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

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

Alessandro Lusana

 

…orbem terrarum ... subiecit: Cesar Augustus

Livy Titus historical man

Caius Cesar Augustus emperor

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

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

Augustus: Do you want teach me the policy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Livy: You have gained it, through you courage.

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

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

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

Livy: Why do you have together an army?

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

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

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

Livy: But do you have the power?

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

Livy: Why do you are smiling?

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

Livy: Why this think?

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

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

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

Livy: Where your political nature?

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

Livy: Your politic nature?

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

 

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

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

Livy: No clue.

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

 

Richelieu: the statesman answers, political lesson

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

Alessandro Lusana 

      

                                                                   

 

The red statesman: Richelieu

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

Alessandro Lusana        

        

 

Traditio imperat: continuing in daily gestures of ancient customs

The first question that by now we don’t set to ourselves is: “Why determined gestures and what is its origin?”; we make these gestures mechanically, without a reflection, but the importance is that we are a document of our era that use the gestures very ancient; why the elegant hand kissing? The obvious answer is because it is politeness in social high context, yes, certainly, but origin? Obvious answer, “No idea”, it is from ancient Greek custom, in fact when Priam, king of Troy, asked the corps of Ector his son, for the cremation he, that was a king, must kissed the hand of Achilles, because it is the sign of submission, as the guest that meets a lady, in aristocratic context, kisses the hand of lady, but this gesture is ancient, from 6^th century before Ch. The otherwise polite gesture of take off herself hat, in church or in other places where we are guest, the common comment is that it is politeness, yes, certainly, but it is has an precise origin, it is from the Medieval custom, when the knights have to took off the helmet, because they could hide an arm, and in the church the hat must be take off, because in Middle age, as today, in church we can’t entry wearing the arms. Take off the glove when we shake hand, why? Simple same motive of helm; during the Middle age the gloves were very long, and who wore it can hide an arm, hence was necessary that the glove was took off, because he could demonstrate that he hasn’t arms. In our house the guest is the first to seat, why? Because it is the politeness is obvious answer, or no? No absolutely because during Roman empire when somebody was welcomed in a house he wear the arms, and he could wear a hide arm, hence when he seat on the “sedes” or “sedicula”, this is the chair or little chair, he seated would have major difficulties to harm the patron or any in front of, that was on feet. Why the flowers on the tomb of some dear? The Christian tradition? No! The politeness? No! But it is a gesture that is from the decoration in ancient Rome, I could add because the ancient Roman brought the flowers to tomb, and after that I have written it a capital pain would be very scant, because this use is absolutely pagan, and it has melted an ornamental motive and a mythological origin, the first is a wreath of flowers that were sculpted  on funerary urn(Figs.1-6) and the second motive is merely mythological, this is the rebirth of goddess Persephone, a goddess that during the wind died and after in the spring reborn; hence it is the reborn in Christin heaven, but trough the pagan origin, the ornament on the funerary urn has same symbology, the rebirth after the death. Therefore we are documents of ancient times, and the future generation are going to be same documents.

Alessandro Lusana     

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

                   

 

