Siciolante and his masters

With plural substantive masters of title I want alone remark two models for two paintings of a Italian painter, Girolamo Siciolante(1521-1575), but alone one painter was master of Siciolante, who for his first painting, that isn’t that Vasari indicated, this is Virgin, Child and saints(Fig.1), now in castell Caetani in Sermoneta, and dated 1541, but a panting with Conception(Fig.2), now in cathedral of Sermoneta, that Siciolante almost copied from his master, Leonardo da Pistoia, master of Siciolante, this is Immaculate and saints Rock e Francis in the church of saint Francis and Mary in Potenza(Fig.3), Italy, certainly Siciolante could study this painting and he, for his first commission from Caetani family, for church of Immaculate, in Sermoneta, today saint Joseph, he took this model and followed it almost to copy; if we see well painting of Siciolante and that his master we can see that they are almost specular, substantial cloud, same hand with long fingers, face is almost equal, posture is same, and same cloth, heavy with fold. Between this painting and second work of Siciolante(Fig.1) difference is very remarked and evident; it is possible because Siciolante could see other master, now in Bologna, this is Francesco Rossi(1510-1563), called Salviati, and he could study his altarpiece in church of saint Christine della Fondazza((Fig.4). Siciolante, I think, could goes to Bologna as member of court of Cardinal Niccolò Caetani, that was member of court of Pope Paul 3th Farnese to Bologna during 1541, same year of altarpiece of Sermoneta; we can see very similarities: almost same posture for saint John Baptist(Fig.5) and a saint of altarpiece of Salviati(Fig.6), same fingers and same posture in contrary, face of Virgin is almost specular to face of Virgin of Salviati. Therefore  Siciolante could take these models and he could paint this altarpiece for Abbacy of Valvisciolo, for commission of Caetani family. Other peculiarity is on the date, this is it is only painting with date of Siciolante, 1541, but why it? Because at same year Cardinal Niccolò Caetani gone with his cousin Pope Paul 3th Farnese, and this was first official task in age of 15^th years, therefore is possible that Niccolò or family Caetani would remark this date, because very important for a Cardinal and during this very young age.

Alessandro Lusana   

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig,3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

 

 

Marivaux this is empty theatre

Pierre Carlet de Chamblain de Marivaux(1688-1763). Was a French writer both to romance and theatre, some his comedy is very empty; he born in aristocratic family, during ancient regime, and before that French revolution, he tells every behaviour of aristocracy, with all his devoid, he to comedy of The tied, performed at 1736, he writes dialogues that are very empty, full of formal words and posture; therefore he describes life of higher class, that unknown condition of middle class, and common people; the France of revolution not was certainly poor, in conformity with opinion of  Tocqueville, but needs alone political reforms for to give possibility to middle class, In fact French revolution was a long process begun by middle class; but we must consider that this think was unknown both Merivaux and aristocracy. Anyway this theatre is very useless, everything is worked with formal behaviour, and deep sense of comedy is lost among words and cutes very incoherent with principal occasion, the love is a formal confession lacking of feel, alone confessed because it is formal right behaviour; The play of love and case, performed at 1730, other comedy is also worse than first; in this comedy is evident the vacuity of aristocratic class; history or logic is lost, and from begin to and is a whole of useless words; but this performances, describe a costume and a time, that we must consider during his events, but we can also consider that today is not much different from then, formal behaviour, formal words and alone formal posture are also present; therefore the mangender is same during every time.

Alessandro Lusana

Dumas speculative of a life

Alexander Dumas (1802-1870), French writer was a prolific author that was specialist of historical romance, but he written also some theatrical comedy, as Kaen. This character was real actor, and his name was Edmond Kaen, born in London at 1787 and died in Richmond at 1833, he was a squanderer his richness, because he gained very much for his theatrical works, and he squandered as much. In this comedy of Dumas moderates role of Kaen, this is he moderates squander and other excesses of this actor, died very poor, naturally, for his vices. During read of this comedy alone sometime is manifest impetuosity of character of Kaen, sometime his egocentrism and formal politeness, in conformity with British costume, also during Kaen shows his love for Helen, a woman that Principe of Wales loves, he is always formally respectful but very determined, in conformity of character of actors; therefore Dumas tells about a theatrical life and a society, he documents the life of a man that we can consider, in conformity with Hegelian concept, universal spirit of human gender; therefore he is speculative, with Latin exception this is observer a life, that may he can’t see never, but he imagined, and after he translated to this comedy.  

