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  

 

 

An Italian source of American revolution: Carlo Botta

Contemporary Italian historical men of American revolution, this is the formal act of independence, because the colonies were already independent, because to England were necessary alone the harbors of new word, and no certainly other, the imperator Vespasiano (9b.Ch.-79)took a fistful of money and he set under the nose of his son and asked: “Puteant?”, that translated if :”It stink?”, because Vespasiano was taxed the bathroom in ancient Rome; this example is necessary to explain that a nation, every nation, today as ancient and for future, is interested alone to merchant because its people want alone the money and wealth, hence the British wanted alone the merchant and stop; anyway Carlo Botta(1766-1837), was a historical man that has described the American revolution but alone from documents and other historical scripts, naturally he begun from emigration toward of new word of bannered, and he said: “This crowd of exiled, from England above all, come to north American when the reign was owner of Stuart family…and were founders of colonies of New Hampshire, di Massachusetts, di Connecticut and Rhode Island, that  Botta called Rodi island, and these colonies called themselves New England, and after the Virginia and New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware and county of Maryland and Carolinas”, this the North Carolina and South Carolina, and after  he mentioned also Georgia; some personal think that neither we neither Botta can proof, when he said: “We don’t believe that because they came in other place, where they were born for odd towns and searching better condition of life, they quit their country as enemies…”; we can comment or asked to Botta: “Why they came to new word? Because the wealth was better? No certainly, may because they were free? May, or they came as seamen and after the landed they decided that the transfer wasn’t so bad?”. A man, that is equal always in every period of history, can choose something for very much motives; and the persecutions toward religious minority is a cuck up, because the England was a country that in north, this is the Scotland were Catholic, and Elisabeth, queen of England, begun not a war for religion of Scotland, because she would have determine a civil war, and in Rome, Italy and the Spain wanted alone it, so that through motive of religion they would have attacked, and the England would has become a Spain colon; Elisabeth 1th(1533-1603) as Philip 2th(1527-1598) and pope Saint Pio 5th(1566-1572), thought politically After these words Botta in fact said: “Beyond the customs and the manners of common country, they brought also the privileges of real authority all conferred…”; but we can doubt also of this affirmation because if the royal power had given so much privileges, why they gone away? May my opinion that they were sailormen is more right. A contradiction is evident the step of Botta said: “But for the religion they enjoyed of major freedom in confront to the first country…and being this motive the principal cause to their departure…”, but we can stress to Botta that he has written: “…they brought also the privileges…”; the major freedom is contrary to privileges that they has had in their country. The revolutionary faith of Botta emerges, although hide in following words: “…since nothing province or colony has had an assembly of represent elected from the people…”, the revolutionary faith I want refer to the French revolution, that Botta held convince; furthermore: “Hence it doesn’t amaze us because this generation of men have had their brain toward those credence that are the ground and principles of England govern, but they wanted a manner of govern more free…”, but if they refused the oppressive British govern, they would have refused everything that the England govern has had. The following step has also a psychological note: “…from that fervor that be born naturally in hearth of men, and from the obstacles that are contrary to their opinions both politic and religious…”, it is the hide note of psychology, because in front of the contrary the wit of man becomes fanatic of his opinion, in fact Thomas Mann(1875-1955), has said that the major difficulty for the political propagandist is convince himself rather other; and this think is historical represented from the colons from England, because they used the same model of original country; we must add also that this model was the unique that the colon known; but the participation of people to election of assemblies was very limited, because the vote was destined alone the landowners, therefore the free was very limited; but Botta has took the French revolution, when the elections were frequent, and the people was called to vote. Regard to give the tax from owner will Botta describes the birth of the assemblies, he says: “…of give their money alone from their will…for this are born the assemblies in every colonies…”. The oppression that Botta suggested is in fact a moral custom, as we can infer: “…Everything on the contrary in England America regarded a largest unusual of social life; everything appeared near to favor to freedom civil…”, it is could seem a simple note, that has a difference from English life, and it is the motive of oppression that Botta involuntary confesses through the following words: “…regarded a largest unusual of social life…”; the feral laws of England were alone the moral life, hence the oppression was alone from these moral custom, it is normal that in young colonies of USA, this moral life wasn’t, because it was a youngest nation, actually it wasn’t neither a nation. Regard the religion Botta has forgotten a particular, in the step around the religion of American he said: “The American were the majority protestant, but protestant also against the reliable of Protestant authorities and part of their that in England are called dissident; hence beyond don’t recognize, as Protestant nothing the authority for religion whose decisions are unquestionable…”, it is certainly true, but the particular that Botta has avoid to remember is that already Luther has made it, he didn’t recognized nothing authority. Other particular that Botta or will ignore or will avoid is the following step: “Since the brain of Americans whole free for religion, they used this liberty also for other things, specially in govern matters…In the colonies were abundant the legists, that know take the tiny from the tiny, they are, in a country governed from an absolute prince, the lawyers of his power, and in a free country the useful defender of freedom”, certainly true, but Botta has forgotten that the method is same, the lawyers are same, and other particular that Botta avoided of think, what? The colonies were again too much young to have an owner moral custom and an institution legislative; hence the lawyers that Botta mentions where were is a mystery because may the lawyers could be in the colonies but aren’t the tribunal, and the laws were different form a colonies from other. The inability of Botta after emerges again for other affirmation that is laughable: “…since the study of beauty letters and the noble disciplines has already made the notable progresses in American colonies…”; if I was a fanatic nationalist would stress this affirmation; but the authors of these letters who are? What books they have scripted? Nothing is possible to know! Regard this step other affirmation that is very ridiculous, and that proofs the inability of Botta: “Scant books have the colons, but these between the hands of everybody, treat around the matters of govern or history, and it told also the persecution of Puritan bore. “, the persecution toward the Puritans were, and it implied the emigration to colonies in USA, but the ridiculous affirmation is the. “Scant books have the colons…”, we can remember to Botta that he some lines after has said that in colonies the books were very much. The reflex of the revolutionary wit of Botta, is in the following words: “Those(the Puritans) persecuted in ancient country for their believe for the think around the Church or State and they have decided through a decided deliberation wanted quit it, beyond the immense sea and escaping to more remote and savage regions, so that they could freely show it.”, it is the reflex of French revolution, that in idea was a laic, as in fact was, and where the liberty was very odd in confront to monarchies country; it is hence alone an enthusiastic transfer from the French revolution to colonies.     