Daily strategy: Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu(544b.Ch.-496b.Ch) is the author of The art of war he tells the tools necessary to war but he considered, and it is surprising the side psychological of army, evidently for direct experience he has ascertained that the wit must be assured from some strategy that the chiefs must know perfectly, and some step aid us to understand: “before the battle, regard to kill our enemies, our men must be excited to hate; they must believe that they are going a direct and immediate vantage for the defeat of enemy, and they are going to receive an award. In the battle among the wagons, when then or more we have took from enemy, we must award who has took them”, it is normal war strategy, therefore nothing; yes, certainly, but we must consider that in this case is the psychology the true war, and we can think to Francesco Guicciardini(1483-1540), that for defense of a city as Florence he spoke of civil militia, this the citizens that shaped an army; but he spoken also of “particulare”, this is the estate of owner, that has every citizen, hence it is the motive to press for hate to enemy, because the estate is valid motive to fight. Other step of this book is tacitly psychological: “Hence fight and win a hundred of battles is a proof of supreme excellence: the supreme ability is fold the will of enemy without fight”, it is the deterrence, from Latin “deterrere”, this is tremble from long, that is a psychological expedient. Other step is more explicative: “When the army is uneasy and distrustful, are certainly difficult to other sovereigns. It is said from the motto. “The confusion in the army leads to the victory of enemy”. The obvious is a side of art of war, in fact Sun Tzu used this strategy: “The chief that avoid the defeat, for this he can’t defeats the enemy; hence is valid the motto: “One guy can knows how win without win.”; these thinks are absolutely obvious, but difficultly we think it, and not alone for war, but also for common matters. And other step evidences other truths: “in the confusion of battle it can seems that the disorder reigns. In the confusion the disposition of army can seems without the logic, but it can be useful to avoid the defeat. The shammed confusion is truly a perfect discipline, a shammed dread is the true courage, a shammed weak is very strong. So one army that is ready to take the enemy when it is during the movement, it assumes fake behaviors that are going to confounds the ideas to enemy”, it is a strategy that certainly can be used in a battle, but that we can use also during the day, for report to other, that is other strategy but likewise important. These strategies are used above all in war and single battle, but we can adopted the strategies also in common life; feign weakness is opportune because we can so know who have in front, because he is going stressed for open his wit, because he think that we are weak, hence he will makes all is necessary to strike us, because it is sign of strong, instead he is opening his wit and he show himself, that is very weak, because everybody needs of these manifestation is a weak, that behind the fake strong hide a monumental weakness; but we could study his words and his behavior that are sign of weakness. Other step that in the battle is wrong but in rapport interpersonal are very useful: “It allows vantage to enemy if we bestow to him take a position that to him like”, it is in battle, I repeat, is wrong but in battle with army, because in human rapport instead this is the better strategy, because other person thinks that we are very weak and hence he can study him, and his buffoonery, but we must bestow time and place; and other rule of war that we must not apply to interpersonal rapports: “If the enemy manage tranquilly we must disturb him…”, absolutely not, because he recognized that we can interfere to him; instead he must be sure that we can make it, because so alone he show his weakness; and the better explication of this strategy is, for the army, explained from Sun Tzu: “An army can rune great distances without trouble if it rune in the country where isn’t enemy  army”, it is normal hence it isn’t certainly a great discovery, but if we consider this strategy for interpersonal rapports, we must same, this is bestow the free place and time to enemy, so that he thinks that the victory is very easy. Other teaching from Sun Tzu, regard the war but that we can use to our rapports is the following: “For to be sure of our attacks we must attack alone the places that aren’t defensed. And to stay in sure positions is necessary stay in positions unassailable”, we should make the same thing to protect us from attacks, this is to have position unassailable, how? Simple admit our weakness, that meanings the strong, because nobody admit the owner weak, but make it is opportune when somebody evidences it, and we can answer: “Yes, it is true!, But the my weakness is strong because I admit it, instead you no, therefore the weak you are”, apart from this that we have weakness or no; the strategy teaches that deny a weakness is to admit it, that we have or not, why? Simple because the adversary is going assured around our wit, he is going to think that we are weak as him, instead we subdue him with our moral strong, how? Underline his weakness; the strategy that Sun Tzu uses in military strategy, is useful for rapports more pacific, but alone dialectic. Other step: “Accordingly is very able in attack the chief whose enemy doesn’t knows what he must defend, and is able for defence the chief whose enemy doesn’t knows what he must defend”, it is possible in human rapports, when we know something of interlocutor that he doesn’t that we know, whereby we can use this strategy to attack when somebody underlining the our weakness, but without cry, because it is the manifestation of dread, and these advisements are underlined from Sun Tzu is the following words: “Divine art of secrecy! For your merit we can learn to be invisible and not heard, so we can hold the destiny of enemy in our hands”; it is the truth, because in silence we can study other, and  know the weakness and also the strong.

