Thoughts and Perspectives on Carlo Michelstaedter

Home , Carlo Michelstaedter, Otto Weininger

Philosophy International Journal ISSN: 2641-9130 MEDWIN PUBLISHERS Committed to Create Value for Researchers

Saia G* Research Article Universidad Nacional de General San Martín (UNSAM), Argentina Volume 4 Issue 2 Received Date: April 30, 2021 *Corresponding author: Gabriel Saia, Universidad Nacional de General San Martín (UNSAM), Published Date: May 25, 2021 Alvear 1334, Villa Ballester, Argentina, Tel: +541130553260; Email: gabriel.saia92@gmail. DOI: 10.23880/phij-16000179 com

Abstract

Carlo Michelstaedter (Gorizia, 1887-1910) left a singular trail in the Italian philosophy of the early 20th century. Almost one

hundred and eleven years after his demise, his suicide, one can still discuss the influence of the Italian thinker, the vitality of Persuasion and Rhetoric of their topics and the depth of his thought. It is important to know, somehow, the figure that subsists behind the thinker . For this purpose, a tour of his philosophical work, letters, poetry and dialogues is not enough; it help us to shed light on the fascinating creation of the last nihilism doctor, the last great diagnosis of the deep lack of sense that carried the last part of the 19th century and inaugurated the first decade of the 20th century. Michelstaedter must be defended from merely suicidal readings. Like an elegy, perhaps even an ode, remembering the Italian philosopher in these times remains a fruitful, unfinished and extremely mysterious undertaking. Keywords: Persuasion; Rhetoric; Nihilism; Pessimism; Suicide; Michelstaedter

his youth should not create in us a prejudice, but rather a qui risquent de le gâcher et d’en faire une misère1 Il ne faut pas abandonner“Un plaisir le suicide aussi simple”, à des gens Michel malheureux Foucault By chance, Michelstaedter belonged to a generation of so- laughter, an astonishing curiosity and a crackling seriousness.

called “precocious suicides”, if we may mention this paradox, this oxymoron, made up of two other fleeting geniuses, Carlo Michelstaedter was born in Gorizia on 3 June such as Otto Weininger and George Trakl. The geographical 1887. Twenty-three years later, on October 17th, 1910, proximity also has to add an element for those who like to callhoused of a brieflytheory inthat his is nativeonly theory home, as he action. finds theThe horizonsearch for of make such a comparison, although the landscape described his Life, infinity stalks him and decides to respond to the traceby the a triestine chronological in its copious path, a correspondence sort of biography always based refers on “L’assoluto non l’ho mai conosciuto, ma lo conosco così us to beautiful and familiar places. What is left for us? To comethe Absolute chi soffre turns d’insonnia on itself, conosce it is tangible,il sonno, itcome is experience: chi guarda l’oscurità conosce la luce”2 (Michesltaedter, 1995, p. 55). But Carlo Michelstaedter’s relations? Do a deferred panegyric i.e.for a time that exceeds the century of duration? Treat two or three of his key concepts for the history of philosophy, , “rhetoric”, “persuasion”, “will”? Talk about his exemplary 1 We must not abandon suicide to unhappy people who risk ruining it and Death? None of these questions are necessary, but neither are making it a misery. Unless otherwise stated, the translation is mine. they inopportune in this situation to delve into the figure that 2 I did not know the absolute, but I do know it. I know it as one who suffers from insomnia and knows the dream, as one who, by looking into the darkness, knows the light. Thoughts and Perspectives on Carlo Michelstaedter Philos Int J 2 Philosophy International Journal