Alessandro Lusana    

  

 

 

Prompter

Richard was a writer with usual crisis, and he worked in a magazine very popular and without pride and nobility, a magazine for housewife that pass the day to read cuck up and after they told it to friends; he was very bored and disgusted from this life, and the moment better of day was when he ended his job and he could writer his history, very short tales, with different genres, adventure, love, philosophy, cultural, humanistic and other. From time he has usual crisis of creativity; he didn’t wrote something and was very boring; a Saturday, he was always earl raising, in front of his computer he decided to write, and he concentrated on the white sheet, he thought a tale, and begun to write, but after some line he deleted all and begun again; after some tentative an idea, a history of a teen, Alice, and he thought what tale he could tell; he seen the sheet that alone composed of lines, and he read these lines, that said: “Alice was a teen that attended an private exclusive school, and she dreamed to make the writer; she loved the past writers from ancient Greek to contemporary, she loved read and in hers school she was considered very intellectual, she has written from young age of 10 years old, and now she was 18 years old; some time she read again the first tale and she laughed about the poor histories that she has written, very dingy, but she has, then, alone 10 years old, hence it was justifiable. This history Richard read and read again, and after: “I am Alice, and I am suggest to you a tale, now you must follow”. Richard tried to write something but he was blocked and felt an absence of logic and of a history; suddenly the phone sounded and Richard took the receiver, was the editor that wanted know the level of the next tale because he has wanted publish his tales, Richard told to editor, George, that he was working very well and very much; while he spoke to editor on sheet continued the tale, and same Richard read what that Alice was writing, and in fact the editor asked: “What do you are writing now?”, and Richard: “I am writing the history of Alice”, and George: “Very good, who is Alice?”, and Richard seen that on the sheet shown a face of a teen, and she said to Richard: “Alice is a teen, as I have said to you, above told it, and he wanted become a writer…”, and Richard: “Yes, now I remember…”, and George: “What do you are remembering?”, and Richard: “I remember what Alice is saying to me”, and George: “Are you sound?”, and Richard: “Yes, perfectly, because Alice is saying me the idea”, and George: “Who is Alice?”, and Richard: “The teen of tale, she is writing the tale”, and George: “Where is Alice now?”, and Richard: “In computer”, and Richard: “Just moment I will call the police, don’t worry in jail you con write, just a moment”; and George broken the call phone; while Alice continued to write, and Richard read it. Then minutes after and the doorbell sounded and two policemen gone in apartment of Richard they arrested him and Bernard one of police men begun read the tale, he seated and Lionel other policeman called him, but Bernard was seated and continued the read, hence Lionel approached to him and he also begun the read, while Richard was waiting; other policemen gone in apartment and everybody read the tale of Alice, and to the morning, in 2 a.m., a district of police arrived to apartment of Richard, and also they read; finally beyond 150 policemen were guest of jail, and George, the editor, published these tales with name of author, this is Alice.

