Before Abraham was, I Am
John 8:5
The War Around Metaphysics
For centuries and millennia, we have heard the most diverse and contradictory positions on metaphysics. Some argue that it is a jumble of abstractions, others that it is illusory knowledge, some say it is a primitive and naive mental form now surpassed by science and criticism, others that it is hostile to faith, some claim it is a form of dogmatism, presumption, and imposition of one's ideas on others, while others say it is a convoluted and tasteless discourse. Some boast certainties that don't exist, some claim it doesn't give us reality but rather the ideas of the metaphysician, others say it is not a science but an imaginary creation, some argue it is useless and a waste of time, others claim it has exaggerated claims, lacks a scientific method, lacks certain foundations, and doesn't yield definite results. Some simply claim it's a meaningless discourse; others say they're not convinced of its principles and conclusions, hence they never use the term or, if they do, it's to show contempt for metaphysics.
We can essentially notice four alignments. The first alignment consists of those who understand what metaphysics is and practice it correctly. These are the followers of Aristotle. Some of them, however, Catholic thinkers, in contact with Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church, by assuming from the revealed or faith data some metaphysical truths unknown to Aristotle, have corrected and perfected thought on certain points, initiating progress in metaphysical knowledge, which has since continued to advance on its unassailable foundations to this day.
The second alignment consists of the scoffers and despisers of metaphysics, carnal men or false spiritualists, as Saint Paul would say, who do not understand the things of the spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:14-15), such as Hobbes, Hume, Comte, Marx, Spencer, Carnap, Schlick, Neurath, and Bertrand Russell.
Is Luther, with his hatred for Aristotle and Saint Thomas, for the metaphysical notions employed in Catholic dogma, truly the "spiritual man" of whom Saint Paul speaks? Can one be devoted to the Holy Spirit without appreciating metaphysics, which is the science of the spirit? However, this spirit is not the one spoken of by Hegel and Gentile, about which there may be doubts, from some signs, that it is the Holy Spirit or perhaps some other wholly holy spirit.
The third alignment is that of the supporters of metaphysics, who, however, have a completely subjective idea of it, each different from the other, so the question arises: why do they call something metaphysics that has nothing to do with metaphysics? The reason is that they intend to address fundamental problems or questions that have to do with metaphysics, such as what is the beginning or principle of knowledge or certainty, what is the nature of truth, what does it mean to think, what is the meaning of being, or the origin of things, the foundation of reality or science. Here we find, for example, thinkers like the English analytical philosophers, Bergson, or Jaspers.
The fourth alignment is characterized by what Pope Francis calls "Gnosticism," which is the claim to possess supreme rational knowledge, superior to metaphysics and, at the same time, more radical than metaphysics. It is considered superior even to Catholic dogma. Unlike the previous two alignments that reject or distort the nature of metaphysics, this alignment does not reject it but considers it only as a "naive," "vulgar," "pre-philosophical," "derived," "popular," "mythological," "psychological," "inadequate," "religious" stage of the self, spirit, consciousness, and thought—a natural level but in need of being founded and surpassed by the absolute science which is philosophy.
Freemasons undoubtedly speak of "Gnosis." So does Schelling. For Proclus, it is theurgy. For Marsilio Ficino, it is hermeticism. For the Rosicrucians, it is mathesis universalis (universal mathematics). For Giordano Bruno, it is magic. For René Guénon, it is the "tradition." For Helena Blavatsky, it is theosophy. For Solovyov, it is sophiology. For Kant, it is transcendental philosophy. For Hegel, it is logic. For Bergson, it is creative intuition. For Husserl, it is phenomenology. For Rudolf Steiner, it is anthroposophy. For the modernists, it is an unconscious feeling. For Heidegger, it is ontology. For Severino, it is the truth of being. For Bontadini, it is Parmenidean metaphysics. According to Rahner, it is a transcendental experience.
Another unfortunate fact that contributes to misunderstandings, controversies, misconceptions, and repulsions towards metaphysics is the improper use of the term by some incompetent philosophers in metaphysics, to designate their debatable philosophy without it truly corresponding to what metaphysics is, as founded by Aristotle and progressed by the school of St. Thomas.
