Diary of a defeat: Xenophon

The ancient Greek writer Xenophon(b.Ch.430-355) was a polygraph writer and also a soldier and pupil of Socrates whose he written a portrait with title the Memorable, major historical work of Xenophon is the Anabasis, that we can call as Diary of a defeated, because in this work he told a expedition of king Cir(b.Ch 5^th century-401), the young against Artaxerxes 2th(b.Ch. 452-358), king of Per and brother of Cir, this attempt was failure because Cir died in battle of Cunassa(b.Ch. 401), in the army of Cir was also the Xenophon, that has descripted precisely this attack or penetration in Persian lands, and the name of book is Anabasis because in ancient Greek is expedition, but in this book we find the notes about the lands, animals, geography, a description that in original was historic but after it become descriptive, a documentary of 4^th century b.Ch., I want be very boring whereby I am going to give alone some notes, sufficient to give a summary description of characteristic that Xenophon transcribes; some notation about this book, Xenophon describes the animals: “We can find animals of every kind, very much the onagers, ostriches, there was also bustards and gazelles. The onagers if somebody followed them they escape very swift…they run more swift of horses…Nobody caught an ostriches. Who tried desisted” and geographical description, summary and irrelevant, but necessary to diary: “While they travelling this region they come to a river, Masca, and there was a city quit, great, called Corsote, around was surrounded from the river Masca…”, some note is very laughing because the illogic narration is evident, because if this city was quit from habitants, how the army has refurnished? The tale didn’t tell that the citizens are escaped, thereupon where the army has found the supplying? Xenophon said that they were for three days; what they has found in this city it is mystery, because a city that is quit the citizens bring the food necessary to change of city and dwell, may they have found some McDonald long the travel, but during 4^th century b.Ch. is very improbable, since the McDonald has born in 1940 after Christ, in California, and the American continent was not in geographical maps; hence we can think that it is alone a notation that Xenophon written in conformity with military habit of his time. The rightness of this notation is in following step: “To army lacked the supplying…”, but if they has took the supplying in Corsote, why the food lacks? But we find also lessons of military sacrifice and discipline because an episode tells that the wagons could not travel and the high dignitaries of court rob them and also they pushed. Some notation of cruel disposition but certainly opportune during a war is the death of Oronta, a noble Persian that has plotted against Cir, and he was killed with capital execution, it is frequent in ancient historical literature, because the buying of treasonous was daily; and the relevant question is in the notation that Clearco a Spartan soldier, shown his competence in military strategy, because he said: “I think that is better kill him as before as possible, so we are going not to stay attentive from him…”; it is meaning that everybody has betrayed a time could betray again for money or other motive, therefore the capital execution is better strategy; it is a short note that underlines the capacity and competence of Spartan is strategy, differently from Cir that asked to a council of militaries what is strategy that is better use; thereupon Cir, has had scant intelligence to military strategy. The Anabasis is a document both military, human, zoological, geographical and also very boring, but we must consider the information that we can take from this document, it is importance of Anabasis, it is a journal of 4^th century before Christ, and the journalist is Xenophon.

Alessandro Lusana

 