Michelstaedter offers us, beyond his Death, as if in a session Arangio-Ruiz6 doing academic philosophy some other posthumous. That is, we evocations can only7 recreate relationships of spiritualism —which is what we do in to the extent that we have vast epistolary references and — we were looking for a way back to extract what . However, and focusing Deleuze intended to expose —and I return to spiritualism— mainly on two crucial moments in his life, we can specify a with the “creation of concepts”, the first task of philosophy preciselittle more moment, the thick in a ofletter his addressedbonds. Michelstaedter’s to his friend Chiavacci friendly, itself. As if it were a game between virtuality and actuality, familiar and jovial writing begins to show its dark face at a concepts that are not easily exhausted, that have, in an ontological degree, an incessant exhaustiveness. Everything eon ora February dopo due 26th, settimane 1909, where non sappiamo we can read: niente “il miodi più. fratello È da we can do here and now will correspond, as Michelstaedter impazzire”di New York8 (Michelstaedter, è morto. —Morto 2010, per p.un 372). maledetto Bearing accidente, in mind domainreminds of us rhetoric: when reading the preface to his doctoral thesis, which is Ioboth lo soan che accusation parlo perché and a parlorequest ma of che principle, non persuad to the- erò nessuno; e questa è disonestà — ma la rettorica that the first letters we have from February 1909 are also anagkázhei me taûta drân bía — o in altre parole addressed to Chiavacci, we can imagine that the exchange <<è pur necessario che se uno ha addentato una per- with his friend corresponds both to the death of his brother 3 (Michelstaedter, 1995, p. 3). month:and to the “Per production quello spiraglio of his thesis, della rettoricahis posthumous ho contemplato work. So cosewe read tanto in a più letter interessanti sent by Carlo —amaramente at the beginning interessanti of that fateful che fida sorba la risputi>> ora mi secca maledettamente limitarmi a quella meschinità — ma: omnia in omni!!… et omnia nihil”9 (Michelstaedter, Even so, as he finally admits it under the tragic aspect: allewe cannotparole” 4evade (Michelstaedter, the poison 1995, that p. rhetoric 134), thus entails, begins which the language implies in its full expression. “Con le parole guerra 2010, p. 370). But this idea was foreshadowed in the young La persuasione e la man before, around May of the previous year, when he told his rettoricaposthumous writing that is made up of appendices to his great andfather “rhetoric” that, on thein Brunetto occasion Latini’s of a work translation of school of philology, the speech he work, his doctoral thesis never defended, Prowas Q.only Ligario interested Oratio in of the the relationship great Cicero between(La Rocca, “eloquence” 2011). . This study marked a change in Michelstaedter’s life. So let us talk about their origins and relationships, and then move on to a few topics that articulate their opus magnum and Thefinally Relations address the “case” of Michelstaedter. Undoubtedly, the genesis of the text is chaotic, not least with its writing, and if we follow the chronological division that Chiavacci makes of Carlo’sassolutto work pessimismo in the introduction” (“absolute of Opere (1958), we can find that the years 1908-1909 would We can mention anecdotally that he was born into a tocorrespond be theory toand a becomes kind of ““immanent criterion to action, life wealthy Triestine and Hebrew family. His parents were pessimism”) which culminates in 1910, when thought ceases Alberto and Emma, he had two sisters and a brother, Gino, Paula and Elda. As a young man he was introverted and in action” (Michelstaedter, 1958, p. xiv). Several epistles bear devoted much of his time mainly to poetry, music, sketching. witness to this, such as the one addressed to Enrico Mreule callHe did “unsatisfactory”. not excel in elementary At the beginning school, asof wellhis academic as at the endlife, on June 13th, 1909, where he expounds at length his theory heof hismoved basic to education, Vienna to studyhaving mathematics, a performance although that we soon, could in publication of La persuasione e la rettorica (1913; Genova: Formigini, a October 1905, he moved to Firenze (Michelstaedter, 2010, pp. 6 The latter also officiated as their editors on the occasion of the first 26-30) and enrolled in Lettere (Literature) at the Istituto di cura di V. Arangio-Ruiz) and of the main compilation of their writings in the proper names of girlfriends or “friends”, Iolanda De Blasi, Vallecchi,Opere (1958; a cura Firenze: da Emilio Sansoni, Michelstaedter), a cura da Chiavacci). and one last We by can Maria add Raschinito these two editions that made by his cousin, Emilio Michelstaedter (1922; Firenze: NadiaStudi Superiori. Baraden and We knowArgia Cassini,little of theirand some relationships, correspondence beyond rettorica, until, in the 70-80’s, Sergio Campailla made the critical edition of addressed to them5; the same goes for their friends, Enrico (1972). Thus, we have four posthumous editions of La persuasione e la Mreule, Nino Paternolli, Gaetano Chiavacci and Vladimiro subvert these, and closer to the edition of Chiavacci and the Manoscritto “C”, the “complete” of his poetic, philosophical, pictorial and epistolary work. To