Just because they intend to address some fundamental questions either of the philosopher or the common people, which vaguely may contribute to the constitution of the subject matter of metaphysics, those philosophers believe themselves authorized to designate their views or opinions as metaphysics without these necessarily corresponding to what is truly metaphysical, as if they do, they deceptively advertise metaphysics, attracting discredit to it, making it repulsive or uninteresting to speculative minds. If the true metaphysics were presented to them, they would have no difficulty accepting it.
Thus, some expect from metaphysics an absolute science, a super-metaphysics, a gnosis that claims to equal divine science, even surpassing the dogmas of Christianity, as seen in Hegel, Heidegger, or Severino. Others, thirsty for truth and knowledge, and attentive to reality, are disappointed and do not feel helped by a metaphysics that discourages the intellect in the face of an unintelligible or ungraspable reality, such as the metaphysics of Bergson or Jaspers.
Others, faced with the metaphysics of St. Bonaventure, the Blessed Duns Scotus, Suarez, Wolff, or the Blessed Rosmini, are indeed attracted by the ideal and universal aspect of being, certainly arriving at divine being, but they struggle to understand the act of being beyond essence, being by essence, subsistent being, which is the proper Name of God [1].
We will see at the end of this article the wrong use that certain philosophers make of the term to designate with this ancient and venerable title their theses, which have very little to do with metaphysics when they do not even present an erroneous image of it.
The Catholic Church also enters into the question of metaphysics, which in numerous pontifical documents, especially from the 19th century onwards [2], uses the term metaphysics and speaks of metaphysics in a highly positive and appreciative sense, defining its nature and purposes with reference mainly to the use of the term made by St. Thomas and to the Thomistic concept of metaphysics that Thomas deduces from Aristotle, praising it highly, condemning errors against metaphysics, proclaiming Saints and Doctors of the Church great metaphysicians, showing its office of preparing and introducing to the faith, of giving it a rational justification, affirming that Revelation purifies and enriches metaphysics, promoting and stimulating its progress, recommending it, especially for the formation of the clergy, making it the subject of teaching in its educational and academic institutions.
In Catholic metaphysics, St. Thomas excels, but the Church also invites us to appreciate other Doctors, some of whom are saints, such as St. Bonaventure or Duns Scotus, even if their notion of being does not have the perfection of the Thomistic being.
Suarez's metaphysics is welcomed by the Church but is not without risks that can give space to existentialism or idealism. The "theosophy" of the Blessed Antonio Rosmini presents a concept of being that has been rejected by the Church if understood as the divine being the immediate object of intellectual intuition. On the occasion of the beatification of Rosmini, however, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that the words of the Rosminian text, which at the time were censured because they sounded like idealism, do not reflect Rosmini's authentic intention, which admits epistemological realism, which is necessary for the true foundation of metaphysics and for the profession of the Catholic faith in the transcendent God, the creator of heaven and earth.
In the history of human thought, as Christ says, there are essentially two alignments, of a different kind and even more radical than those just examined. Here we are on the ground of choice: for God or against God. These are what the Bible calls "the children of this world" and "the children of light" (Luke 16:8).
Even St. Paul distinguishes between men who are "darkness" and the "children of light" (Ephesians 5:8); he distinguishes the "children of light" and "children of the day" from those who "are of the night and darkness" (1 Thessalonians 5:5). Nevertheless, there are defects in the children of light and positive sides in the children of darkness. There is also a ranking: the former are more or less luminous; the latter are more or less obscure.
Moreover, it is not uncommon for some to change sides: from light to darkness or from darkness to light. In others, it is not understood which choice they have made: whether for light or darkness. We may wonder which side we are on.
The situation, in short, is complex, not to say complicated; we must be cautious in our judgments because it is easy to be mistaken. One can mistake an impostor for a prophet and vice versa. Yet distinguishing is very important, to choose the true teachers and not to be deceived in matters that concern our eternal destiny and the meaning of our life.
The Attitude of Saint Paul Towards Philosophy
Saint Paul warns and exhorts us to be vigilant and judicious when he cautions us not against philosophy itself but against false philosophy with its "empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ" (Colossians 2:8). Philosophy, in fact, means nothing other than love for wisdom, and if there is anyone who loves wisdom, it is Saint Paul himself.
