Indirect influence: Montesquieu

During the read of the Spirit of laws as well as the descriptions that are very boring, because describes the model of States, some surprise is present and to pick it is important to write the new essay but also to tell an indirect influence of Montesquieu to the republic of USA, the answer is it is impossible, not certainly because the constitution of USA has been written from direct influence of Filippo Mazzei (1730-1816) that was a very famous student of constitutions that was emigrant to USA after the “revolution”, and he bought a ranch next to that of George Washington and when the “revolution”, occurred Thomas Jefferson(1743-1826) that was the author of declaration of Independence in 1776, and for this writing Jefferson asked the collaboration of Filippo Filippo Mazzei, born in Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, that certainly have read Montesquieu, because this book has been written in 1749 and the model of republic USA is indirect translation of Montesquieu, that in a chapter of his book he said: “Hence we can consider that the humankind would be compelled  finally to live always under the govern of one, if they haven’t studied a form of constitution that has every vantage of the republic and the vantage of monarchic state. I want consider the federative republic for whole numerous political institutions are consent become part of a State greater that every wants build. It is a society of societies that built other new, that can grow because other consent to gather…”; we can also consider that Montesquieu, that written his book, I repeat before of 1749, inserted examples from the ancient Greek, he naturally didn’t consider that in ancient Greek very much cities were in constant war among them, but he after considers also examples as the Dutch, Germany and Switzerland. And he continues: “This model of republic, able to resist to the stranger power, can keep in its greatness without corruption in intern. This model of State prevent every problems. Who wants usurp the power don’t could enjoy of same credit to every confederated state. If in fact he become very potent in one state, others states would be alarm; if he submit a part other would resist through the independent forces  that he has usurped, and annihilate him before the he has consolidated his power. If in some state occurs a revolt, other can calm it…This model can die for a part and lives to other, the confederation can free oneself but the other states can continue to be confederated”; if we think to principal model of a federal republic, this is the USA, in theory we have a description of USA may 30 years before the USA was born, because the description, that is absolutely theoretic, because in reality the policy has other tools, but the concept that Montesquieu has expressed in become reality; we must also consider that the political model of Montesquieu were the Germany and Dutch, the confederated models, therefore he has took from these models, but Mazzei has given the real translation of think of Montesquieu. The proof of this influence is also in model of election, because Montesquieu take for example both the ancient the Dutch: “In the Dutch republic a province can’t has an allied without consent of other. This law is good and even necessary in the federative republic…The Licia(2th century b.Ch.) republic was a confederation of 23 cities; the greater have three votes, the middle two and the little one. The Dutch  republic is composed from 7 provinces, great or little they have one vote alone”; here we can see a contradiction of history, because the more modern among the States this is the USA has took a model, or better Mazzei has suggested a politic model that is ancient, this is a model of Licia republic, that is in second century before Christ. The model of election of the president of USA is indirect; this is with the votes of liable, and the same model for the Licia republic and the Dutch republic.

 Alessandro Lusana         

 

 

