted!”, and the Policy: “Well you are starting understand the policy, this is me, for this Henry 4^th has allowed that, the Edict empowered Protestants to assemble in provincial or national synods, and for the duration of eight years Henry left some hundred fortified places at their disposal, because the defence of Protestant confession have guaranteed, because the betray would be more difficult, because the Protestant feel protect directly from the king, that have conceded to them the fortified cities, in policy if you want gain a thousand you must give an hundred”, and Richelieu: “In edict of Nantes hence also the Protestant soldiers have been rescued, because they could defender the French because, God has wanted this edict, or no?”, and the Policy: “Clever, very clever, if you want destroyed a state every you must weaken it internally through the civil wars and the religion are valid motive to this contrast; why the peace of Vervins, in 1598 was signed between two kings, this is Philip 2th and Henry 4^th, I ask to you, why?”, and Richelieu: “Because, because somebody has seen the Virgin? Or because…”, the Policy, interfering: “Because the Spain that has had an Empire very extended in Europe and in the American continent, has had very much fronts, and the money were very scant”. Richelieu: “What other dangers there were?”, and the Policy: “The Catholic league!”, and Richelieu: “What is?”, and the Policy: “It is the meeting the Catholic that there was in French, but the donation of fortresses to Protestant was the motive of rebellion against the king was the signal evident of this dislike of people and the governor of Peronne, Jacques d’Humieres, that refuted this gift to Protestant and he called the Catholic princes and prelates so that the king becomes Catholic, and this league was extended to all Picardy, and the Spain aided this riots, and the Netherlands until thr city of Artois, and then the Netherlands was a owner of Spain”, the Catholicism is saved, and through the peace of Bergerac, 14^th September 1577, the peace in French is stable. After seven years for the designation to throne of Protestant Henry from Navarra, in years 1584, Henry 1th of Guise, alone for personal interest, this the throne of French, foundered the new Catholic league, and after the year 1582, Philip 2th of Spain aided this league; hence you can see that the religion is used from mere political aims, the throne, the power, and today, certainly other interest, but these are present; anyway the dominant motive is the policy, same motive that has determined the conversion of Henry 4^th, this is the power”, and Richelieu:      “But today it is very difficult!”, and Policy: “Certainly, but dominant is interest, every interest, everywhere and for every nation; then the people believed that his interest was the eternal salvation, today interest is other, material interest no certainly ideal, but then the kings and the people had not other”, and Richelieu: “Today are other material richness”, and the Policy: “Perfect, the religion was the richness during his time, but today for religion nobody would face a war, and who says it lies”, and Richelieu: “The king Henry 4^th, has guaranteed the equality between Catholic and Protestant because…”, and the Policy, interfering: “He has guaranteed everybody both Catholic and Protestant for every profession, because the brains are everywhere, and to every religion; in fact several courts of justice were set up in which Protestants were to have equal representation, involving the appointment of Protestant as well as Catholic judges”, and Richelieu: “Why?”, and the Policy: “Because was the State of French that judged the guilty and no certainly God, the judges have to obey to State, that was the principal reference for these courts, and the religion was absolutely secondary”, and Richelieu: “Why?”, and the Policy: “Because it is laicism, if you are useful for the State  you can be also Satanist, but you now are useful, and the motive, that is material alone, allowed the useful of everybody that has had the necessary qualities”, and Richelieu: “Why the king Henry 4^th has converted herself to Catholic believe, if the laicism was dominant?”, and Policy: “Dominant in high classes, where nobody has believed never, but the people was Catholic, and believed, because hasn’t the richness of high classes; then was the hope of eternal life, today is other ideologies or other sentiments, as the envy and the hide, because hide somebody and find defects to him, it’s the satisfaction”, and Richelieu: “Some example?”, and the Policy: “When a woman looked an other woman, very beautiful, the first identification of the woman is the defect, every defect, because it is in human gender, the searching of a deficiency in other, it is normal”, and Richelieu: “Why do you use these examples as the women behavior?”, and the Policy: “Simple because I want indicate to you the daily behavior that after becomes the consuetude, actually mechanical consuetude, and the kings or Dukes of Counts or Princes are the high classes, hence always object of attention, and the king must held his public image”, and Richelieu, smiling: “But today it is impossible because hide something is impossible, because…”, and the Policy, interfering: “Today, but then it is was simple, because the people unknown something. You have same defect of not historical men, you rapport everything to present time, you must think that then the news there aren’t, the journals there aren’t, and the information was alone verbal, and very scant, but the political strategy was hided between the advisor and the king and stop”, and Richelieu: “And the queen!”, and the Policy: “No absolutely!, and Richelieu: “Why?”, and the Policy: Because to a woman you can ask everything except that hold a secret, and when a secret is known from two person it isn’t a secret, and the women tell, immediately, to everybody everything”, and Richelieu: “But these are the State secrets!”, and the Policy: “The human gender is so, and it is always so, outset; anyway I think that you have learned something, now through the experience you are going to can the French”. 