Paul indeed raises the question of what true wisdom is, thus what true philosophy is, true metaphysics, affirming that "in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Colossians 2:3). He speaks of the "folly of preaching" (1 Corinthians 1:22) not to apologize for foolishness but referring to the fact that pagans, whom he calls the "Greeks" (v.22), consider the wisdom of Christ to be folly, which is, in fact, true wisdom.
This wisdom, therefore, is not true foolishness but foolishness in the eyes of pagans, meaning "the clever of this age, to whom the wisdom of God seems foolish" (v.20). Thus, the true fool is the pagan who believes himself wise and judges the Christian to be foolish. And when Paul quotes Isaiah speaking of a God who "destroys the wisdom of the wise" (v.19), he certainly does not refer to a God who promotes foolishness but evidently to a God who destroys false wisdom.
Likewise, when Paul opposes the "Greeks who seek wisdom" (v.22), opposing them with "Christ crucified" (v.23), he does not intend to condemn the pursuit of wisdom in itself, which is highly recommended by Sacred Scripture, but condemns their wrong, presumptuous, and carnal way of seeking wisdom.
Paul introduces the concept of Christian wisdom, what he calls the "wisdom of the cross" (1 Corinthians 1:18), which appears foolish to pagans but is true wisdom, superior to the philosophical wisdom of natural reason, metaphysics, cultivated by the Greeks, but of which they are proud, thus despising the superior Christian wisdom. It is acquired by suffering for and with Christ.
Luther strongly emphasized this wisdom acquired in suffering, contrasting it with Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, namely philosophy, which, as we have seen, Saint Paul does not reject at all, but which he considers as a preparation for Christian faith and wisdom.
Paul is not against the Greeks as such, but only against those Greeks who, in their pride and foolishness, reject the wisdom of the cross as foolishness, which is instead "the wisdom of God" (v.24), though it appears foolish. For this reason, speaking of the "foolishness of God" (v.25) does not mean that God is truly foolish, which would be blasphemy, but that He appears foolish in the eyes of pagans who do not see in Christ the true wisdom.
On the other hand, by polemicizing with the Greeks, Paul does not intend to condemn Greek philosophy as a whole since he knows very well that it is still an expression of that natural reason and conscience that God gives to all men and which allows them to discover the natural moral law (cf. Romans 2:14) and the existence of God (cf. Romans 1:20).
On the contrary, Paul urges a critical examination of pagan philosophy to find in it what may be in line with the Gospel or help to come to believe in the Gospel, and he gives us an example of this method himself in his famous speech at the Areopagus in Athens in Acts 17. The same thing will be done by Catholic theologians and philosophers throughout the centuries, while among them emerges the genius of Saint Thomas, with his critical recovery of Aristotle. The same thing is ordered by the Second Vatican Council in a wise critical comparison with modern thought.
Heidegger with the theme of angst and Jaspers with that of "shipwreck" seems to echo the Pauline discourse and perhaps even the Lutheran "theologia crucis," already dialectically analyzed by Hegel [3], but they overlook the fact that Paul, with the logos tou staurù (word of the cross), does not mean purely rational wisdom but supernatural wisdom, divinely revealed, objects of Catholic faith expressed in Catholic dogmatics, things that the two philosophers are far from accepting.
The Origin of Conflicts in Metaphysics: Delving into Humanity's Deepest Interests
However, it is important to remember that seducers in the philosophical and metaphysical arena often have great success because, as skilled and cunning as they are, they leverage either base passions or the tendency towards pride and egocentrism, which exist in all of us, to varying degrees, as consequences of original sin. Thus, it sometimes happens that we find ourselves in the minority or even alone amidst the children of darkness, who appear wise and knowledgeable. In such moments, doubts may arise within us, leading us to question whether we might be mistaken. We must recall the words of Christ: "You will be hated by all because of my name" (Matthew 10:22).
Christian revelation provides us with reliable criteria for evaluation, judgment, discernment, and distinction. Nevertheless, it is difficult, sometimes impossible, although not entirely so, and sometimes useful and necessary, to distinguish between true and false prophets, to learn from the former, and avoid or refute the latter.