Γνωθι σαυτόν: the deep inquiry

“Γνωθι σαυτόν”, this is “know yourself” is a imperative that was carved on the doors of temple of Apollo, and after it is took from Socrates, Karl Raimund Popper(1902-1994) described this phrase through a motive that is openable, he said: “This phrase that every mentions but nobody knows the meaning, it is that you must know your limits”, it is alone an opinion of Popper that is easily deniable, why? Because the deep meaning of the phrase on the doors of temple is: you must know if you want sacrifice of prayer Apollo, but it alone you can know, hence you must make one inquiry in yourself before of enter; for Socrates this phrase is similar or mirror like to the mot of Socrates and it is mirror like to meaning, because Socrates press for his “pupils”, although he didn’t considered herself a master, to make same thing, know yourself, but not for the religion but alone to philosophy, he never said it but it is as he have made: “You must know before yourself, in deeply of your wit, know your strong and your weakness, what are the motive that you have for an opinion, and after you are going justify your opinion, that is or personal motive, today we could say psychologic, it is the deep meaning of “Γνωθι σαυτόν”; Socrates could not consider the psychology because then there isn’t, but he said it; if your philosophical opinion is alone a psychological reaction, inasmuch alone momentary or you are convinced of this opinion, because you, that are convinced, can demonstrate the rightness of this opinion, but through the rational arguments, otherwise Socrates, that is a turd and a pain on the neck will ask to you because it is so, and he is going to want because it is so; but he is going to want know yourself in deep, and so he is going to justify your opinion, but he instead of say and tell his theories, he ask; this exercise is contrary to common teaching then was very much common, this is to tell the theories and without the explication, Socrates aske the explication to “pupil” because he wanted know the deep causes for an theory, hit is as he have said to “pupil”, you must know because this theory is valid for you, it is important, not alone the rationality and hence the rightness of your theory, that is going to be after, because the first is to know yourself, this is your think and the causes of every your think. Socrates is the anthropological period of philosophy, he wanted study the man and not the theory, and he turned this solicitation first to his “pupils”, because the object of study of Socrates isn’t the philosophy but the mankind, that after of Socrates it must study herself, and understand if he want become the philosopher or not, if he want know or not, and what he wanted truly; but it is he is going to know alone through an inquiry in herself, it is the meaning of this phrase. It is very easy understand because we must know before the historical context: then every idler or was a hero or philosopher, and the philosophers gained much because they sold his knowledge or presumed so, and they explained theories often purely imaginary, but they spoke about everything except the man, Socrates contrary to this method consider alone the man, and he pressed for to know the matter more difficult, this is herself.   

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Populus vult et non vult: Girolamo Savonarola

Girolamo Savonarola(1452-1498) the name of monk Savonarola said very short, because is a marginal personage in the Florence of 15^th century, certainly I don’t wait an knowledge  much breaded of this spiritual dictator, because he was it, some years in Florence the religious dictatorship of Savonarola was very important motive, and he has condemned to capital pain through the stake, from same agent that have had the success to him, this is the Florentine people. It isn’t alone a hypothesis it is a truth that we can take from the words of Sandro Filipepi, called Botticelli (1445 – 1510), very famous painter in Renaissance and in Florence, during a dialogue to Doffo Spini, political personage in Florence and against the Savonarola, asked about the stake of condemn of the monk, and Spini said that the condemn of Savonarola has decided from superior orders; we can imagine that this order came from the pope, but in this dialogue we can identify the supreme judge that has wanted this sentence, who is? The people, in fact in dialogue is element fundamental: “Asking to him, Sandro, because he known that Doffo has been one of the principal, that has examined Savonarola, that he say the truth: what sins have found in Savonarola, for this punishment so drastic. And Doffo answered: “Must I say the truth? We didn’t find nothing mortal sin and neither venial. And Sandro asked: “Why do we have condemn him to this death so shameful? And he answered: it isn’t my responsibility but the principal cause has been Benozzo Federighi; if we didn’t condemn this prophet the people have condemn us, and cut to pieces. The question was so important that we have decided for our life that he have to die”; this step is very important for the motive of this essay, because revels what is the importance of people in policy; the comments are: “It is simply obvious”, no! Because alone the violent reactions of peoples has determined historical change, the American “revolution”, that has determined the birth of a new nation, the French Revolution, that has determined the new with and new conception in policy, this is the republic state; in this case, very much modestly, the change was a continuity, because in Florence the govern of the city was, formally, held form the richest and important families, but the truth is that the power has held from the people, and the policy has dread of people, because it is always thought as inert form the policy and when it instead has revolted the reactions are uncontrolled and very violent, and the importance of this step is also in the biographical date of death of Savonarola, in year 1498, when the democracy wasn’t neither thought and the right was, as in this case, used for the context, policy context, that Spini has confessed: “…the people have condemn us, and cut to pieces…”; it is the dread of a policy that in front of the people, have to satisfy the principal judge, this is the people, that wanted the death of Savonarola. Why this condemn if he was innocent? Simple because the people was very boring of this austerity, and the memories of precedent time were again life. The Florentine people wanted the immoral richness.