Alessandro Lusana      

• 
  

              

Epicurus a Socratic man

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher, born in Samos around 342-341 before Christ, he attended school of Senocrates in Athens, and after he built his school in Athens around 307-306. Philosophical think of Epicurus has interpreted always as a search of pleasure and enjoyment, but it is not so, because with read of letter to Meneceus around happiness he shows a Socratic ground; we must consider that with Socrates an anthropological period of philosophy begun, and Epicurus on this letter he wrote: “The necessity is irresponsible, luckiness unsteady, but our will is free, and we can merit praise of reprimand”, I understand that this concept is very common today, but I want search origin of this concept that is in Socratic individualism, this is we can decide around all, in fact he wrote again: “The sage knows that is vain to believe that fate is owner of all, because everything happen to necessity or will of luckiness or to our will”, this last step is very important, because “our will”; then Epicurus levelled  human will to fate, therefore he consider man as similarly to fate, that now are two entities different and similarly important. Other question that attributed to Epicurus is atheism, this is certainly a lie from contemporary of Epicurus is from schools competition and after during Middle age is was enforced, but Epicurus as all Greek believed to gods, in this letter we read: “The gods exist, it’s evident…”, but Epicurus didn’t consider never the gods as common think, he wrote: “Then is unreligious who refuses people religion, but alone who refuses judges around gods of people”, then I can think gods in my opinion and not alone in conformity common think. About enjoyment Epicurus writes: “The simple tastes give same pleasure of more finest, and brad and water give same pleasure to whom lacks.” and then: “When we say  that pleasure is good, we won’t mean the simple enjoyment of pleasure-loving…but we mean that helps body don’t bear pain and soul to be serene”, then we can consider Epicurus over the common think, and we can think Epicurus a Socratic that seen man as promoting of his fate.

Alessandro Lusana

 

Dialecticts

A man was set on the chair at middle room, he turns around and looked some book on the table, he got up and red titles: Change, then he took this book and opened it, and he was very interested; a woman set on other chair in front of man, and she asked: “What do you are reading?”, and he without astonishment for this new presence, answered: “Do you know how much I was waiting you?” and woman: “No and I don’t give damn”, and man with a smile: “In conformity with rules  of politeness a man must wait woman! I made it”, a woman: “In fact I am here now, but what do you are reading?”, and man showed title on the spine and woman: “Well but lacks my name”, and man: “What’s your name?” and woman: “Dialectics”, and man: “What is inherence between you and change?”, and woman: “Change is possible with dialectics alone!”, and man: “Why?”, and woman: “Because the dialectics is fight and contrast and in conformity with opinion of Hegel, the war is between two principles, and fight and contrast are two essential motives for change!”, and man, much interested to this philosophical argument, asked: “Some examples, please”, and woman: “Two political revolutions, the first French and second American; with first in France has born democracy with people decides trough election day” and man: “Yes but was took power Napoleon he become like king, and…”, and woman: “Well, you said, like; therefore Napoleone not was king never, and in Italy he leaded democracy”, and man: “He conquered alone Italy, although he created republics, that formally were republics, but alone formally”, and woman: “Yes certainly, but this change was present, and popes and kings were dethroned”, and man: ”Yes but nobility class rested”, and woman: “Yes, because it was present centuries before Napoleon, and it changed very much during Napoleon time; in fact much nobilities men were with Napoleon, and this is change”, and man: “Yes, but they become Napoleonic for interest and no certainly because they convinced by Napoleon ideals”, and woman: “Certainly, but I want consider that change was, and this change was motive after in Europe for other changes”, and man: “The king in France turned with name of Louis 18^th, therefore where is this change?”, and woman: “Time after when Louis 19^th was king of France for twenty minutes, and he was son of Charles X last king, and he abdicated during revolution at 1830 in France, and after Henry 5^th, that not was king never”, and man: “Yes, but Louis Philipp I was king!”, and woman: “Yes but with other principles, in fact he was called by people as Philippe Equality, or Égalités fils; in fact he given constitution to France people that was approved by two chambers; in fact in conformity with opinion of Adolphe Thiers: “He reigns but doesn’t governs”; he was very much democratic because also Parliament could to decreed laws; therefore was present very much change, and these are possible alone for dialectics fight and revolution, therefore where is dialectics are changes, also radical changes”. And man: “Yes and in USA what were changes?”, and woman: “In USA very little, because revolution USA was independence war, and monarchies or king or political systems with centuries historical not were, therefore revolution was and very little change; we can certainly to say that dialectics was to changes by original model, this is from European monarchy, that in USA never was present, and therefore USA didn’t fight against somebody for take liberty, because rights were present always; but change was through difference from European political, then changes were, but dramatic less than France, because dialectics is also change without blood, but change is always present”.