Alessandro Lusana       

 

           

 

 Portrait of a city: moral relativism

Jay McInerney(1955) in the Bright lights, big city is a portrait of a city, in this case New York, but the author a particular attention to daily behavior; after a night in a night club the protagonist, involuntary met a woman with curlers and a dog, that when sees the protagonist he become vigilant; the comment is: “It is normal for a dog!” and answer: “Certainly, but the description so accurate, and punctual that hasn’t importance in history, is a moment of mere realism”, as the scent from a bakery; as the description of emotion that every couple has felt during the first rapport, alone and already married; it is alone the prime experience that every couple makes, this is living together almost an experiment to tried new experiences and above all, consider if the matrimonial life is going to be nice, and the protagonist looked the windows of fourth floor, and the description translates what we can feel in similar episode: “Behind those windows is the apartment that you have shared with Amanda, when you was arrived in New York. It was small and dark but to you liked the ceiling…”, voluntary or no the author describes the emotions that in conformity Marcel Proust’s(1871-1922) code, that in his romances, La recherché, he described the emotions and images that are tied to some moment, and that we keep in our memory, and that reemerge when we have a experience as a scent, an image, a scene, a taste; it is the realism, mere realism, and other images: “You have had money to rent, your preferred restaurant…every morning you have waked with the scent of bakery. You gone out to buy the journal…it is occurred two years ago before that you have married”; I think that the author has took personal memories, that confirms what I have said, because the life that, after years, become mechanical, is so, the behavior of protagonist is portrait every man in the word, hence more than a portrait of a city it is the portrait of word. Other characteristic that if think, I have very much despise, is the use of sniff that the author describes and with very much particulars; it is the moral relativism of title; because the use or dependence of drug is mean of weakness, that during this romance is evident above all in meeting in night club or other places; but also it is life of a city. As is a involuntary meeting or overbearing manner of a crazy that has seat on knee of a lady, and around is indifference, the author describes the reaction: “Almost every passengers are looking the scene but they feign of don’t see”, it is behavior of whom will not problems. The attention of protagonist is took from a announce of a disappeared with description and painting, while the green of traffic light appears. It is more than a romance is a size of labor day. The following tale is a experimented realism but in job, and the author concentrated the attention of emotive dynamic, hence from external realism he took the internal truth; but it is always realism.