Alessandro Lusana

 

…orbem terrarum ... subiecit: Cesar Augustus

Livy Titus historical man

Caius Cesar Augustus emperor

Augustus: Why this very laudatory title? Orbem terrarum, is very exaggerated.

Livy: Because this book, or your memories., are going to read during centuries, hence for history, and the knowledge of your figure is important for future, and how the policy has taught, every imperator have to used the his history as political propaganda, both he was during the live and after the death, it is policy.

Augustus: Do you want teach me the policy?

Livy: No certainly, you have took from example of Cesar, that although he not was your father, you have took his political rule, and also the decision making power capacity, as he beyond the Rubicon he said: “Alea jacta est”, this is the dice is thrown, and he ordered the peace in Rome and Empire.

Augustus: I recognize my decisional make capacity because, in fact, I have took an army through the veterans of Cesar and Anthony, near to Apollony, now Valona, Albany, where I was waiting the call of Cesar for military campaign against the Party people, and when I known the death of Cesar, I organized this army, but it is was illegal, but the political context imposed it, therefore this capacity I have in me.

Livy: Why some body as the consul Anthony wanted deny the heredity of Cesar to you?

Augustus: Simple because he wanted become imperator, but without qualities.

Livy: Qualities that the Senate in Rome has recognized to you because…

Augustus(interfering him): because the Senate has admixed me as a member, and allowed  to me of speak and it given me the military power, and ordered to me to provide so that the Empire hasn’t damns.

Livy: You have gained it, through you courage.

Augustus: The same courage that has leaded Cesar, my stepfather, when he crossed the Rubicon and he imposed the peace in Rome, and unified the social classes.

Livy: In fact I have said that your courage is similar to Cesar, and I see very similarity between you and Cesar.

Augustus: The philosopher Aristotle written in one his book: “The friendship be born alone between equal, η φιλία γεννιέται μεταξύ ίσων”, it is the truth, the human truth, hence Cesar seen to me a future emperor, or a chief very similar to him.

Livy: Why do you have together an army?

Augustus: Because the Empire was oppressed from a tyranny of a faction, this is the enemy of Cesar and friendship of Pompey, but so that it was possible, this is to free Rome and Senate from this oppression was necessary that I used the illegal, as a composition of an army as Cesar, that came to Rome for take the power, I have made the same thing, without importance and army that has had Cesar, but the result is similar; I have imposed the my order.

Livy: But also you have to fight to Anthony in Azo.

Augustus: Certainly and after I have founded the my power on faithful of armies and senators, and I have kept the political republican form, but under my authority. The tyranny was that of Anthony that has removed the power on the province of Gaul, actual French, that Anthony wanted take and above all its armies, necessary to attack Rome, the Senate has given through a law the senatus consultum ultimum, that given the power to consuls during the context very serious, and the Senate has piched me for the free the Empire from tyranny.

Livy: But do you have the power?

Augustus: Yes, I have had it because the Roman people has elected me consul, because during the war were died the two consuls Gaio Pansa and Aulo Irzio, and hence I was alone and took the power on army I came to Rome, where the people welcomed me with acclamations, and there the people elected me consul, so that I could reorder the Empire(he smiled).

Livy: Why do you are smiling?

Augustus: Because I remembered the De amicitia of Cicero, this is the About the friendship; WHEN Cicero said that when you are necessary everybody worships you, but after the danger nobody knows you.

Livy: Why this think?

Augustus: Because after the Senate has avoided the danger of Anthony, everybody senators has left me.

Livy: You have also declared Brutus and Cassius, this is the killers of Cesar, as enemy of Empire.

Augustus: And in that occasion I recognized the importance of Cesar to Rome, because the Senate for the law lex Pedia de interfectoribus Caesaris, that wanted the exile and punishment of killers of Cesar; a law that has had the principal enemy the killers of Cesar, never for a homicide has been made it.

Livy: Where your political nature?

Augustus: I Off with them to exile these killers, and I have punished them through the processes, and I wined them one time in Philippi in b. Ch. 42 year.

Livy: Your politic nature?