Alessandro Lusana  

 

Marcus Aurelius the power of philosophical think

Marcus Aurelius imperator of 2th century after Christ was an example of importance to policy, policy both during Roman Empire and after also; because he adopted his philosophical think and he mentions in his principal book, Memories, all his experience about philosophical think and what he has learned; in fact he employed much philosopher at his time and he written about his culture, but moral culture, and we must consider that word moral, is from Latin mores, this is behaviour and costume, therefore he writes about Rusticus(100-170 a.Ch.) stoic philosopher and master of Marcus Aurelius, Apollonius of Tiana and other. He mentioned them and he remembers that from Rusticus: “Make to me concept that my morals need of correction  and culture, and I no must amuse to imitate Sophist philosophers and don’t write exhortative orations, so that I can excite stupor and success”, and after: “To leave rhetoric, poesy and elegant words as elegant cloth”, and: “During read don’t be satisfied with superficial read but consider with attention all matter”, and by Apollonius to go on with frankness and resolute constancy and don’t vacillate”; during his emperor role Marcus Aurelius worked to modify some moral conception, by now become normal; he thought that slavery was execrable and he given right to slaves and poor, he was a perfect policy man and he was very several to himself but very good with other, and his memories are testify of this think, that he thought and above all he applied to Roman Empire; therefore Marcus Aurelius was perfect coherent to his think, therefore he was almost Socratic, he applied his think to his life.

Alessandro Lusana              

 

Pragmatic Hegelianism

A man was reading a philosophical dictionary, and a woman approached to him and she asked: “What do you are reading?” and man answered “Dialectical life and how is possible translation of this concept in practical life, because to me it is very difficult”, and woman that while was set answered: “To be and nor to be to Hegel are in same spirit, because this encloses all, both positive and negative, therefore present and not present, all and contrary of all”, and man: “Yes, therefore?”, and woman: “In a man is all, because he has positive and negative, and he has ambitions and desire!” and man: “Yes, therefore?”, and woman: “If you want be very strong, while you are very weak, you have a negative condition, because you are very weak but you have desire to be very strong, therefore you have in yourself positive and negative, second is weak but first image of strong and desire to reach it, in yourself you have in same time positive and negative, contrast and effort to reach the strong is dialectical competition, contrast and will to become strong; but you have twice condition; we can think that natural matter, to exemple a piece of marble is alone symbolic art because it is absolutely natural matter, but we think that the work of sculptor is a dialectical effort that transforms matter to sculpture and art, this dialectical effort is during action and struggle between man and matter, matter has always natural matter but very bettered, because is art, therefore thesis, antithesis and synthesis are dialectical become of idea, natural idea but always idea. The effort is dialectical contrast between matter and ideal concept, therefore between that is now present, your ambition and your state, you are matter, natural matter, the ambition is the ideal that you want be”, woman got up and man asked: “What’s your name?”, and woman: “Sophia and last name Philo, goodbye”, and she gone away.

Alessandro Lusana