The problem is that false prophets are not easily recognizable because they come to us "in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Conversely, true prophets may irritate, annoy, scandalize, or seem too demanding or quarrelsome, respectively, thereby frustrating our base desires, mocking our craving for greatness, dispelling our prejudices, and shaking us from our lethargy and comfortable lives, urging us to fight against the world, whereas we prefer it as it is.
Now, the preferred battleground for this enduring, sometimes harsh conflict between the children of light and the children of darkness is understandably that which concerns our greatest interests, that which is dearest to our hearts, that for the sake of which we do everything else. It touches upon how we approach our lives and conduct, the question of truth, knowledge, certainty, the question of understanding what reality is and what its principle or foundation is, whether there is anything of absolute value, what the right scale of values is, what the principle, cause, and purpose of the universe are, the foundation, origin, and purpose of things, the world, and ourselves.
Indeed, this terrain, this field of infinite battles and the greatest intellectual, philosophical, and spiritual conflicts, is metaphysics. This terrain of the utmost certainties and the most serious errors is metaphysics. This field of radicalism where it is possible to either benefit or harm humanity is metaphysics. This field where the eternal destiny, whether good or bad, of man is decided is metaphysics. This field where one either encounters God or denies Him is metaphysics. This field where morality is either built or destroyed is metaphysics.
This is because its task and interest are to lay the foundation of thought and action; it is to understand the meaning of being and reality, to clarify the meaning of the absolute, the eternal, the infinite, becoming, and history, to provide a point of support for existence and life, to give meaning to both, to satisfy the deepest and most secret needs and the most radical and rigorous demands of ourselves and our reason.
Those who observe this conflict from the outside, claiming neutrality and super partes (impartiality), skeptical about the possibility of establishing the truth, note this conflict, perhaps exaggerating its terms. They fail to find shared values and come to believe that it is irresolvable, except for wanting to provide a definitive solution that no one before them had managed to find, finally discovering certainty, truth, and the principle of knowledge and being. This is the arrogant attitude of figures like Descartes, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, and Severino. And it is interesting to note how many followers, due to their cunning, they have managed to attract.
Of course, it would be impious presumption to claim to replace the divine eschatological judgment in separating the wise from the foolish by giving names and surnames, as we are not capable, except in rare cases, of knowing whether others act in good or bad faith.
However, this does not prevent us, when we have sufficient elements and the necessary competence, from giving a measured judgment, albeit with all modesty and prudence, but also with frankness. We cannot remain aloof, for that would be cowardice, false modesty, irresponsibility, negligence, duplicity, and opportunism, as we are obliged to follow and indicate the true masters. And if we cannot distinguish them from the false ones, how can we proceed?
Metaphysics suffers a painful fate that does not afflict other sciences less involved in the fundamental interests of human life, such as experimental and mathematical sciences, which have no disputes or challenges regarding their objective value, and about which everyone agrees because they are useful and meet the material needs of daily life. Conversely, metaphysics, like other sciences that involve human conduct, such as psychology, morality, and theology, has always been the target of attacks, misunderstandings, and falsifications by those who recoil from accepting the observance of the moral and religious duties that follow from it as their speculative foundation.
We might wonder why idealism and subjectivism thrive in the field of metaphysics and not in the sciences, where everyone is realistic and objective. It is because when it comes to material interests, we all agree. However, if the realm of the spirit and our will is touched upon, then all the most sublime pretexts appear to reject the submission of thought to being, knowing full well that God hides behind being, while we want to do our will and not His. Thus, we found the metaphysics of the self instead of the metaphysics of being.
And so, metaphysics ad usum delphini (for specific purposes) flourish, designed to replace natural law and God's will in ethics, founded on the thought of being, with metaphysics of my consciousness and my freedom, based on the thought of my being and myself.
It is also interesting to note that while Thomism developed and progressed consistently over the centuries thanks to fruitful collective work by Thomists, all speaking with one voice as befits the objectivity and universality of scientific knowledge, those thinkers who disdain St. Thomas and claim to present a supposedly better metaphysics then disagree with each other because it is not the objectivity of knowledge that guides them, but the creativity of their particular subjectivity. Later on, we will review some examples of thinkers who claim to teach what metaphysics is without having received sufficient schooling in it.
The Names and Essence of Metaphysics
The one who introduced the term metaphysics into medieval philosophy, explaining its meaning and clearly defining its concept, nature, method, and purpose, was Saint Thomas Aquinas. Together with Aristotle, he defined metaphysics as the science of being as being and of the properties of being.
