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

 

Continence is pleasure

In place of Academia a man with beard and chiton is speaking to three young whose names were Alcaeus Filisco and Phaedrus, and joined Apollodorus, that asked to Epicurus. “Are you atheist or no?”, Epicurus smiled and answered: “It is effect of slanders that commonly are said around me, because I was saying to them that above all you must consider the divinity as a living being blissful incorruptible, and you must not attribute them nothing that is contrary to immortality or contrary to blissfulness. The goods certainly exist but not as the plebs consider them, hence isn’t atheist who deny the opinions about the goods of plebs; because these aren’t knowledge but alone presumptions2; and Phaedrus: “What is your think about the death?” for this question Epicurus smiled and answered: “For this is stupid who says of scared from death, and no certainly because is come damn him, but because previewed become grief; in fact that presently doesn’t worries, when it is waited anguished us. The more horrible of hells is nothing to us, because rationally when we are life the death isn’t, but when it arrives we aren’t more, whereby nothing can worry us. When I can advise alone the indifference toward the death because so we don’t grief or worry, and our life continues. Ermarco from Mitilene asked: “The pleasure what do you think?”, and Epicurus: “Of pleasure we need when we grief to absence of it, and when we don’t grief the pleasure is to us indifferent; for this we declare that the pleasure is principle and end of happiness; because when we haven’t it the our condition is of worry, thereupon the pleasure must be constant, because we want suffer; also because we begin form it, every our choice is determined from consideration if this action bring to us the pleasure or grief.” Apollodorus asked: “Every pleasure is to us opportune or no?”, and Epicurus: “No certainly every pleasure, but we choose that are true pleasure, this is that enjoyment of a pleasure not be motive after of grief or pain, hence is necessary avoid a pleasure so that after is a major hell, and much griefs we preferred when we are sure that after it major pleasure is going to arrive; for this every pleasure is good to its nature, but not every pleasure we can consider beautiful, and so every dolor to its nature id hell, but not every dolor we must escape”, and Diogenes from Tarsio, other pupil that was joined short before asked: “Desire of pleasure is in every man, and the mankind searches always it, or not?”, and Epicurus gazing him: “We consider very good independence from desires, and not certainly because we must be content from scant, but alone because if we have short it is sufficient; in fact the frugal foods bring equal quantity of pleasure of sumptuous, when is lack the grief of need, and water and bread give the supreme pleasure when eats it who needs. When we say the sake is the pleasure, we don’t think the dissolute pleasures, as somebody or ignorant think, or they misunderstand, but it is don’t pain and grief. It is my advises and now you must spread to future generation and now thereabouts.”, and he goes away, and Alcaeus asked: “Where do you are going?”, Epicurus turn to him and: “I have end my life now you must continue my think, if it brings to you pleasure. Good bye”

Alessandro Lusana  

 

 

Law of contrappasso

Steve was a scholar of Dante Alighieri that he has loved from childhood when his mother, Ludovica, born in Florence read after the sleep a chant of Divine Comedy; whereby he loved the Italian Medieval poetries and above all Dante. He was professor in a University and was estimated very much, also in Europe, he was e reserved person and never has searched success, actually he avoid parties or meeting, is it was necessary to jobs; and also during these meets he was set in reserved chair, distant from colleagues, in fact sometime somebody asked. “Steve what do think about this question?”, he raised the eyes and: “I agree, much compliment”, and the same person explained: “We are speaking about the fail of millions and we don’t know how we can gain other, how we can regain these millions?”, he got up and called phone his brother, Robert, a true genius of finance, and when Robert has given some advice the problem was solved, the meet was ended and he gone away and very happy, because he could goes back home and read his poetries. One thousand of times he has thought of written a biography on Dante and medieval poetry but he was discouraged from immense bibliography, thereupon he left this idea. During a night he dreamed his mother that said. “Instead written a treaty on medieval time why you don’t write about yourself, your biography, fro example. He awaked soon and seated to computer and begun to write his autobiography, his birth, his childhood and adolescence and maturity, he was not married; therefore written that he is born in New York, and attended private school, above all religious school, he was also atheist; he tool about the first love that was a Cecco Angiollieri, a medieval Italian poetry, Cavalcanti, naturally Dante and the medieval culture; after he reserved a chapter to his character, more reserved, discreet, almost asocial, he used the computer alone to write and his faithful friends were the books alone, he loved repeat mentioning Xenophon that the discourse of historical men is with died. After then days he finally ended this book that he wanted alone published on internet; he was very amused from this new experience, a man whose nobody known something now could show his live to everybody, it is new experience and above all very curious, he was very excited, and he has forgotten also his discretion. A technical in University explained to him how he have to make to insert his biography on internet, naturally he shammed to understand, but the technic understood that he didn’t understand and thereupon took the biography and inserted it on internet. After some days from this insertion Steve gone out home and, while he gone on street noted that much person gazed him and somebody approached to him has asked: “Are you Steve”, and he answered: “Yes why know I you?”, and other: “No certainly but I wanted know you, excuse me can I make a photo with you?”, and Steve amazed: “Yes”; this success after a month was become normal, everybody wanted a selfie, some word and greet; the then days usually consideration, but occurred that a person than Steve thought of have seen  passed on street, he pursued him and he gone in front of this person, and asked: “I know you”, and the person: “Yes but my name is secret”, and Steve asked: “It is useless because you are Dante Alighieri, I have seen your fake home in Florence, because I have studied and have reached my master in Florence; whereby I know you”; while he spoke to Dante around the citizens are stopped as statues, every movement was stopped, unique voices were of Steve and Dante in all city. Steve scared asked: “Why they are stopped?” and Dante answered: “Do have read my Comedy?”, and Steve: “I keep all it in my mind”, and Dante: “ Do you know law of contrappasso, this is the law that reserve a pain contrary to vices of sinners in hell?”, and Steve: “Yes, I know perfectly it”, and Dante: “Good because you are convicted to celebrity, and the general acknowledge, god fortune”, and he gone away; while the citizens continued ask selfie, and advices.