The past of future: Futurism

In MOMA of New York a visitor, Charles, was busied to write short notes about a Futurism painting, and a guide was illustrating these painting, and he explained that the Futurism is an artistic e literature movement born in 1909 from a manifest written from Filippo Tommaso Marinetti(1876-1944), and much artists adhered and the futurist wanted the overcoming of traditions, above all of cultural traditions, because Italy was tied to a glorious past, but from the Futurist it was alone the past, therefore a thing that by now the humankind could forgotten; a visitor asked: “Where can we read this manifest?”, and the guide: “After other guy is going to recite it”, and he continued to explication of Futurism. The second painting that Charles seen was The funeral of anarchic Galli(Fig.1) and on beside there was a copy of Brawl in gallery(Fig.2), the first of Carlo Carrà(1881-1966), a futurist Italian painter, and the second of Umberto Boccioni(1882-1916); he gazed the twice painting and written notes, very involved in these representations, above all the energy and the dynamic scenes, the strong and virile behavior, suddenly the light turned off and the dark, very thick, he looked around and was in Milan, Italy, in year 1904, and he seen around the police and visitors that following the hearse, when a voice from a side of street cried: “Anarchic shift, you must die now”; usually in every Futurist meeting doesn’t lack never the brawl, in fact the police was every present, and for this occasion, it was there; the boats and fight both to policemen and adversaries, conservators and political contraries; he looked also visitors that passed very near to him but they seem ignorer him, both because they were busied to break bones to other but also the calm visitors were there and commented and indicated something with absolutely calm; Charles was amazing to less involved of these visitors, but he turned to look immediately the brawl, and they were very busied while the policemen were surrounded the hearse and while they seeing the brawl they sometime comment something but without to intervene; Charles while written his notes and he was writing when the light turned on, and he was again in MOMA; he turned the glance and he seen same figure of visitors that were in gallery and to funeral; he was amazing and asked. “Excuse me but you was in the funeral, why you are here?”, and visitor indicated a guide that is arriving, and: “Hear him” an elegant guy gone in room and he illustrated the painting, but in front of these two Futurist painting he out loud he said: “We want sing the love for danger, habit to energy and courage. The courage, audacity, rebellion, will be elements of our poesy. 3) The literature exalted until now the pensive immobility, ecstasy and the sleep. We want exalt the aggressive movement, the insomnia, the pass of course, the mortal leap, the fist. There isn’t beauty otherwise in the fight. Nothing work that hasn’t aggressive character can be a masterpiece. We want glorify the war, because it is unique hygiene in the word, the militarism and patriotism the destructive gest…”; he was speaking to a crowd of persons that heard him with interest, and Charles asked to him: “Who are you?” he turned toward Charles answered: “I am Filippo Tommaso Marinetti”, and Charles gazed also everyone of visitors and recognized everybody that he have seen in gallery during the brawl and to funeral; hence Charles turned to a beside visitor and asked: “But Marinetti is died in 1944, and the Funeral of Carrà id datable in 1911 and the Brawl in gallery in 1910, how is possible that they are here now?”, and the visitor: “Because we are the future of past”, Charles gazed visitor and he manifested an doubtful  expression, and asked: “So what the future with past, in this contest, I am asking why they…”, the visitor breaking Charles: “We are the future of past, in spite of their name, now they are the past and we are future, their future, a future that they have seen never, because they are died before, whereby they are the past, thereupon we now are the futurist, instead they are the past; and in fact the past is passed”, and he indicated the room that was empty; Charles asked: “Why?”, and the visitor: “Because they and also me are past”, Charles gazed him and: “You are now present, thence you are now”, but he disappeared, and while Charles gone out from MOMA a guard called him and given the bag that he have to lift to entrance, he thanked that guardian and gazed the face of him, and noted a very similarities to the policeman of visitor that has explained to Charles the future of past, and he asked: “What is your name?”, and he answered: “Edward”, and Charles: “Excuse me but I am asking it, because you are very similar to a person that I have met in museum, and I haven’t asked the name”, and the guardian: “My gran father Edward, but it is impossible that you have met him because he is died in 1970”, Charles excuse again and got out from museum, and he was in a gallery while the men fought this is during a brawl, he turned around and he seen a policeman, he approached and asked: “What is your name?”, and the policeman: “Same of my nephew, Edward”.

Alessandro Lusana  

Fig.1

Fig.2

 

Is dixerunt

On radio a new involved very much listeners, because a paranormal case has occurred; a figure of a painting is got out from painting and has explained the cubism, in the Moma of New York, and the speaker:“A guide led tourists and the stop principal was in front of Demoiselle d’Avignon of Picasso, he stopped with this painting back and he met the group, and begun the explication about this painting but generally about the Cubism, this is the artistic avant-garde; after the explication was begun he felt on the shoulder some body that demands his attention, he turned immediately and a figure of woman the, was one figure of painting invited him to shut, he gazed the figure and asked, with expression buried: “Please master, learn to human gender what is the cubism; the figure got out from painting and: “The cubism, or better the pictorial manifest of cubism is the present painting, and the origin is varied between the mediaeval art, the landscapes of Giotto, that Braque has took from Assisi, to African masks that Picasso has took from Paris, in 1908; but the revolutionary way of cubists is the reversal of prospective, what is it? A figure seen on prospective is proportioned to distance,; more it is distant less we can identify him, and the prospective is a illusion that the middle age has used, and after Filippo Brunelleschi has given the rules, geometrical rules; the prospective worked the illusion of depth, that on wall isn’t, but alone illusionistically worked, but every single figure on painting we can see alone from a side, frontal for portrait or profile or back but we can see  every sides alone in sculpture, that isn’t to lay to wall; hence the painting allows a unique vision; cubism has inverted and reverses the prospective, how? Simple it has allow see more sides of same figure with multi representations, this is while we seeing the figure in front of, we can see same figure also from other side, how? Simple the painter show the sides from more sight, to understand it is sufficient see the my painting(Figs.1-3), every figures we can look the a side of nose, that in face is impossible, but now we can look also the hair if we to side, the mouth on side left, as we if we stay on left side, instead we are in front; hence the cubism has allowed the complete vision on much sides. Thi is the revolution of cubism, because reverse the rational canon of geometrical vision, the is a regulation of an optical effect, a distant object we can see but very difficultly and we can’t recognize a person if we see a side alone of this person, cubism has suggested the complete vision of every sides but alone in face, because the painter has painted much sides. The figure ended his explication is gone back to painting, and every spectator is disappeared, because everybody has gone back to its painting, excuse me but I must go back to my radio”.