Augustus: I have fought much wars and as winning I have saved the life of defeated, when they asked pardon…

 

Livy: Yes but my question was other, what is…

Augustus(interfering): Why is has been so generous?

Livy: No clue.

Augustus: Because after the pardon you can have one or much friendships, because they will be faithful to you, it is policy.

 

Richelieu: the statesman answers, political lesson

A statesman with cloth of cardinal explained what is political think and actions, he presented herself as the my name is Armand Jean du Plessis, duke of Richelieu(1585-1642), and he had in front of him much journalists that wanted know explications about the policy; a girl journalist, Gloria, asked. “Why the scandalous bloodbath, as the Emperor Maximilian called the crime of St. Bartholomew’s Night, 23th-24^th 1572?”, and Richelieu: “The meaningful is the judge of Emperor Maximilian”, and Gloria: “Why?” and Richelieu: “Simple, because an Catholic Emperor that has judged so the extermination of Protestant, do you have never considered it?”, and Gloria: “No”, and Richelieu: “You must consider, because behind this massacre is a political will”, and Gloria: “What is it?” and Richelieu: “The go back to Church, that for mere question of faith privileged the Spain and Hapsburg Empire, with German and Austria beyond the Spain, hence the French would be easy prey of the dominant Spain; the massacre was necessary to demonstrate to Church that the French was faithful to Catholic believe, it is motive for this massacre”, and Gloria. But it is very cruel!”, and Richelieu: “As the policy, the policy is a cold science in warm wits. The destine of a nation, now the French, depended also from the probable excommunications to king of French Charles 9^th(1550-1574)”, and Gloria asked again: “The excommunication is nothing”, and Richelieu: “Today is nothing, but then was very determining”, and Gloria: “Why?”, and Richelieu: “Because it would have enable to the Spain to attack the French because a Protestant nation and governed from a treacherous king, hence the invasion of French would be automatic, with Belgium up the North of French and the Holland in same position, geographically it would had been the capital condemn for the French, whereby the massacre of Saint Bartholomew was necessary, to avoid that the Spain spread his Empire. And other journalist, Simon: “The judge of Carl J. Burchardt( Richelieu. His Rise to Power, p.9) judged this massacre as the fearful tension that existed between Catholic and Protestant in France?”, and Richelieu, smiled and: “In years 1562, the French Calvinist, called also Huguenot, has had the freedom for their cult in Saint German in year 1562, it is possible that among this edict and the Night of Saint Bartholomew were past then years, and during these years the tension or contrast hasn’t been, and after, in year 1572, soon the tension emerged? It is possible or it is alone a cockup necessary to some historical man that hasn’t found the political motive?”, and Simon: “It is probable”, and Simon: “Burchardt has given his explication and it is equal to your, in fact he said “It is quite clear that in a State not yet grown to maturity and ringed round with enemies, the continuance of such a schism was bound to bring destruction: thoughtful observers of France’s destiny recognized this and acted upon it, sometimes against their deepest personal convictions. Henry IV…”. And Richelieu: “It is attests that the policy is same as the man, because the explication is same, hence we can think that the nature of man that makes the policy is always the equal; I am sorry but I have other questions of state, thank you very much.

Alessandro Lusana 

      

                                                                   

 