Alessandro Lusana     

  

         

 Political chair

The students were busy to different actions, who read a book, who is writing a letter who spoke to other, while the master was gone in class, and: “Good morning lords, I could will your attention, if it isn’t excessive to your affairs”, the students were every composed and glazed the master, who: “Thank you for your attention, but if you want you can go away, but after alone you are going to say it to Julian of Medici, lord of Florence”; the students heard these words and when Niccolò has had the attention he begun: “The politic science is alone formally a science of politeness and diplomatic words, I give to you an example: when Philip king of Macedonia received the Persian ambassadors, he was polite and elegant, even luxurious, but after the gifts and other protocol words, he and Alexander, his son, and the ambassadors in a neighbor rooms spoken about politic; Philip wanted the peace in Greece, and the Persian wanted the same; they wanted the very good rapports with Greece and its cities; after this dialogue Alexander the Great, again young, asked to his father what has been cleared and what were intentions, and Philip answered that, they and he one other hasn’t said nothing, and Alexander asked: “What is utility of these meeting?”, and Philip: “For smell each other”, and Philip: “Yes in fact the true politic hasn’t of words, he thrust more of his nose. For example, in your opinion to him likes the girls or young?”, and Alexander excited curiosity: “To whom?”, and Philip: “To our hostess, obvious”, and Alexander: “I not a clue”, and Philip: He like the young. It seems that he gazed the blond young that served the wine, this night he is going to have this young in his bed”. A student particularly attentive after that he heard these words asked: “Mister…”, and Niccolò: “Dear thank you but my name is Niccolò and I prefer that you call me so”, and student accustomed to speak with person more great with you, as respect, was amazed, but he took the question and: “I would know what are the better states?”, and Niccolò answer: “I say that the state hereditary and accustomed to a family of their lord are less difficult to keep, because it is sufficient don’t beyond the past administration, and take time in case of difficult, and if this lord is in average he keep his state, unless a stranger force took this state”, and student: “Whereby the stare hereditary is better!”, and Niccolò: “The natural lord must offender less than other, and to him is necessary that he is loved, if he hasn’t extraordinary vices, he is going to love from subject”. Other student: “The new states are dangerous?”, and Niccolò: “No, but these are more difficult”, and same student: “Why?”, and Niccolò: “Because you have enemies, after the conquest, this is everybody that you have deprived and you can’t keep friends everybody that have aided you to conquest because you can’t satisfy them as they wanted or imagined; thereupon these states are very risky, because they are ready to betray you every moment, and they give you to enemy when you have unsatisfied them. We must also consider that we are  living in a historical time that is going to pass, because may to future the men become different therefore these strategy and these ascertainments are alone momentary, because for future it is different, with similar principles, but I am sure that the model is going to be the same, with modifications, but the govern of one alone is permanent”, thereupon he ended his lesson and after greeted  everybody, and a student asked: “Where are you going?”, he gazed him and: “To Florence where Julian de Medici want me”.