Alessandro Lusana 

 Medieval lesson

Michael awaked a Sunday and he was early raising, he opened the door and he was in a city that he didn’t know, where the people was very strange because they spoke a strange language and somebody indicated to him a build and he gone to it, he gone in and seated on the chair, and he heard the lesson, in fact the professor was in desk and he spoken about some difficulties of medieval documents: “The documents begun always to invocation to God, In nomine Dei(in name of God), after the date of document, this is the year, day and indiction”, and Carl, a student: “What is the indicion?”, and the professor: “The indiction is period of 15 years, that the notary used to date every documents, and after 15 years it started again”, and George, other student: “What is In presentia infrascriptuorum testium?”; and the professor: “When the plaintiff were present in front notary, their names have to write, with name of father”, and same George: “Why name of father, it is enough the last name”, and the professor: “During the Middle age isn’t the last name, alone the patronymic”, and Albert other student: “When were used the last names”, and the professor: “When after the reform of Luther, the Church wanted the registers of birth and death, that was called Status animarum”, and after: “The state or number of souls”, and other student: “Why they used alone the Latin language?” and the professor: “Because these documents were alone to notaries, as today if somebody has a document from a tribunal, he bring it to a lawyer, because the lawyer knows what is, and we must consider that then the illiteracy was a the principal character”, and Gerald, a student: “They have to not gone to school?”, and the professor: “The schools were alone to richness families, and the monks and priest made lessons to childes so that they learned the letters, but the poor families, have destined their sons to other jobs”, and a student girl Germaine: “Who taught to write beyond the priests?”, and the professor: “The convents where the childes were educated to Latin language, to theology and philosophy”, and same Germaine: “Why they have shown the vocation?”, and the professor: “No absolutely, the families were composed among much sons, hence it have to send somebody in convent, also to have the protection of God”, and Edward: “Why much sons if they were poor?”, and the professor: “because were necessary the hands to farmer job”, suddenly the bell sounded and it is meant the lesson was ended. The following lesson was to ancient Roman history, and suddenly the light turn off and after some moment it turn on, and the students were in senate of ancient Rome, in 64^th years b.Ch., and they seen a man that wore a chiton and he begun his oration through these words: “Quo usque tandem abutere, Catlina patient nostra…”; and Laura asked to a student near to her: “Where are we?”, and Andrew, the student, answered: “We are in Roman senate in year 64^th b. Ch., and that man is Cicero”. Laura hence to be silent and heard.

Alessandro Lusana          

 

 

A marriage

George and Annie were married from 12 years and as the couple, they every evening he read the journal and she was usually in front the television, by now were ended the arguments, the politic, the sport, that didn’t interested twice, some discussion again about the some comment about the discourse of one politic or major of a city, he was an architect and she a secretary, without sons, but Annie loved read and sometime, it was a need of communication to hers husband or alone the need of communicate to somebody hers feel or emotions; anyway they were a common couple, that has owner interest, Annie told the episodes amusing occurred in office or some gossip, as the director of office that was failed in love for a lawyer, young and very beauty and also very clever, but she have already a crowd of lovers to back, and she was interesting alone the law and win the lawsuits and neither, hers name was Isabell and she was very aseptic, somebody has never seen laughs her, she was high, tiny and very precise, and thank to hers beautiful she became reliable of lawsuit, also because she had two specializations for penal and civil right, and seems that nobody has fucked her, never, she has married to the law; during a daily hour of job, Isabell called Annie and she, very soon, got up and took the dossiers run very swift to Isabell, that was speaking to telephone when Annie knocked to door; Isabell enabled to access, and Annie waited that she has ended the call phone, Annie opened the file and Isabell read and she gazed a step: “One years alone?”, and Annie: “The director has said…”, but Isabell interrupted and commented: “No, absolutely here is necessary the capital pain”, and Annie toward the author: “You have merited it, and I am not sorry, actually I am very happy”, and the author: “Why?”, and Isabell: “Because is half page that you are telling about very much cock up, about the marriage of Annie and George, their jobs, their daily life, about my very well ass, but when we are going to say something? Shit!”, and the author: “A moment, I must describe…”, and Annie: “Fuck you!, I am here in job as secretary, and neither exist, Isabell isn’t because you have invented alone, George my husband is a coach of soccer and no certainly an architect, I hate the read, the last book that has read was…Isabell, what is the last book that I have read?”, and the author: “May…”, and Isabell: “Shut, talkative”, if you say other word we are going to go away, and stop, you are a pain in the neck, and stop!”, and the author: “Ja full!”, and while they are speaking, the author: “Can I bring to you…”, and Annie: “Fuck you, shut and must be shut”. Hence the author gone away.