the critical edition of Andrea Comincini, edited by Joker in 2015. persuade anyone, and this is dishonesty, but the rhetoric forced me to do it, 7 As is the case with the notes left by Emilio, the preface to Opere (1958), 3 I know I am talking because I’m talking, but also know I shall not or the first biography of the gorizian thinker written by Campailla (1974). 8 My brother in New York is dead. He died in a cursed accident, and now, —to put it another way, “if you bite into a crabapple, you must to spit it out. after two weeks, we don’t know anything else. It’s crazy. 4 With words, war against words”. although:9 Through everything the slit of is rhetoric in everything!... I contemplated and everything things so is interesting, nothing. bitterly 5 In addition to a short pseudo-biographical fiction novel written by the interesting, that now it irritates me to dedicate myself only to that meanness, curator of his work, Sergio Campailla (2010). Saia G. Thoughts and Perspectives on Carlo Michelstaedter. Philos Int J 2021, 4(2): 000179. Copyright© Saia G. 3 Philosophy International Journal of the gymné psykhé La persuasione e la rettorica (“naked soul”), or the onetêde destined dè egò mèn for thatwritings, combines not only several to his languagesletters, but and mainly sources to not only in bíonChiavacci, ábion of diabióo April 25th, érgon 1910, dè whereméga phyei fatigue”10 leads (Michelstaedter, him to label we will find a pastiche game, a palimpsest a drawing of his room with a legend in Greek: “ emits materiality dashes) and (Italian, interests Greek, (philosophy,Latin, German), poetry, but also tragedy, in its 2010, p. 463, note 2). It would be enough to give a literary style (direct, formal, alliterated, interrupted, with German “low blow” and read again the last letter that Carlo wrote to 13 his mother, dated September 10th, 1910, where the quality mathematics,but it is because chemistry, persuasion the requires workers that life, in the order bourgeoisie). to not be of the writing shows what Chiavacci mentions in step: the Itrhetorical resists 14 writing , makes it murky and almost ominous, theory becomes act, it ceases to see (and to be show) and begins to be. Just as it is taken for granted that we read of our . Michelstaedter makes us think of the character Thatown freeis, the will, passage perhaps from even the out theoreîn of pleasure, to the real but philosophíaas a violent, lastthat century. today is But Kafka: the melting a Czech pot Jew becomes —by even extension, richer in Austro- Carlo act, we hear music with hardly any intention11 or andits breadthinevitably. of Hungarian— who wrote in German at the beginningminor writing of the is good given at every step. Not only because he published nothing that is, the one that wants not for itself (Benvegnù, 2016), where the experience of field, but for its action, for its . Likewise, Carlo’s relations are marked by this marked tendency towards a productive but four small newspaper articles during his lifetime (one point:desire. persuasion In this way, and and rhetoric. to conclude with the intermingling without his expresscommon consent), man but also because he faces a of Carlo’s relations, we come to a perhaps more conflicting nativedouble Goriziadistance: is hea mosaicdoes not of want rich to and be astormy scholar, Mitteleuropa he does not The Person and the Thought wantcultures to 15be. a . We must note, too, that his own

Somehow, we are already beginning to diagram the In effect, Michelstaedter’s struggle turns towards two main structure of the work: vacillations around everything well-separated bands. “Rhetoric” means everything that “thatphilosophia we can perennis call “inauthentic”, “fictitious”, “social”, faced allows us to stay alive; society, the homeland, order, laws, but spiritwith whatthat stands we say against “authentic”, the Modern “individual” and, let and,me generalize in short, also work, philosophy as a search to increase knowledge, the here, the Germans; ”. neither Michelstaedter futurist expressesnor dannunziano, a fervent church with its rituals, science and its reified subjects. With this term we can understand everything that is improper, is not nietzschean at all. Nietzsche is still very positive to impersonal, obtuse, that is always done with a view to a future much less Hegelian. Nor should we be surprised that he aand trap, that since has a in past its as main a very purpose well present; (communicate=convince) in short, everything of German historicism, as he primarily does in Vom Nutzen itthat violence will never its beconditions an end itself. of possibility: It is what turns it is languagerecreated into in undunderstand Nachteil the der value Historie behind für das his Leben finding, (the behind second his untimely) critique 16. remaining his entire life and oeuvre12. There is no method in deceptive formulas that seek a petty objective asCarlo well Michelstaedter, as during the beginningand that is of simply his life reprehensible, as an author, andbut Campailla gathers in the introduction of its critical edition of La persuasione there is certainly a struggle, a search, a purpose. It does not e13 la rettoricaAnd also to the reading, as we are reminded by the anecdote that