Alessandro Lusana     

                

 

 Other rationality of protagonist; Baron von Munchhausen

The Baron von Munchausen is a romance absolutely imaginary written in 1785 from Rudolf Erich Raspe(1737-1794), German writer, that has took from a German soldier; the tale is the other side of Enlightenment because now is the predominance of irrationality, instead the rationality, the science now isn’t because alone the fantasy is dominant, in fact the author tells: “My father(a student of physic thing, astronomic and geographic and he written much treaties among The influence of sun on the fur of bats…”; this introduction naturally is false because the bats haven’t fur, and second the name of his father, but the amusing lies continue in front of the chimney: “(the chimney that has had the measures an high of 12 meters and it was large 9 meters…”; I think that it wasn’t a chimney a condominium. A passion to travels is press for his parents whole grade of kinship is very comic: “..finally a good day come to our house a parent(cousin of wife of uncle of brother in law of sister of my grandfather)”; for the grade of kinship to this person was very rational and common consanguinity, who have some problem asks to secret service of some country. The fantasy is again the principal motive because after landed in an island a storm has brought the destruction, in spite of tragedy, is very comic: “…and a storm burst. It was a violence extreme, so strong that it torn the enormous threes that fleeted on air; beyond the fantasy I think that this image has suggest a scene of Witchcraft of Oz in 1939, although the movie is translation of a romance written in year 1900 by L. Frank Baum, but may the scene of storm is took from this step. The author evidently wanted amused herself because the description od end of storm is very absurd: “And when the storm was ended, every threes failed on the original position and the roots gone back in the earth, and the cucumbers are born on the threes. A crocodile long 40 meters is very laughable; it is a romance of reaction to Enlightenment, and his rationality, as after at last a century after it is going to be as the Verne, when the rationality of Positivism is very important. But among very much fantasy some cultured step is when Raspe tells that the baron was swallowed of a fish very great, it is the step of Iona when he has swallowed from the wheat that has, for theological explication, the announce of the resurrection of Christ, that before is swallowed of death and after he is born again through the resurrection. But I think that this image has suggested also the steps of Pinocchio, written in 1880 by Italian writer Carlo Collodi(1826-1890), that has took or from the Holy Bible or from the Munchhausen Baron; and the Baron, in this enormous fish, has found a nurse and child. We must laugh of these tales because he has written so that the reader laughs, but we must also think that this lively fantasy is the sign of a reaction to the prevalent rationality. It is individual rationality of Munchhausen; this is other rationality of protagonist.

Alessandro Lusana        

    

  

    

 

 

 New Munchhausen: Jules Verne

The new Munchausen, what means? Simple it is sufficient read The adventures of Baron Munchausen of German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe(1737-1794), that in 1785 edited this book where he told the adventures of this baron, that is truly existed, in fact Karl Friedrich Hieronymous von Münchhausen, a German soldier, that Raspe, has took for the adventures of his Baron; until here nothing of interesting , but the interesting is in the time when Raspe and Jules Verne(1828-1905) written their romances the times were different, but same faithful in rationality, aseptic and scientist rationality, and the reactions of these two writers are similar, some step of Raspe is indicative: “The essential advertence that I must set before of narration of adventures of my life much dynamic is this: I want declare that in the narration of modest occurred things whole I have been protagonist I have had fro the absolute sake the scrupulous truth. Unfortunately are the writers that, for the have an easy success, adorn their narrations…”, naturally it is an antithesis, this is the literary figure that has near two words that are contrast between them; the step that we have read is the semiotic contrast between a wit, this the 17^th century, and the wit of romance that is alone a fantastic narration, and Verne lived in a time that was similar, during the Positivism, where the science was dominant and the rationality was likewise; in fact in the romance of Munchhausen, Raspe begin saying that he want tell alone the truth, and in this romance are words, letters, point and commas but the truth nothing, and he is very immediately “lier”, other step is necessary: “I remember the advisement of my grandfather that is has died to age of 306 years for the fishbone of a whale( this good man was very great eater, and a whale of shark were his hors-d’oeuvre…”; it is naturally a book for childhood and the fantasy is fundamental for the childhood, but here is also a reaction to Enlightenment. The same reaction that Verne has had against the Positivism, in fact in his romance, The travel to center of earth, he described a code conversion of a document in Latin language that he code converses read it contrary, already here it impossible, but the text said: “Go down in the crater  of Yocul…and you are going to arrive to center of earth…”. The vulcan Yocul is in Island and the last eruption is in 2010. Some rationality is present in nephew of Lidenbrock, Axel, protagonist and scientist in this romance, his nephew: “Alone the scientific arguments could persuaded the professor Lidenbrock. Now I have excellent against this possibility for this travel. Come to center of earth. It is crazy! The connection to reality Verne has kept it for the descriptions, that have a valor of representation of reality, very much particulars that haven’t motive to be present, and also the interior dynamic, the wit that emerges the other tie to reality; the arrive to Island is the catalog of geography, because Verne mentioned every town; it is because the environment descripted must be motive to induce that also the travel in the center of earth is real. Hence this romance is has dual validities on for the real and other for the fantasy.