Alessandro Lusana            

 

Artist in the history: Konrad Fiedler

During the past century it was usual consider the artist as a kind of human that lived in the his word, where he imagined and created, independently from other causes form himself; nothing was more false of this concept and idea, because the artist was in the history, in the town, in the word and he was attentive to gain an job, costumers and other; hence the artist was the human that was present in the history; its natural, following the comments, but a historical art man as Roberto Longhi(1890-1970), at last in Italy, was the idealist exponent, although didn’t declared, of this address, that has took directly from Hegelian philosophy, and the in literature, was exponent otherwise idealist Benedetto Croce(1866-1952). But we can consider that sometime also a historical art man as Konrad Fiedler(1841-1895), that was born and grown up in the moment influenced from Hegel(1770-1831), and his idealism he, in the principal book Uber den ursprung der kunstlerisschen tatigkeit, has ascertained that that the artist is in the history, and these words are the proof: “These stressed the rapport of man to word that surrounded. Because if every explication about the nature of creation of art are unsatisfactory, the unique hope of find a new solution to this old problem, it is to go back to rapport of man to the external word…”; it is certainly isn’t a daily problem, but purely intellectual and directly reportable to the critic of art; but who has read the art history during years and has read sometime, no certainly always, the ideal consideration of artist, it is an ease and surprise, because it preview usually that the idealization of artist is usual as false consideration. This new address of interpretation of art history, in opinion of Fiedler: “It want above all a change from origin in the conception of man to external word…”; it is further ascertainment of the artist is a man. I must also consider that this concept is repeated constantly for the book, and from original it become boring, but we must also think that the originality of this idea, then, was very important and represented a novity, because contrasted the dominant Hegel’s Idealism; and we can also consider that this consideration of humanity and historic nature of artist, Fiedler has translated in more interpretation, because he took the element of feel, this is sensation: “The human gender is able of sensations and perceptions, and he took only effects that he transformers to goods of conscience.”, it is the preclara indication that the humanity of artist, fortunately, is present and the artist, as everybody, is subject to feel and emotion, that he takes also from the society, that Fiedler not mentions but when he talks of artist in the history, he implied the society, hence the human gender.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

In fabula

Robert was a writer of kind tales, and he was writing a tales and in the room, suddenly the dark failed; Robert among oaths, because it was occurred often, he got up from chair and gone toward the door, he opened it and he was in a fairy tale land; he very much amazing, turned around and he recognized something that he has told in his tales; he seen a dragon, an unicorn, a griffon, a phoenix and a siren, that he seen when he gone near to a river; Robert gazed hers and out loud said: “It is a siren, hence I am in a fable, as I written and I am writing, but it is very impossible, because dragon, phoenix,  and griffon don’t exist”, and the siren said: “We are here, therefore we exist, you think that we are alone mythology creatures, but we are in your mind, and whereby we are present here.”; and Robert more gazed the siren and after he looked the land, he seen a modest house, no very long, and he ran two steps and he was in that house, where an old lady looked him and said: “Finally you are arrived, because is very much time that I am waiting you, here we go again, also when you have to homework, usual you become unobtainable”, Robert gazed attentively the lady and. “And you was the usual pain in the neck, usual magister that you are always been, from the elementary schools”, and the old lady: “Because I have had some nephew that didn’t want make the homework, a guy, the name may was Robert, but you don’t know him”, and Robert: “No, I haven’t known, but may he was a saint boy, since he has bore you”, and the old lady: “Borne, I repeat borne, no bore, your clue is bore!”, and Robert: “Director, excuse me but bore or borne? It is same thing, or no?”, and the director: “It is borne but is same, anyway we can continue or no?”, and Robert toward the director: “Jack, just a moment because I need of bath”, and Jack: “Yes while we read again the cues”, and Robert exited from the bath and he seen the same land and siren and others animals, he was indifferent, he opened a door and seen the same siren, dragon, phoenix, and griffon, he searched some technic to ask something but nobody was, thereupon: “Somebody, please”, nobody answered, the land was desert and he seen the same house and he gone toward, opened the door and he seen the same old lady that repeated the same words, that has said in the scene, and Robert: “The cue was bore and no borne, I have it in my mind”, the old lady gazed him and he: “Helen we must begin again form the last cue”, and the lady gazed him attentively, and Robert: “Helen, are you among us?”, and the lady: “Who are you?”, and Robert. I am Robert, protagonist of this tale, and you are Helen the pain in the neck granny, do you remember?”, and the old lady, silently gazed him, Robert turned around and he seen alone the walls of house, but nobody technic, the director and walk on part and other; he begun to worry himself because the choreography was changed, and he turned continuously around, and he ascertained that all was changed, and out laud: ”Where the fuck I am now?”, and he gazed the old lady, and given the same question, and the lady: “On the set, and you today and you today were fourteen years, and you have had a big dread”, Robert after some moments: “Can I say fuck you?”, and Helen: “Certainly, but we are going follow you, because you are the protagonist”.