The term "metaphysics" is not found in Scripture, but it corresponds to the word "wisdom" (Greek: sophia, Hebrew: hokmah). In fact, from the way the Bible speaks of wisdom [4] and the wise [5], it is clear that it refers to metaphysics.
Scripture certainly does not give us a formal definition of what metaphysics is, as Aristotle did, who founded and established it as a science. However, from the passages I have cited in the note, we have a clear, rich, and effective vision of its purposes, contents, method, usefulness, interests, functions, valuable performances, spiritual conditions for practicing it well, the benefits it brings to moral life, and its relationship with divine worship.
Wisdom, according to Scripture, is knowledge par excellence; it is metaphysics, having as its object the world, man, angels, and God, the Absolute Being, known starting from created beings, visible and invisible, material and spiritual, and as their creative cause.
Biblical epistemology shuns idealistic subjectivism and consequently idealistic metaphysics. It is instead realistic: our knowledge depends on the things created by God; they, not us, are the rule of truth. Knowing, including metaphysics, is an act of obedience and humility by which our mind conforms to and submits to objective data, reality, and God Himself.
Aristotle's metaphysics, as is known, found favor in the Islamic world, especially in the 10th to 13th centuries, for the same reason it was embraced by Thomas in the Catholic Church: the fact that the Quran also speaks of a unique, transcendent God, the creator of heaven and earth.
The Muslims did not arrive at the theology of ipsum Esse; however, with Avicenna, they presented God as the necessary being, implicitly signifying that He exists by essence. They call metaphysics in the Aristotelian manner "divine science," hikmat ilahyia [6].
In Brahmanism, metaphysics is indicated by the term "jata-vidya," which means "knowledge of what is germinating." The root vid of vidya is the one from which the Latin videre and the Greek eidon come, meaning "see," "know," and from which eidos, species, idea, and form derive.
Thomas addresses metaphysics in his commentary on Aristotle's metaphysics, calling what Aristotle had called "first philosophy" and "theology" "metaphysics," respectively because metaphysics is the universal science that thus lays the foundations of all particular sciences. Starting from physics, the science of material being, it goes beyond to elevate the mind to the knowledge of spiritual realities, at the apex of which is God.
The term metaphysica emerged around the 10th century, forming a single word from the Greek expression Metà ta physikà, "after physics," with which Andronicus of Rhodes, from the 1st century BC, cataloging Aristotle's works, wanted to designate those that were added to those of physics and logic [7]. It seems that he did not realize the preeminent importance of metaphysics, which Aristotle called "first philosophy," and considered it a kind of appendix.
Thomas Aquinas, however, when reading Aristotle's Metaphysics, realized that the Stagirite treated things more important and superior to those treated in physical works, whether they were cosmological, biological, anthropological, or moral, as well as logical or rhetorical since in that work Aristotle dealt with first causes, the first cause, and the first cognitive and ontological principles of all reality. Therefore, he interpreted Metà, which means "after," as a "beyond," trans, taking up Augustine's concept of transcendere (to transcend), whereby, in a Platonic sense, the mind, starting from sensible things, goes beyond them, surpasses them, rises to spiritual and divine ones.
Some propose to replace the name metaphysics with "ontology." Now the name ontology is certainly appropriate in itself because metaphysics is indeed the science of being. However, the two names must go together because metaphysics expresses the fact that with it, the intellect surpasses, transcends, goes beyond (trans, metà) visible things, and ascends or elevates to invisible ones, while in the term ontology, the unity of the object of metaphysics is well expressed.
Accompanying ontology and metaphysics is fine; replacing ontology with metaphysics is wrong. Why? Because those who want this substitution, the followers of Husserl and Heidegger, speak of a "surpassing" of metaphysics, based on an even more radical and truly foundational previous knowledge, which would set the conditions for metaphysics itself.
According to these thinkers, Aristotelian-Thomistic realistic metaphysics is not true science, not true thinking, not philosophy, but naive representation, not critically evaluated like that of Descartes and even more so that of Kant and subsequent German idealists, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel.