regarding the impressions of the very first editor of the text: recognize itself as modern and that is why it does not treat I could not get a precise idea of the value and novelty of what was said in the text. I found a serious defect, which we must strive to eliminate as much roots;its own it time does with not “justice”; recognize it doesrhetoric, not recognize it tries topart assume of the as possible: the poor dead man (sc. Michelstaedter) did not write in Italian, Austro-Hungarian empire, it does not respect its German and it is necessary to translate into the correct language what he expressed as he could, as he knew how to speak our language (Michelstaedter, 1995, In the manner of Catch-22 the weight and ownership of persuasion. If we turn to his pp. ix-x). 14 by Joseph Heller: only through language can ability.the uselessness The only ofthing it be left verified. to the pilotThe pilotis the asks act, foroutside a psychiatric the form, check-up and that actfor 10 Here, where I live a life that cannot be lived, a great work sprouts. his discharge, but by filling out the form, he’s already corroborating his (cap) 11 Michelstaedter is clear about this: there are philologists, philosophers, implode. Analogous to Catch-22 philopsykhia either consummates the “Catch” or immolates it, phagocytes it and makes it Michelstaedter,lovers of knowing 1958, the p. good717. hierarchical structures, who become lovers , unfathomable at first glance, of polylogy, become, in the manner of Heraclitus, polymathas. Cfr. For a detailed study, cfr. Ara A, Magris C (1982) Trieste. Una identità functions as an irrepressible “love of life”, i.e., “cowardice”.

12 As in the “first” Nietzsche, Carlo presents an interest in pedagogy 15 di frontiera. Torino: Einaudi. Although this view that Magris presents is (compare with the lectures Über die Zukunft unserer Bildungsanstalten) Die Geburt der very biased, since on several occasions we can note that Carlo was first and and, clearly,). in classical philology, which will then give way to purely occasions. Tragödie foremost Italian, and his Germanophile interest is only exhibited on a few philosophical reflections (as in the text of the German author And for this very reason, dishonest: Michelstaedter, 1958, p. 770. This text does not focus on comparing both authors, due to its length, but this is a work that still remains vacant. 16 Saia G. Thoughts and Perspectives on Carlo Michelstaedter. Philos Int J 2021, 4(2): 000179. Copyright© Saia G. 4 Philosophy International Journal