Alessandro Lusana    

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

 

One time: from contemporary to ancient

George was a old professor of philosophy, and he was accustomed that after the lesson, usually during the morning he in afternoon slept at last one hour in his bed, and after he has awoke he read and written until night; his life was very monotonous, but he has chosen this style and from when he was 17 years old lived this way. During the sleep he dreamed, in fact he got in a build where were much persons,  that told one other, and somebody has around much persons, hence he exited curiosity approached to this crowd and he seen a man with thick beard and he spook to these persons that in silence are hearing him; he recognized soon Socrates, because he has a sculpture of half length portrait; he was very excited and he didn’t asked to him how it is was possible, he was hiring and stop; and Socrates explained his way of acknowledge, he was saying: “I search the acknowledge from other with questions, logic questions, but no certainly because I want know, alone because I want that they know that their think is failure, because hasn’t connection to logic, and this word, logic, is from ancient Greek, λόγος, that means discourse, therefore the discourse must be logic!”, George brook this tale and: “This is dear Socrates is maieutic system”, Socrates gazed him and: “Yes, you are right, maieutic way, but how do you know it?”, and George: “Because I sit an exam on your way, and my professor woman was much exigent”, and Socrates: “Who is your master?”, and George: “You!”, and Socrates: “I don’t remember you in Athens place”, and George: “In fact am not from Athens”, and Socrates: “Are you from?”, and George: “Ab alter mundus(from other word)”, and Socrates: “What?”, and George: “From future”, and Socrates: “What do you are going in this time?”, and George: “I am here because must talk to you that it is maieutic way, you didn’t call so, in fact alone to future it is going to call so, but you never has used this name”; around Socrates the listeners seen all George and he turned and gone away, an improvise think had George and he turned toward Socrates, but he and his crowd where disappeared; a man sit the hand on shoulder George’s and he invited him to listen other philosopher, now Heraclitus, that explained the his concept about the ephemeral existence of thing, everything passes; George listened and brook: “This is panta rei, everything passes, and to explain better this concept: the man doesn’t wash never in same water of a river”; Heraclitus seen him and: “Clever! You know it because you have arrived from future”, and George asked: “Yes, how do you know it?”, and Heraclius: “Because it has said that lady”, and he indicated a female figure that spook in a group of men, George looked hers and he approached, and the lady gazed him and: “Dear George you are delayed, may is time past? Because I have seen that you was speaking to Heraclitus, and everything passes enclose the flies and the trains, whereby you are delayed”, George gazed the lady and: “Lucy you are always precise and punctual, I remember when I set four exams to you, and the Latin and ancient Greek aorist you was always precise and pitiless”, and Lucy: “For this you asked me Demosthenes, it is useless that I arise them because you know perfectly, Aristotle, Platoon, Democritus, Leucippus, Thalete, and Henry, Mark, July, Paola…”; and George recognized his class math of High school and University, and: “What do you are making here?”, and Paola: “We are called from Lucy and we have come here”, and George: “Here are the died alone”, and Henry indicated a funeral  back to George, and he looked it, and on the coffin was written: “The dear professor George”, he turned to Henry and asked: “Am I died?”, and Mark: “Panta rei, dear George, panta rei”.