These philosophers look at Thomistic metaphysics with an air of superiority, as a form of thought now surpassed by the so-called "modern philosophy" of Descartes and his followers, a knowledge that, when not illusory, at least, far from being foundational, must itself be founded.
This is what the idealists provided thanks to Descartes' discovery of original knowledge, namely the sense or experience of being as self-awareness or consciousness correlate. This would be what Husserl calls "phenomenology" and Heidegger, "ontology." Now, this alleged knowledge, which Hegel will call "absolute science," does not exist at all because it claims to possess that knowledge that God Himself possesses as the foundation and idea of the world He creates from nothing.
In reality, Cartesianism and its idealist followers do nothing but confuse knowledge, consciousness, and self-awareness identified with being, something that only occurs in divine science, whereas in the human mind, those three acts of the spirit succeed in time genetically from the first to the third, besides the fact that for us, our thinking does not coincide at all with being, our rational is not the rational of reality, although they may agree. Being, on the other hand, is given to our thinking; it is external and presupposed to our thinking because we do not create being; God creates it along with our faculty to think it.
Husserl's and Heidegger's vision is the development of what Kant had already said when he spoke of the conditions of possibility of metaphysics in the Prolegomena to any future metaphysics that wishes to establish itself as a science. Essentially, here we have the idea that realistic metaphysics is not the first and foundational philosophy, the original knowledge, but also requires a truly first knowledge, which these philosophers take it upon themselves to establish.
Hegel performs the same operation: just as Kant relies on reason that knows itself as the beginning and foundation of philosophizing, a principle derived from Descartes, since the act of cogito is nothing but the act of reason, Hegel places logic, understood as Cartesian self-awareness, at the foundation of metaphysics, indeed for him "logical science constitutes true metaphysics."[8]
Hegel seems to have rediscovered metaphysics as the science of being, but in reality, he also refers to Descartes, whom he considers the "founder of modern philosophy."[9] Thus, for Hegel, speaking of being and the ego or the Cartesian sum is the same thing, since, as he states, [10]
"It is entirely the same to me that being, reality, the existence of the ego is immediately revealed to me in consciousness," while "the inseparability of the thought and being of the thinking subject is undoubtedly the first (unmediated, proven) and most certain knowledge."
At the beginning of the last century and in its middle, respectively Bergson and Jaspers, as we will see, returned to speak of metaphysics, but always in the line of Cartesian intuitionism, Bergson, and Cartesian existentialism, Jaspers.
End of Part One (1/6)
Fr. Giovanni Cavalcoli OP
Fontanellato, March 7, 2024
Source:
https://padrecavalcoli.blogspot.com/p/lavventura-della-metafisica-parte-prima.html
[1] Gilson studied the story of essentialist metaphysics in L'être et l'essence, published by Librairie philosophique Vrin, Paris 1981. This metaphysics, while remaining within realism by distinguishing thought from being, does not distinguish it sufficiently by neglecting or ignoring the act of being, thus giving space to idealism, which, focusing only on the essence internal to the intellect, abolishes the thing itself external to thought.
[2] The Church intervened in the metaphysical field in the 19th century with two important documents: the condemnation of ontologism in 1861 (Denz. 2841-2847) and the condemnation of the 40 Rosminian propositions in 1887 (Denz.2301-2341). See the detailed study by Alberto Lepidi, Examen philosophico-theologicum de ontologismo, Louvain 1974.
[3] See Emilio Brito, La christologie di Hegel, Verbum Crucis, published by Beauchesne Editeur, Paris 1983.
[4] References: Proverbs 8:1-36; Wisdom 7:22-30; Sirach 6:18-36.
[5] References: Sirach 14:1-27; 15:1-10; 24:1-21; 39:1-11.
[6] See Henry Corbin, Storia della filosofia islamica, published by Adelphi Edizioni, Milan 2000, p. 266.
[7] See Pier Paolo Ruffinengo, Ontonòesis. Introduzione alla metafisica, published by Editrice Marietti 1820, Genoa 2002, pp. 16-18.
[8] Reference to Hegel's Scienza della logica, published by Edizioni Laterza, Bari 1984, pp. 5-6.
[9] Reference to "Enciclopedia delle scienze filosofiche in compendio," published by Edizioni Laterza, Bari 1963, p. 72.
[10] Ibid., p. 83.