Alessandro Lusana          

         

 

The price of democracy

We are accustom think the democracy as an perfect system, but we consider it in the west countries, because other countries in the word think the democracy a failed of civility, it is the relative moralism, this is the customs that in a country are dominant, that is daily following of history of that country; it is as the our customs we have got custom that the democracy is free, and in fact nobody asks to us some money necessary to live in democracy, hence the price isn’t. It is present every day, how? It is the principal question, and the price of democracy is the lack of freedom of make the actions that one tribunal could judge illegal; the price are the laws, necessary certainly, but it is a price, the prohibition of every actions, legal or illegal, a price likewise necessary, because a state is a nation and no a brothel, hence the laws are necessary, but beyond the necessity the laws are also a price; when we says and judge ourselves as free, we are erring because the freedom is that whose the law recognize the legitimacy, hence the freedom of speak, think expression, write(otherwise I could be in jail or capital pain), and opinion, that is the think expressed, otherwise it is alone a mute opinion; but the law condemns the robbery, the homicide and other crimes, that are called so because it violets the proprieties of other; it is the price, the forgotten of to make everything; therefore the price is the freedom, the freedom of choose illegal actions, this liberty isn’t, and the cost is so, why? In common opinion it is necessary to civil living together, and it is normal for us, after I will consider origin of this think, because we have got custom to respect of rules, and never we think that these rules are limitations, limitations of our freedom, because we don’t think that the freedom is absence of rules, that are everywhere because necessary, but in unison it are also the limitations; in fact we can make everything when we are in owner house, alone and because in that place we are owner of ourselves and to decide every actions, because nobody can impede it, why? Simple because it isn’t, thereupon it can’t impede to us make something, we are alone, and we can make all. The second motive of this assay, why we are accustomed to respect of law? Simple because we are accustomed  once the childhood to respect of  some rule, the polite comportment during the dinner, to don’t say something that is impolite, to respect of guests, that are daily rules of every family, hence once the children’s age we have took the accustom of respect something, persons or things; this exercise is going to follow our life, thank it we think instinctively that the crime is wrong, because our freedom has already been limited once the childhood, through the politeness; whereby we pay the price of democracy for whole our life.