Alessandro Lusana  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The first awareness of class: the French Revolution

During the past century above all in socialist literature was repeated one true concept, this is the awareness of class; this is the conscience of a last class, the workers, that Karl Marx(1818-1883) has expressed in his book, The misery of philosophy, an answer to Proudhon, an French anarchic; in some step of this book Marx explained the consciousness of class, that is the right concept, but absolutely fliting, because if some worker has had the money, he has forgotten the consciousness, the class, the socialism and other; but the concept that I want consider isn’t the right or not of Marx, but the reality of this phenomenal, purely psychologic, this is the awareness that in history has determined a upheaval of a social class, that by now was already died and buried, but the final act, this is the funeral, was celebrated through the French revolution. The bourgeois class was the first in the history that has had the awareness of his importance; we must also consider the economic and social context of French during the reign of Lewis 16^th, by now the bourgeois was a social class definite in his nature, although the name didn’t mentioned, but it was the vital and economic lively that allowed to nations of to live; the taxes that in French there were for commerce and entrepreneurs, were very relevant, the bourgeois already has the true power in French, wasn’t the politic but economic, the 20^th June 1789, the bourgeois class was met in a room of regal palace, celled in history through the name of Real tennis court, and it is the first example of awareness of his importance, but the historical importance, and it is the central argument of this oath, that was alone an formal act; we can today read a chronicle of a English, Arthur Young(1741-1820), that has written, in a diary of travel in French, regard this oath: “26th. Every hour that passes seems to give the people fresh spirit: the meetings at the Palais Royal are more numerous, more violent, and more assured; and in the assembly of electors, at Paris, for send ng a deputation to the National Assembly, the language that was talked by all ranks of people was nothing less than a revolution in the government and the establishment of a free constitution: what they mean by a free constitution is easily understood — a republic ; for the doctrine of the times runs every day more and more to that point; yet they profess that the kingdom ought to be a monarchy too; or, at least, that there ought to be a king.” And the other chronicle of Jean Sylvain Bailly(1736-1793), described the meeting and the oath: “For the form of their constitution, where they have called two superiors orders, the municipalities, that composed almost the totality of nation, and counting the two present orders, they have could without usurpation, they attributed to them the rights of general States…”; it is the first gest of the French Revolution, that has took the principal motive of survival of the bourgeois class, why this reaction? And here the awareness of political class is present certainly, also because the bourgeois  was the intellectual class, of professional, and cultured class, therefore the awareness of to be a class was a sureness, but the question is same, why? The principal cause was the economy, the aristocratic classes and the clergy were exempted from the taxes that instead were on the other classes, this the bourgeois and grangers, that kept other two classes, we can also to doubt of this interpretation, but I ask: “Why the supreme politic organ, was called for  this meeting, after 175 years that it wasn’t met?”, the answer is the following: “Evidently also an idiot as Lewis 16^th has been informed that the economic condition was a disaster”; it is sufficient think that if the French have to go back every debts, the same French would have declared bankrupt. The refuse that to Jacques Necker(1732-1804) responsible of department of economy and finance during the reign of Lewis 16^th, that asked to clergy and aristocratic to pay the taxes, and they refused, the question is why? The obvious answer is: “because they didn’t want lost their privileges”, it is the automatic and ideological explication, but it is so or not? Not certainly, why? Because the clergy and aristocratic class haven’t one money, because the aristocratic has quitted the administration to the bourgeois, that during the time was become aware of its power, and hence the oath in the room of Royal tennis: “We oath that we never will be separate from the National Assembly, and we will meet everywhere the causes ask it, until the Constitution of Reign not is going to issue…”; the principal step is the word “constitution”, that reveled the politic program of bourgeois, this is the limitation of power of king, that occurred in 1791, when form the absolutely monarchy the French become the constitutional monarchy, inasmuch also the king has limited to his power, because the first power was alone the law. It is the first authentic awareness of class, that alone the intellectual bourgeois had, because the common people hasn’t absolutely extrange.

