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.       

     

    

 

 

 

 

 

 Political revolution: the revolutionary French constitution

The revolution was that political, and through this word I mean the Greek exception of this word, is the administration and manage of a State; before more revolutionary was the American constitution, that was already present in the daily actions, the independence of colonies was alone an ascertainment of the ideal and natural presence, that not was political because that the American constitution said was already present; and here the geography is relevant, because the colonies were afield from the English power, in fact they were already independent, but the political concepts that are expressed in the French constitution, are radical, the automatic question is, why? Today for us this political document is alone a constitution without importance, why? Simple because in Europe, these constitutions are very common, daily, hence, the second question is “Why we should have more interest for this?”, because it is a revolutionary constitution, that in Europe, and the geography is more important than before, these constitutions, or constitutions aren’t; the will of the king was the law; instead the will of people is the law, naturally this constitution was written from jurist men, that gone out from a monarchic State, the last French king Louis 16^th, decapitated in January of 1793, hence the difference the differences have to very much relevant, in fact: “Article 1. The rights of the men are the freedom, equality, the sureness and the propriety”; the laic nature of this constitution is evident because the first article doesn’t mention God, and the differences are soon present in second article: “The equality is in that the law is equal to each, that it shield or punish. The equality doesn’t admits differences for the birth, neither heritage neither power”; today it is absolutely normal, but in French or better in Europe of 1793, when this constitution was enacted, it was the true revolution, and I repeat, this constitution was enacted from a European country. The principles that are expressed in same article are very relevant for a constitution, because it wanted, although not written, the unity of a State around the State, the new State, that now was become the republic, hence the unity of citizens was fundamental, in fact: “The sureness is the participation of everybody for to insure the right of each citizen. The propriety is the right of joy and manage of owns, of his incomes, and of the fruit of his work. The difference is more stressed in 6^th article: “The law is the general will that expresses  through the majority or of the citizens or their represents”; it is a revolutionary document because in Europe these equality in front of the law impossible; and it is important not certainly because it is a constitution, because the American constitution was already present and perfect, for its rights, hence the amazing is very limited, because here is repeated that in American constitution was present, and the American constitution was enacted when the burst of the French revolution, we can’t think that has been direct or indirect influence because in French as in Europe, except the English monarchy, known that was burst a independence war in the American continent, because the people, in Europe, didn’t know neither that a American continent existed; the juridical brain that has thought this constitution wanted stressed the independence, but not from other State but from other model, that monarchic, therefore the differences are radical. The awareness of new time and new institutions is in this article, this is the 14^th, that today is the absolutely common, but have past also 234 years from this constitution: “Nothing law, neither criminal nor civil can’t have the retroactive effect”; I repeat it is normal today, but when the constitution wasn’t and the law was the king, everything was subject to him, also the law. The 16^th article ids the celebration of this new spirit: “Every contribution is issued for the general utility; and it must be distributed among the taxpayers, for their possibility”; today it is normal, but I remember to the commentators that the General States were met because the economic crisis was very radical, and the bourgeois and the people have to keep the clergy and aristocracy, that have not to pay the taxes, but also the poverty of the aristocracy is, although shrouded, in the words: “must be distributed among the taxpayers”, because the revolutionaries known perfectly that the aristocracy by now was very impoverished, hence every taxpayer could have given how much was possible. And the article 17^th The sovereignty is essentially in the universality of citizens”; it is the fundamental document of historical progress of revolution, the change very radical of concept of power, now the citizens are the represent of the French, that have delegated liable for their representation in national assembly. And the article following issues better this concept: “Nobody, nor meeting of citizens can attribute the sovereignty”, it is the supreme spirit of revolution, so that nobody except the national assembly has the power. The true revolution, political revolution, is in this article that want guarantees to everybody, in sense purely theoretic, the possibility of represent but with much limits, this is never think to absolute power. The article 19^th confirms this article: “Nobody can, without legal delegation has authority, or to be employer in some public function”; this law wants hinder that died a king other can come. The 21th article confirms this spirit: “The public functions can become the owner of who works it”; this is nobody can become king, since that monarchy had granted some public work and through. In Latin language it sounds as “Quandoque bonus Homerus dormitat”, some time also Homer sleeps; this is the meaning also the better men can mistake; and the revolutionary constitution uses the gospel and not alone for a mention, but in constitution, in article 2th regard the duties of citizens this paper says: “Not make to other that you don’t want somebody makes to you. You must make to other the good action that you would”; we can, rightly, laugh of this step, because it is very useless and absolutely abstract, yes, its right! But we must also consider that the French was again Catholic and the revolutionary spirit in common people wasn’t, actually the traditionalism was very strong, for this Napoleon could issue his govern, that formally isn’t but in reality it was absolutely monarchic. Naturally can’t lack the nature of a State antimonarchic that must suggest the desistence toward every form of monarchy: “The duties of every citizens toward the society is to defend, to server, to live under the laws and to respect who are their institutions”; it is a motive valid to think that the Jacobinism has taught that somebody could also think of to take the power, and it in fact occurred, Napoleon, but same Napoleon was under the laws. The Christian morality was truly deep in the French people, because the article 4^th is a true representation of Christin doctrine: “Nobody is a good citizen if he isn’t also good son, good father, good brother, goof friend, good husband”, to this article lacks something very important, it is: “He must goes to Jerusalem with pilgrims, and every day must pray, in church, our God; if the constitution was also of this article the revolution would be submerged from the fairs; further the accuse of atheism that the factions bourgeois could use against the Jacobin was reals, and a country again Catholic as the French has had react very evil.     

 Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

.

 

 The Medieval Roman hero: Cola di Rienzo

The life of Cola di Renzo, but the original name is Nicole of Lorenz(1313-1354 is told from an anonymous writer may from Bologna, Cola was a popular man that the Roman people identified  to his nature and in fact the writer said: Cola of Renzo was popular man, his father was host and his mother washerwoman  of this origin he confessed his shame: “I have begun from  a moment of my life I felt the shame for my popular life and I begun acculturate reading the classics books…” this confession is meaningful  because shows the real motive for the necessity of culture. Other certainty  is the narration of the meeting to the pope Clemens 6^th (1291-1352) that reproached the senators of Rome because they don’t  think to Rome and other step, following  the precedent, where the  anonymous mentions the name  of an important employed of Senate of Rome Thomas from Fortiocca, unknown absolutely but useful here for to ascertain that Cola has told this episode, because he reports the words, and the name, hence he was present to this discussion to pope, because he is s direct witness. Naturally Medieval narration also took legendary steps from Isidore from Seville, and the author manifests his egocentrism very great because he compares herself  to the ancient histories men as Herodotus, and Livius, and he said about herself that he stem from a noble family, but a noble during the Middle age would have written in Latin, and not certainly in Italian of 14^th century. But some information regard to Rome is interesting because in front of the church of Saint Spirit  the church of Saxon people was a ditch. The boredom  of Middle age is in the tales that regard other cities, as Ferrara and Bologna , because in Rome evidently nothing occurred. A monk came to Rome for pilgrim and our author is very precise for description of cloths, hence he has seen him. And some other note can be interesting for the builds of two churches, this is Saint John of Lateran and Saint Peter, because pope Benedict 12^th made completely the roofs, it is a poor note that is useful fro the history of these churches , the architect was Jehan Poisson, the architect of pope, in years 1341, and a worker  that the documents mention as master Ballus that it isn’t the name of worker but certainly a fake name. This history is certainly true because the author was witness for the major part of events; and the pragmatic wit emerges from a information, during the female in Rome, in year 1338, the women  became prostitute for the necessity, certainly unhappy but shows the practical wit of being man.  