Alessandro Lusana      

 

 

Γνϖθι σαυτον: know yourself

In a Italian romance The son of dream is translated the very famous advise or order on doors of temple in Delphi, that we know for use of Socrates, the advice, because Socrates never has ordered to pupils, because he considered herself a pupil and no certainly a master; about this words Karl Popper(1902-1994) has written that these words everybody mentions, but nobody knows what is meaningful; the meaningful is know your borderlines; it is true certainly but very partial! In this romance is other partial true, because Alexander the Magnus explains this words: “Known yourself is hardest task, because it involved directly our rationality, but also our fears, our passions”; certainly it is true, and here Alexander is right, but the explication is partial although has expressed from the Magnus, this is the Great. The judge of Popper an inquiry in herself, and acknowledge of owner limits is alone partial version of judge of Alexander, because acknowledge herself involves also acknowledge of owner limits, thence Popper is partial, why? Simple because these thesis are right but the authors didn’t consider that the unconscious reactions of personality, that is our hidden side, in fact in the mirror we when confess something to ourselves we are living the objectual rapport, this is the rapport with ourselves, but also to these occasion, when we are completely alone, we have difficult to confess something that isn’t right, also it is to confess to ourselves; it is human behavior and human reaction, because this something isn’t right to ourselves must not exist, it isn’t never is occurred, because it would be an admission of weakness, that we are living during that moment, because incapacity for confess even to ourselves is lank of courage, hence weakness, but it is certainly better admit our weakness than something of isn’t right, because this last is more serious; but although we didn’t confess it in the mirror we have other danger, the night, the dream, that transforms the reality and from unconscious something emerges always, though it is changed from oneiric dynamic, but always it begin from reality, that though modified the root is same real; known ourselves is difficult, rightly from Alexander’s point of view, and it is very difficult because the major obstacle to acknowledge of ourselves are we; in fact we want know in everybody because they are other, this is different from us, they are different persons, and therefore they aren’t us.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Theoretical politic: Guicciardini

This essay is about a figure a theoretical politic as Francesco Guicciardini(1483-1540), that was contemporary of Niccolò Machiavelli(1469-1527), the last was directly busied during the republican Florence; then was costume a show the political think although it was impossible; Guicciardini followed the mode, in fact in his book The govern of Florence, datable among 1521 and 1526, he through an ideal dialogue explained what is the better govern to Florence, and he takes the human truth and has took also from a specific book of Plato, the Republic. The human nature, during the first page, he describes an human date of men, he said: “…knowing that they need of your prudence and thrown the passion and vain suspects, recall you and they are going to will that the city is advised from you” Bernardo del Nero(1422-1497), influent politic man of Florence is co-star in this dialogue, and he said a truth that Guicciardini has certainly took from Machiavelli, from the book The prince, because the Prince was written between July and December 1513, anyway Bernard says: “…the send away of Pieter de Medici, for this I am grief to very affection that I have always had to de Medici family, and more because during much time that I have seen for experience that the mutations bring more damn to city than utile”. It seems a conservator concept and also immobility, but it isn’t because the historical reality attests this truth; after the French revolution and the radical changes, then considered so, to reissue the order, after the terror period and other questions, emerged the figure of Napoleon, that used the monarchical power, almost autocratic, to growth the French territory, but above all to impose the order with new arguments, that were not politic but alone nationalist, the French can becomes great also in the territory; but the change that the revolution brought was certainly radical, but the revolution destroyed that was very short and scant, why? Simple because the aristocratic class was died from at last a century, during the reign of king Louis 14^th, and the their power was died with them, an episode very meaningful of revolution, that is the principal episode of revolution because begun it, this is the attack to Bastille the revolutionaries, respecting the true revolutionaries, were 14, three French, three Holland, four German and four Belgian, they were alone tilers that wanted rob armies and after sale it to eat; when la Fayette, on of chief revolutionary, that was a doctor, was interviewed in a tribunal by the way this episode, he said that he doesn’t nothing, and about of this attack he known alone two years after, because he was in Marseille; if we follow the politic propaganda of Revolution the people of Paris attacked the Bastille, or the in Paris lived alone 14 persons or it is a lie that has had the propagandistic sake, because this is was and stop; and the truth of this judge is in the historical reality, because if are sufficient fourteen to undo a monarchy, or the monarchy state is failure always, but why in British, from more than a thousand years is present? Or the French monarchy was going to failure, whereby also 14 tilers were sufficient. To turn of Florentine state, the dialogue continues, hence Niccolò Capponi(1472-1529), politic man of Florence asked to Bernardo del Nero: “Do you think that every change is wreck to the city?” and Bernardo answers,: “I say that I have known for experience that the alterations give the grief to the city and give the wreck effects”, Paul Anthony Soderini(1448-1500), is one of protagonist of this dialogue, and he expresses the opinion that Guicciardini has took from Plato(428 b.Ch-348b.Ch), in the Republic, translated from Marsilio Ficino(1433-1499) during the 15^th century, in Florence, therefore Guicciardini could read this version, since the he didn’t knows the ancient Greek; anyway Soderini said: “Those brains more high, that feel more than other the pleasure of glory and honor, have occasion and freedom to show and to exercise their virtues. It is not certainly to increase their ambition, but alone to benefit of city, that if we tell about the benefits of every century both ancient and modern it attests that the benefit is in virtues of low, because short are capable of these duty so high, because the nature has given to them more intelligence and judge than other…”; this think is Platonic absolutely, and Guicciardini in this book is more philosophic than politic, because this position is absolutely theoretical and it leaves the politic contest, fundamental for a politic, thence this position has same nature of Plato’s Republic, theoretical, although Guicciardini has took the history of Florence too, because in a step he tells that Lorenzo de Medici(1449-1492), has privileged an part of Florentine people in spite other, and it has determined the hate and much enemies, thereupon govern of better is the best. We can add that the problem is again selection of these better, that Guicciardini didn’t advise; hence this position works perfectly on theory, but to practical selection is very impossible.