Alessandro Lusana                 

 

 

 Performances of private life: Francis Scott Fitzgerald

This Side of Paradise or in the first version The Romantic Egotist of Francis Scott Fitzgerald(1896-1940),  is an absolutely decontextualization, this is an absolutely will of remove of original education, for to assume behavior that are distant and stranger of the American habit; the principal motive is that the Beatrice Blaine, mother of Amory Blaine protagonist, has travelled on the word, she has studied in Rome, Italy, Austrian and England, hence she has received a formal education that was certainly much polite but also formal alone, we must also think to the historical context that seen the American women more emancipated in confront to European women, and Beatrice was also much rich inasmuch much freedoms were enables from the money, in fact he said: “A brilliant education she has had, hers youngness is past in the Renaissance, in the gossip of Roman nobility, she was famous as a American young, very much rich, and she was known from the queen Margaret and to the cardinal Vittori; it is alone a told about to the education of a teen but where is the contextualization? Simple is the following step: “Beatrice O’Hara assumed that kind of education, that isn’t possible; an education whose measure was given from the things and persons that she can despise…”; it is the remove of American education; he has received an education very fine and he has seen the American country, Fitzgerald mentioned some town of California, as Coronado and in the Mexico in the City of Mexico; but the finest education of Beatrice emerges from the impatience, that she bored in California and she has risked a nervous collapse; it is the effect of finest politeness that translated on itself the effect of extreme boring, that hides a weakness very radical of the women of high society, but not certainly of uptown, that are alone farmer cleaned. Anyway Amory felt herself superior to other, and here Fitzgerald is master when he describes the sense of superiority of Amory: “Amery resided by two months to Minneapolis, and his principal cure was hide to his classmates as he fells herself superior to everybody…”; certainly Fitzgerald, has seen and studied the human typologies that he has described, because is perfect this description, that followed to other, when Beatrice said to hers friends: “This is my son is very sophisticated très charmant but delicate. We are every delicate. Here.”, the decontextualization is also evident in the rescue of form, that must hide other origin: “Those pilgrims on every part of USA were always through the luxury: on the car with driver, two waiters Ms. Blain when he could and also the doctor…”; it is a pitiless of a social class that tries overcome his inferiority and can uses alone the form. And the form tries of rescues also the other women, because the description of Fitzgerald is very cruel when Beatrice spoke about the women of west: “They spike as would spike a English waiter that has lived much years in Chicago, in the theatre”…”it is the moment when a woman of west thinks that she considers her husband so rich that she can permits one accent, in short they tries impress me…”. Very pitiless because it is the egocentric reaction of nonentity that want believes that to be something. It is the distance from the context, social, cultural and it is alone a simulation of something that is very ridiculous. The tentative of imitation, hence of decontestualization, is after in other step: “There was, therefore, a curious weakness of wit, hence a phrase  sharp of a major boy turned to him, was sufficient  because he lost the calm and he becomes touchy or timidly stupid. He was slave also of his changeable humor, and although he was able to bold actions, he felt that he…”; the decontestualization is in the portrait of Amory that is almost mirror to a portrait of young lord of Italian writer Giuseppe Parini(1729-1799), perfectly idler and useless. Anyway this romance is alone a translation decontextualized of the humor and life of author, therefore Fitzgerald has translated in a romance his life.

Alessandro Lusana