Alessandro Lusana             

 

 

 First motive in life and second in history

The study of history can be very boring of charming, it is alone from the student and from the will that we have to know that is occurred; it is simply obvious; hence the fuck you are allowed; but I want stress that very much arguments, in official history, are very marginal, and never considered, but some monography, of Raymond de Roover(1904-1972), The Medici bank. Its organization, management, operation, and decline is a very discover because tells a argument that is fundamental always, but that isn’t considered, in this case the money. Some example can to understand what is the writer what want explains: “In Florence, in the fifteenth century, there were three or four different credit institutions called bank in Italian…The first were pawnshop, operating under a public license which permitted the pawnbrokers to make secured by pledge of personal property at a legal rate of four pence per pound a month or 20 per cent a year…”; certainly this is alone a historical information that hasn’t importance for history; instead has its importance, because we can understand, or better, hypothesize what was the spending of lords for a war, and where these lords took the money; that are argument very practical and daily, that aid to understand that the times and morality a customs are changed, but the needs are identical, the municipalities, at last in Italy, can reach loans from banks for public needs, streets, schools and other; it is the reproof of continuity of history and its necessities; because fortunately today war are extern to our countries but, at last in Italy a weekend could be not without a war, who given the money? Who given the finance necessary to arms and other? We can hypothesize that this cash come from these banks, these pawnshop; therefore the entrepreneurial wit was present also in old times, and it is normal, but we can alone think, but through these information we can understand that the history is continuous repeat itself, certainly though better tools, more easy, but always equal, this is the same ways that are better but equal in its nature; thereby Hegel(1770-1831) was right, when he has said in Philosophy of universal history that: “The present is the improved past”; it is the truth; because the tools are improved certainly, but the ways are always same; we can know that in Florence were also the retails banks, that may say very scant to whom isn’t Italian, but the retails banks were the rescue for family during 20^th century, I can witness it; in fact the bank with name Monte di Pietà, the Mount of pity was a bank that I have seen thousand, at last to name, and the name is always seems very strange, but now I can know that this Mount was present in 15^th century, hence it is an institution that has financed lords, imperators, popes and kings; today could finance a robber, because could to make easier the robbery. Anyway these arguments are alone synthetic but it are essential for understand the history from the low states, that are the true determination of history.

Alessandro Lusana        

 

Mixed genres

Dora was a professional writer that often was engaged form cinema productions, directors of theater for comedies or other, but she written also to television, some soap opera and other. A task to a movie, a very boring history of love, that by now was past and ended before that the production begin, in fact much experts has tried to dissuade the director and the producer, from project, but twice known the genius of Dora, and the director has had worked and he has strongly recommended her to the producer. Alfred, the director, called on phone Dora and asked an idea for a movie; Dora was very enthusiastic for this task, but when she begun to write, she recognized that ideas was very scant, but Alfred has insisted and she, that known perfectly Alfred, and his persecution, because for other movie he has called Dora every day for two weeks, hence was opportune that Dora begun immediately; in fact she written some ideas, and after an hours, during she has researched in hers brain something, she though that nothing idea and therefore Alfred have to call other; anyway before this phone call she gone to kitchen and she drunk a cup of the, hers preferred beverage, while she was preparing the discourse for Alfred, and proved the dialogue; when she has ended tea, she seated to table, and looked, very swiftly, the sheets that were on the writing desk, and she seen that on the sheets were written some history, very short, but that she hasn’t written; thereupon she begun the read of these texts, and hers nature of writer allowed to hers to recognize steps and episodes that she has written in past years for other movies and theater. She read it and recognized that among different histories wasn’t tie. She cancelled soon the first page and tore up the sheets, after it she looked again the sheets and she was very impressed, because on sheets was the same text, she read again, and it was the same; she was in fair and soon phone called Alfred, and the answering machine said: “You have read that text but, usually you read some lines and after you leave it, now instead you must read and stop. This message is from Alfred”; she, more amazing than before, begun the read of these text, and contrary to hers think, she was involved, and continued the read, and she followed an history of love, type Juliet and Romeo, and after half page, in history entered the knight for the Crusade; that was very annoyed some time before now was normal; the sudden change of argument, from Verona in Italy to Jerusalem in Palestine was a considerable change, and the tales of Crusade was very involving, fights and knights, Muslims and Christian and Jewels; and after the poetic moment because Homer singed his Iliad and he told about the isle of sirens and Polyphemus and other; after a description of an art historical man, that explained a painting and a sculpture; after a history of mystery, thereby a pendulum and the protagonist in a dark room, as Poe. She continued the read as for as the night, and after three husband pages, she seen out and recognized that was very later; but involved from excitation called phone immediately Alfred, that wasn’t in home, and doorbell sounded and she gone immediately to open the door; and she had in front of Alfred, that gazed the writing desk and after her, and after again the writing desk and he gone toward it and asked: “Do you have ended? Because I must be harry…”, and Dora gazed him and asked: “Whom do you are speaking?”, and Alfred: “To your sister Magdalene”, and Dora: “Magdalene is died 12 years ago, and now isn’t here”, and Alfred: “Excuse her, dear Lena, but she is out of word”, Dora approached to him and she seen hers sister Lena, that asked: “Do you think that name Juliet is fit for a whore?”, and Dora, gazing the image of Lena: “But you are died”, and Lena: “This name is fit or no?”, Dora was gazing and Lena, while got up, said to Dora: “Mom offers the tea”, and Dora turned toward Lea: “I go at once”, and they gone to door; Alfred gone to door and closed it at once opened and toward the reader: “For to know if this movie has had success or no, you must see the movie after that somebody has directed it. Thank you”.