Alessandro Lusana

 Italian dispatches: Filippo Mazzei

 The series of Italian in USA is very amazing, sometime emerges somebody: Cristoforo Colombo(1451-1506), Amerigo Vespucci(1454-1512) Giovanni Caboto(1445/1450-1498-1501), that after Colombo, he was the first to land in American continent, to Canada precisely; but since for Italian is a mission to deal other affairs, above all of other nations, hence Philip Mazzei(1730-1816), born near Florence, whose the name says nothing because he is an unknown; anyway he was an agent of Virginia State, and we can read, thank the Public library of New York, that has purchased the dispatches in year 1927, that Mazzei written to future presidents as Jefferson(1735-1826)., where we can also know some episode of uneasy, because also the agents, no certainly secret and after we will because, has had some illness, in fact Mazzei confesses: “MAZZEI TO THOMAS JEFFERSON [Dispatch No. 1-Nantes, Nov. 27, 1779. It is 8 days since I arrived at this place from Rochelle, near which City I was set a-shore in an Island by a Portuguese vessel from Cork in Ireland. The various circumstances, which have contributed to my liberty, and several other anecdotes since I left the Capes of Virginia, deserve I think that I should trouble you with an account of them ; but an illness of 2 months & half, & the constant uneasiness of the mind during 5 months, have reduced me so low, that I can scarcely write at all”; but why Mazzei hasn’t been an secret agent? A note of the comment explains because: “Mazzei's account of his capture, captivity, and escape from the British…”, hence has been guest of British jails; it is normal because after the revolution of colonies, every employed of American govern was suspect. Evidently Mazzei has had subscription to illness, because after the departure from New York he has had trouble, a note says: “Two or three days after his departure from New York, Mazzei suffered an attack of malaria…”, but other note explains that: “When his ship was captured by the British, and he and his family were taken prisoners, Mazzei, in order to destroy the evidence against him, threw overboard his instructions and commission. “; it is normal because the American ships were become enemy. But beyond the precarious health emerges also a suggestion in the text of this dispatch, because Mazzei, for a psychological tranquility he imagined to write to his friend, Bellini, Carlo(1735-1804), a native of Florence, Tuscany, whom Mazzei encouraged to come to America. For twenty-four years, from 1779 to 1803, he was a professor at the College of William and Mary, teaching French, Italian, Spanish, and German.”. Mazzei could not justify this suggestion through these thesis that are to modern psychology, but it is also an example of importance that Mazzei given to his employed, because he was writing to the president of thirteen colonies, by now become ex colonies, and in fact he precisely: “I could not with any degree of prudence attempt from New-York, or Long-Island, to write to Virginia…”, and after the my thesis about the suggestion is proved from the following text: “…but having signified to those persons, who under hand favored me as much as possible, that I wanted to write to an Italian Gentleman in Williamsburg about his domestic affairs in Italy…”; because thinking a letter to a compatriot, and not to a president the suggestion is scant. The aid of French is shown from a dispatch from Nantes: “Nantes, December12, 1779. A very good piece of intelligence, which I recorded yesterday, has been followed by very mortifying news arrived in Town to day yesterday I was informed, that 9. days since it was resolved in the King's council to lend Congress, in arms and such other things as they want, to the amount of 16. millions of livres.”; the king mentioned is Louis 16^th king of France, that has gain to create difficult both politic and economic to England; and further proof is given to the following text, that says: “By 2 persons from l' Orient and letters from Brest we have heard the disagreeable news of Count D'Esteings's defeat in America, supposed to have happened on Long-Island”, a note to this script explains who is Count D'Esteings, and the note says: “Estaing, Charles Hector Theodat, Comte d', 1729-1794. French Admiral in command of the fleet sent to aid the United States against Great Britain”. The French evidently liked very much this emprise of Count D'Esteings, because the text of Mazzei followed: “D'Esteing is reckoned a hero, and is now the darling of France ; but in this town they are downright mad for him.”; it is a representation of pressure that Great Britain was making toward the French, evidently for mere commercial motive, because this enthusiasm for D'Esteing, certainly with participation of bourgeois, active in merchants, and that after guaranteed the birth of French revolution.     

 

Alessandro Lusana