Alessandro Lusana             

 

 

Two manners and one painter: Giotto

Giotto was pinging in Assisi about 1300 and one historical art man gazed him and his frescos, and he approached to him and asked: “Why Vasari has written that you have excluded the Greek manner of painting and you have took alone Latin manners”, Giotto seen insistently him and: “Who is Vasari?”, the other historical art man smiled and: “What year are you living?”, and Giotto: “In 1300”, thence the art looked around and he seen very much painters that are painting on walls of church of saint Francis, and : “Vasari is going to be to future”, and Giotto: “Future?”, and historical art man: “Yes in 1556 he write the Lives of painters, sculptors and architects”, and Giotto, while he was continuing the painting: “I don’t know him, but can you explain what is the Greek manner and Latin please?”, and historical art man: “Simple it is you manner, this is you have translated the life in painting, the three dimensions, the body are existent in painting and it aren’t alone the ideal figures, imaginary but…”, Giotto brook the discourse and: “I have took this manner from Rome(Figs.1-3)”, and historical arte man: “When do you have come to Rome?”, and Giotto: “Never, but my master Cimabue, this Cenni di Pepo, was in Rome in 1278, a notarial act has his name in this year, and he has tool what was the Roman painting, and I asked to him if I could translate this style on Assisi, and he has answered that I can try, and I have made it!”, and historical art man: “Why other painters hasn’t followed you?”, and Giotto: “Because they are older than me, and the old generations refuse always the news; because in conformity with their code, or style, they prefer the secure style, that their generation and theirs masters has taught, they aren’t accustomed to think the news, because they are the past, as I am going to be the past to future centuries, and the future generations tell: “Giotto worked so because in his time it is the style”, and historical art man: “The future generations, or now they tell it?”, Giotto gazed him and he asked: “May  am I died?”, and historical art man: “No certainly, but your style is going to die for future painting”, and Giotto: “I hope that much painters improve it, but I have given the begin. By the way but this mister Vasari where is from or better where is going to be from?”, and historical art man: “From Arezzo, he is Tuscan”, and Giotto: “Hence he consider every Tuscan artist a better than other”, and historical art man: “It seems that you have read Vasari”, and Giotto: “No, certainly but I am Tuscan and I know the Tuscans, they are the better always”. Historical art man: “You have took indirectly from Rome, but you have improved this style!”, and Giotto: “Yes, as future generations do to my style, Peter Cavallini(Fig.4), for example is better in Rome and peer to me”, because also his generation that is my same, is master, but Rome is scant ready to news in painting; whereby he is going to be less fortunate than me, because we must consider also where an artist work, in Rome are traditionalist and they prefer the ancient style”, and historical art man: “Yes, but during the 16^th century the Tuscan artists are going to be request very much”, and Giotto gazed the historical art man: “Yes but now we are in 1300, and the generations are again traditionalist, thence Rome has begun the evolution of style and I have improve it, and the future generations improve what I and we has made, this is history. Excuse me but I must go to sleep because by now is later”; historical art man looked out and the sunset, and he got out and gone to other pictorial worksite.

Alessandro Lusana      

  

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4