The red statesman: Richelieu

Frederick was a historical man that taught in a university, and he was choosing the argument for his academic year, he thought to ancient history and modern history, but the argument was difficult; he had took from a sleep because he was dog tired; hence he laid on the bath and he slept, after an hour he was awaked from somebody that was calling him and he asked that he sit to writing desk, Frederick awaked immediately and he was in a room, where a man with red cloth read a sheet, and spoken to a soldier; Fredrick heard, and he understood everything they were telling; he understood that the language was French, and he known not the French language. But there he understood all; the man with red cloth gazed him and invited him to seat, Fredrick immediately made it and he gazed the red man, that while he reading a letter he spoken to Frederick: “You must write what I will dictate. You are new secretary, and what is your name?”, and Frederick: “Frederick”, and the red man: “German?”, and Frederick: “No absolutely”, and the red man: “Spanish?”, and Frederick: “No! I come from…”, and the red man interrupted him very sharply, and while he read a sheet: “My name is Armand Jean du Plessis, duke of Richelieu, cardinal, and I am born in Paris in 1585 and there I died in 1642. Where you are from or where you are born, I don’t cure, you are secretary, and you must alone write my history, above all during the war of thirty years”, and Frederick nodded alone, because he was impressed from this figure, and his nobility, hence: “The        France in the sixteenth century had reached the same state of misery which Germany attained in the seventeenth during the Thirty Years’ War: laid waste, torn into factions, reeling from plague to plague and from famine to famine. The realm staggered under a monstrous load of debt; law and order were quite in abeyance; the kingship as an institution was questioned; tyrannicide was not only tolerated as a legitimate means, but actually advocated. A series of religious and civil wars had come and gone; complete anarchy, confusion and exhaustion prevailed everywhere. And Late in the sixteenth century Henry IV, backed by the burghers and others, began the political rehabilitation of France. The mighty and resolute rise of France to unity was to last for the whole of the seventeenth century, yet it did not proceed undisturbed. Men’s spirits had emerged still burning from the conflagration of the unexampled sixteenth century, and a long time was to pass before they cooled. In the sixteenth century individuals had grown too strong in a State that was too feeble; now they had to be disciplined out of their endless misery and embroilments. was to pass before they cooled. In the sixteenth century individuals had  grown too strong in a State that was too feeble; now they had to be  disciplined out of their endless misery and embroilments. They had to be pieced together into a unity; a closely-knit ruling class had to be devised; a new and strict regime, a new authority had to be set up. The task was hard and unremitting to the point of desperation, involving setbacks all the time and risking collapse at every moment. How great was the task for which these men had to nerve themselves! How vastly still loomed the power of their dangerous neighbor, Spain! Spain: that meant all the Iberian peninsula, now including Portugal; a great part of Italy (Milan and the Kingdom of Naples) with Sicily and Sardinia; and, from the Burgundian patrimony, the Netherlands and Franche-Comté. To its enormous American colonies it had added those of Portugal, scattered round Africa and about the Indian Ocean. A Spanish chronicler of the time asserted that the domain of his King exceeded twenty times the territory of the ancient Roman Empire. All Europe knew the saying: “When Spain stirs the earth tremble.” The huge fabric of this worldwide State rested on an army that was world-famous, the infantry tercios in particular, in whose ranks the noblest and bravest were enlisted, while at sea even the destruction of the Invincible Armada in 1588 had not permanently damaged the naval prestige of Spain. ”., and Frederick: “Therefore the French was surrounded from an enemy very dangerous”, and Richelieu: “I ascertain that you have understood very well”, and Frederick: “Yes because…”, but the Richelieu interrupted immediately: “Shut now”, and Frederick: “Yes, in conformity to your will lord”. Richelieu continued his dictated: “Against this mighty power France held its own and eventually overcame it. Eventually: after long and hard endurance and a still longer preliminary period of lying in wait. The task of France was to spy out the vulnerable spots in the greatest power in Europe, to estimate in Madrid and Vienna the weaknesses of the Hapsburgs, to search for the Empire’s hidden, self generating poisons, of which the most violent would be found in the struggle for German liberties.”, and Frederick: “But German was protestant, why so much attention?” and Richelieu: “Because also the protestant are useful when the enemy is so important and breaded, whereby, the Protestant believe was usable, because the principal enemy was the Spain and his estates in Europe and no, certainly the Protestantism, whose I don’t cured”, and Frederick: “But you are a cardinal”, and Richelieu: “I am statesman, and I believe to Christ when it is necessary, otherwise it is useless”, and Frederick. “Why?”, and Richelieu: “The religion is a serious motive to piece together a people, and the unity was necessary to French because the stirred powers among the feudal lords, and the jealousies dominant among them, for prestige, for richness, for power and other would guarantee to the Spain a aid very important, because everybody could be corruptible, for this were necessary alone some promise and the feudal lords could have betrayed immediately”, and Frederick: “But also in French were the treacherous”, and Richelieu: “Every country and town has its treacherous, also the neighbor could become a treacherous, if you says something”, and Frederick: “I hold for me my secrets”, and Richelieu: “ An Italian statesman used repeat “When a secret know two person it isn’t a secret”. Frederick suddenly had sleep, and in fact he slept almost immediately, and when he awaked he was in the classroom of his university, where everybody gazed him, and a student asked: “Are you from a masked ball?”, and Frederick gazed the student, and asked: “Why?”, and the student: “Because you are clothed as a secretary of 17^th century”, and Frederick: “Yes, I wanted adhere to the time of Armand Jean du Plessis, duke of Richelieu”, and other student, that while was approached: “You have set to program”, and Frederick: “Yes, but just a moment because I must go to bath, you can seat”, and when he gone back he seen that the students were different, and somebody indicated to him a chair, he sat, and he gazed on the professorship a figure much noble that has known, that turned to him and asked: “Now I know are you from, from bathroom”.

Alessandro Lusana