Alessandro Lusana   

 Platonic and pragmatic sensism: George Berkeley

George Berkeley(1685-1753) is an Irelands philosopher, that has took the sensism very diffused in England then, and he has took from Plato(b.Ch. 427-347) the concept of ideas but with acceptation real, this is that we can see is real, the question inasmuch is: “Where is the Platonism?”; simple in the concept of ideas, that the Athens philosopher has taught in the word of ideas, Berkeley has took the concept but with acceptation real, this pragmatic remark is a change important regard to Platonism, the origin is the Greek philosopher but Berkeley ties it to context, very pragmatic of reality, following also the practical wit that during those centuries in England was principal, and the concept of vision of daily things is absolutely Platonic, because for the Athens philosopher the reality is a translation of the word of ideas, therefore although Berkeley didn’t mention it Plato, he is present although shrouded: “Hence as it is impossible for me  to see or feel anything without an actual sensation of that thing, so is it impossible for me to conceive in my thought any sensible thing or object distinct from the sensation or perception of it [In truth, the object and the sensation are the same thing, and cannot therefore be abstracted for each other]”; it is the pragmatic Platonism, that follows the reality, because a reality took entirely from the old concept of word of ideas, it would have denied the Christian religion, because everything is created from the God and no certainly from the word of ideas. The Platonism and the pragmatism return to after some steps: “Some truth and are so near and obvious to the mind that a man need only open  his eyes to see them. Such I take this important one to be, viz that all the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in the word all those bodies which compose the mighty  frame of the word, have not subsistence without a mind, that their being is to be perceived by me , or do not exist or that of any other created spirit, they must  either have not existence at all or else subsist in the mind of some eternal spirit…”; it is the real sensism, because the mind has the imagines or sensations that after it translated in his intelligence, the pragmatic sensism is clear, now the rationality is dominant because Plato was again present, but in hide form, and now emerges the rationality that moderates the idealism, because the rationality is dominating. A Platonic note the words: “some eternal spirit” is the up dated version of Plato, it is the modern version of the word of ideas. The Platonism continues and now is more evident: “From what has been said it is evident there not any other substance than spirit, or that which perceives. But, for the fuller demonstration of this point, let it be considered the sensible qualities are color, figure, motion, smell, taste, and other, for example the ideas perceived by sense…”; it is the pure Platonism, the translation of ideas, that we have seen above, is in updated version; and the final words are very eulogy of Platonism: “…that therefore wherein color, figure, and other exist must perceive them: hence it is clear there can be no unthinking substance or substratum of those ideas”; the pragmatic Platonism.

Alessandro Lusana

    

 

      

   

 

 Ille dixit: Cicero

I want read the first oration of Cicero(b.Ch.106-43) against Catiline, in year 63 b. Ch., in Rome in the temple of Jupiter, but I have read it much years ago but now I want evince the character of Cicero from his behavior; the greatest name in Roman literature, was born near Arpinum(near to Frosinone), a town of Latium, January 3rd, B.C. 106. His father, a man of large views and liberal culture, belonged to the equites, and possessed an hereditary estate in the neighborhood of the town. L. Sergius Catilina was a Roman patrician, born about I08 B.C. From his father he inherited nothing but a noble name. In the turbulent scenes of the Sullan rule, Catiline played a conspicuous part, to which his undoubted ability, his undaunted courage, his iron constitution, his depraved morals, and excessive cruelty notoriously fitted him. For the duty that I want reached, I must consider that a aid has given from John Henderson that in his edition, in year 1886, of The first oration against Catiline he said: “In the introduction Cicero in impassioned language expresses astonishment that Catiline…”; this step of Henderson is very explicative regard to not understandable of Cicero, because he, we can imagine, in front of Catiline hasn’t dread, and his character evidently, for how much we can evince, was very stable and he, in fact, wanted cure the form above all, the form of oration, that begins so: “When , o Catiline do you mean to cease abusing our patience?...”, This introduction of Cicero is very important for to know his character because, he is a quiet man that in temple is the protagonist of this oration, thence he is also the principal orator, and the error, although the orator is Cicero, abusing, translated in English, but the original text is “abutere”, it is the second person singular of future of verb “abutor”, that is in its correct form “abuteris”, and not “abutere”, because the form is important, actually it is fundamental, although the oration is an accuse that Cicero given to Catiline; but Cicero is secure of his qualities od orator therefore also an error is enabled; it is the open form of future, that in Latin language isn’t, because the two final syllables “ere” is a form with sound open, and we can call it the future opened. He continues: “When is there to be end of that unbridled audacity…”, it is other notation of Cicero’s character, because the audacity is a qualities in much context, but for other it can be dangerous, and this substantive audacity, that is almost reproach to Catiline, shows the equilibrium of Cicero, that is evident from the use of this substantive. After the four orations against Catiline, he was condemned to capital pain, but Cicero reached this condemn without the proves, and he involuntary given the aid valid to Caesar for the exile to Cilicia, a Roman province, where Cicero written De amicitia, About the friendship, where he brought examples of true friendship, and he considered also, a human truth; when you are useful to other they are very friendship, but when you don’t be useful, everybody leave you. We can understand from this oration the character of Cicero, that was very egocentric and superb, but also ingenuous, because he didn’t know the human gender, the Amicitia is manifestation of ingenuity and also superficiality, because the mankind is always near or distant for your useful.

Alessandro Lusana