Alessandro Lusana

 

A lesson

The master entered in the room while the students spoke one other around the philosophical arguments that the day before the master has treated, and when they gave the attention to master somebody asked: “What is syllogism master?”, the master looked around and took and chair he begun the lesson: “The proposition is affirmative discourse or negative around something. It is or universal or particular or indefinite. I call universal that is belong to everything or nothing; particular belong to something, indefinite belong or not without indication of universal or particular, but belong and stop: for example, to identic the science of contraries…”, the student interrupted soon and asked: “What is mean of this affirmation? Because I and think we haven’t understood it”, the master smiled and: “Normal, without explication it is very easy but I must go you to think no one but two particulars. To understand one quality and have a deep acknowledge of one quality, we must know also his contrary, one example: for love the air that we breath always, and that to us now is normal, we must lack of this vital element to life, we can immerse the head in a bathtub, and after some second and after up the head, the air is going to be important and it is very pleasure; hence you have known the lack of air and you have known the danger of suffocation, thereupon you, after left danger you love the air, certainly very scan because you retake you natural habit as the breath, but some moment, after the danger you appreciate the air; whereby you must know the contrary of natural to appreciate the natural.”. Other student, exited curiosity, asked: “The difference of proposition?”, and master: “Yes very good question: the difference is so: the demonstrative proposition differs from that dialectical, because the demonstrative is assumption of one alone of two parts of contradiction, for example you want affirm that the sky is blue, and if somebody want demonstrate the contrary you very easily indicate the sky, this is right?”, and student: “Yes”, and master following: “But you has took alone the affirmative part of this proposition”, and student: “Because it is normal, the sky is blue and it is evident, thereupon it is undeniable”, and the master: “Certainly but now, and this night the sky is going to be blue?”, and the student: “No! During night can’t be”, and the master: “But you have took alone a part of proportion, that is affirmative, that the sky now is blue, and haven’t other, it is demonstration that you can affirm the reality taking alone a part of proposition; and who want demonstrate something doesn’t give question, but take that is necessary to demonstration of his thesis; the dialectical is question of a contradiction; in fact I have contradicted your affirmation, because I have said other truth, this is the this night sky is going to be not sky, this is dialectical proposition that want the affirmative and negative proposition” Other student said: “But you haven’t explained what works the syllogism”, and master gazed him and answer: “I am here: a proposition of syllogism, in absolute sense is affirmation of negation of something regard something, instead it is demonstrative if it is true; dialectical to whom asks, interrogation of a contradiction. The syllogism is a discourse, that set something, other is necessarily following from that is set since that exist, the explication of this concept: since these thing exist the derivation from these, and I say derived from these, this is not need nothing word to have that is necessary”, students were astonished because they didn’t understand the meaning of this affirmation, whereby the master: “I understand that to you it is difficult, because I have explain it with philosophical sense, but we can very easily: we must consider the logic existence of something, and we can set it syllogism, common objects that are in our life, and since these objects are present we can use to our logic think. The logic discourse is very easy to understand for this we must consider the common logic: if nothing pleasure is a good, neither good is a pleasure. It is elementary logic ands stop”; after given these explication he glazed the door and gone to exit of room, and a student asked: “Where are you going?”, and he turned toward the student and answered: “My father, Nicodemus is died in Macedonia, where is the son of Philip king that needs of a tutor”, and he exited from the room.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Ecce homo: inquiry Aristotle around the human nature

The Aristotle’s Ethic of Nicodemus is clear representation of human nature, we can begin with, it is usual, step of this book, regard the sake of politic and the high good of action, around the name is the first inquiry, that today seems ridiculous, but we must consider that this book was written by Aristotle during 4^th century before Ch., and before him nobody has written something similar to Ethic; anyway regard the name of good Aristotle explained: “Regard the name almost everybody is concord, both the culture persons and the common people say that it is the felicity, and they think that be successful and to live good is motive to felicity, but they don’t concord regard the nature of felicity, and very much definite it by different kind the crowd differs from wise; somebody defines it a visible thing and manifest, as the pleasure, the richness or honor, and relative to persons somebody think it a thing and other instead other thing”; certainly the comments are it is normal hence where is importance? Simple the first is this book is a book exoteric, from ancient Greek έξωτερικός this is public book for everybody, instead the esoteric was to elite of pupils of Aristotle; this is explication of this easy to understand the think of Aristotle, and he continuing: “actually, often the same person  considers a different thing: if one gay is sick identifies it to health , if one guy is poor identify it to richness, if somebody is aware of his ignorance he admires whom speak about important argument…”; a question raises because curiosity is predominant: we are sure that this book Aristotle has written in 4^th century, because it seems the description of daily man, but today, that be distant two thousand and four centuries years from Aristotle. The Aristotle’s inquiry has acme regard a step that, he hasn’t called so because isn’t born, but that today we could define as compensation dynamic, the is a reaction of man in front of determined deficiency, Aristotle explains: “Furthermore it seems that the men pursue the honor to convince themselves of be good; hence they search honor from wise persons and from who know them…”; it is description of complex of inferiority that searches his compensation to approbation of somebody. The last step that here I want consider is very much important, because is a human reality that nobody has identified before and after Aristotle: “It is common opinion that the right man is a sort equal and that the friendship is in equality”; this is a daily reality, the friendship usually is born alone among is equal; the proximity between two persons is normal when they have common characteristic. This book is essential to understand the ancient Greek man and the contemporary man, because the man is equal in every century, improved the tools and technology, but the man is similar in his nature.

Alessandro Lusana