Alessandro Lusana

 

 

 

 

 

Involuntary fame: Adam Smith

Everybody follow of Adam Smith(1723-1790), during the read of his An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, where he tells about the obvious economic dynamics, that are daily for every families and person, that lives on the word, in fact the read is very boring, but the same Smith, I think, would have said that his fame as founder of liberalist think is absolutely false; he certainly would have said it in conformity both of his intellectual honesty and because his book is last result of opinion that the British country had from two centuries before of Smith, hence the fame of founder of liberalist or liberal think, in economic sense is liberalist or laissez faire, is absolutely involuntary. Today for copies sold of his book and gain he certainly would attribute to herself this merit; but, sometime occurs, he is died. Anyway his fame is both involuntary because he has took from other, as one is Sir William Petty(1623-1687), that in years 1662, written A treatise of taxes and contributions, he describes the same obviousness, but the motive that we can’t apart is that economy is real matter, daily matter and therefore can tie alone to daily and to obviousness; whereby also the petty has told alone the obviousness, and if somebody after the this treatise want shoot him, we inform that he is already died. Some step of this treatise can gives to us a taste of this obviousness:     He Publick Charges of a State, are, that of its defence by land and Sea, of its peace at home and abroad, as also of its honourable vindication from the injuries of other States; all which we may. call the charge of the militia , which commonly is in ordinary as great -as any other branch of the whole ; but extraordinary,(that is, 1n time of War, or fear of War) is much the greatest. another branch of the public charge is, the Maintenance of the governors, chief and subordinate; I mean, such not only as spend their whole time in the Execution of their respective Offices, but also who spent much in sickness themselves as well with abilities to that' is end…”, these is the obviousness, and other obviousness is from Smith: “The job made during an year is found from where every nation takes everything that are necessary and comfort for the life that during a year it consumes and that are from the immediately job or that changed to other nations can be reached. It is the first lines of An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations; this is the obviousness, and these two treatises are written for distance of 114 years one form other, and it is simple the tale of economic dynamic, hence the economy is obvious and very easy, because everyday we must consider it, and independently from social class everyman considers it; but the sake of this essay is one, I want demonstrate that the this economic dynamic already was present, and when Smith written its treatise the England was already a nation that, from half of 17^th century, was busied in free commerce; in fact a step of Michel Beaud(The birth of capitalism, p.43) is explicative for this wit: “The England is busy, from begin of 17^th century, in colonial expansion. The Oriental Indians Company is created in year 1600 through the direct aid of queen Elisabeth: fifteen years after it has twenty filial in India, in the isles of extreme orient…”; it is the liberal trade that the liberalism the England is from 17^th century; thereupon Smith told that is evident from 176 years, whereby he is the late of almost 2 centuries, compliment dear Smith; but he would say: “I have written a treatise about economy, if after some idiot had though that I have written the Holy Bible of liberal economy, I haven’t guilt”.

Alessandro Lusana