The persuaded mode evades this question, because it to it, that is, the uomo persuaso operates according to another logic, that of the present, that initially, but then it moved towards the place that corresponds does not even remain in its field (the rhetorical field) but (“persuaded man”). What kind of work would a true philosopher have presented, of the conscious and own being. The man persuaded has to according to the terms Michelstaedter understands? It is not establish a situation where his communication, instead of worth asking ourselves about a work that was not, because thatconviction, of Ibsen: looks do for not something imitate todifferent: be a disciple, it is the the message good there are plenty of possible readings, however obsidian and discipleof Jesus, is of dedicated Buddha —whichto following they never wrote—, but also darkTowards these are. a Brief Century aforementioned quotation from the Preface (“Io lo so che parlo...”) of his thesis, he adds: “Eppure. And quantothat is whyio dico after è stato the detto tante volte e con tale forza che pare impossibile che Set out in the corpus composed of La persuasione e la il mondo abbia ancor continuato ogni volta dopo che erano rettoricaSomething, the notes worth by discussingAppendici isCritiche “why , Michelstaedter?”.the schooling of suonate quelle parole”17 (Michelstaedter, 1995, p. 3). And of the Scritti Vari us glimpses of in Dialogo della salute in their message in front of the theological building, but also to (“Chosen writings”) and the notions he gives course, it refers to Jesusi.e. and Buddha, as I said, who succumb (“Dialogue of Health”), physikoi) for Aristotle, notwe canlive seeit, did very not strong participate theses in about it; his the mother, beginnings sister ofand a the classical Greeks, , Parmenides, Heraclitus, Empedocles, tumultuous and brief Century. Carlo did not see the war, did andwho digestedformed a (systematically catalogue of “naturists” in both cases,( either according tolet philosophical alone Socrates “tradition” or Beethoven, or counterpoint). who were interpreted, sliced other relatives, yes, in their own flesh. Carlo knew nothing olderabout thanfascism, Carlo, except in 1910 for the he ideas had oflittle D’Annunzio, political relevance,an author andhe probably he harbored read moreor heard animus about. of Mussoliniprisoner andwas nietzscheana few years Duce. In other Thus, the persuaded has, as a figure who draws limits, a moral conscience that is his own, abandoning the axiological century.—obviously In short, in a unlessD’Annunzian for personal way— dilemmas than of (Nadia B., her plexuses so expensive for society, for civilization. Before words, Carlo lived only in the decadence of the late nineteenth forknowing this very and reason thinking that were philosophy one and is the conceived same, Carlo as the tells last us. of his life. Michelstaedter studied, There was no big closet where to place mummified ideas. It is brother, the departure of a dear friend for Argentina), we can architects18 butrisk did thinking not have that the Carlo motivations lived of the later generation, or of the bastions of rhetoric: PlatoI concetti and Aristotleda persuasione were its e principalrettorica thought, wrote tirelessly, made friends and maintained loves, in Platone . ed It isAristotele worth mentioning19 that the initial title of his doctoral thesis was those who saw more number of days. We can find, however, and linguistic treatise. Michelstaedter’s, purported doxographic thought does work, not profuse ideas that raise faces such as that of Heidegger, which later became an ontological, psychological, social Wittgenstein, Jaspers, Lukács. Our author foreshadows, as if Appendici Critiche thehe were relation a prophet, of the subaltern, the most crucial hermeneutics, problems phenomenology, of the first half andleave comments aside the roleon passagesof philology, from at all,Platonic less if and one Aristotelianreviews the of the century: the linguistic turn, scientific-moral relativism, (“Critical Appendices”),impossible where he thesis, collects a death. Of course, it is not a visionary or a superior intellectual, company he recognizes as such. finitude, fallen modes, the being-in-the-world, philósophosthe being-for-, a works, but if he extends his work to an persuaded one, a formal limit in the rhetorical structure, a nor would he want it that way, but rather a are those that articulate the vital possibility: persuasion and rhetoric.To round The thesis it off, aimed two different to problematize and antagonistic this second modes pole operatesbreak, a between. above the In determinations several ways, Carlo of logocentrism was not a victim and the of problemshis time, butcarried a doctor by the who phon evaluatesé (of course, the symptoms, time before which even

17 However, what I say was said so many times and with such force that the birth of Jacques Derrida). But what woke up after his it seems impossible that the world has continued as if nothing every time death? these words were uttered. (2018), “Las primeras interpretaciones de Michelstaedter 18 While Michelstaedter has great appreciation and even admiration for There is a good article written by Sergio Campailla the first (sc. Plato), he rejects the second (sc. Aristotle): balanceAttachment of evil. to —Becauselife generates in life the everything probability happens of salvation in relation —and to coexistence everything (1910-1916)” (“The first interpretations of Michelstaedter -generates in fact, life society— is an accident. but those This whois my live science, together and areAristoteles preserved is miserable —in the (Michelstaedter, 2010, p. 384). to(1910-1916)”), be a precocious where essayist, this gives in the us amanner very clear of Slataper,reading line.nor Carlo had no editorial purpose as such, he did not know how

19 The concepts of persuasion and rhetoric in Plato and Aristotle. Saia G. Thoughts and Perspectives on Carlo Michelstaedter. Philos Int J 2021, 4(2): 000179. Copyright© Saia G. 5 Philosophy International Journal

20 One Last Word post suicidium publication generated a stir a young professor like Nietzsche , but those who collected his works for the around the figure of the young philosopher. The death by To risk drawing a hypothesis is far-fetched, petty, his own hand of a 20-year-old in Trieste already generated Michelstaedtercowardly, rhetorical. case and,However, above it all,would on thealso phenomenon be a good idea of rumors and fervent appropriations, and in his brief writing to miss the opportunity to add some final notes on the Campailla manages to give an account of how Papini, Cecchi and Borgese were the first to adduce “metaphysical” causes. suicide. It should be clarified that this is not done for the sake theThe latter’s young death,Papini andeven it hadis possible access thatto the he text made of athe translation Gorizian Again,of those the whoorein can no longer feel the look on themselves, but doctoral student, which was not edited until two years after for us, knowing that we are not dead we can still look. Look. a biological and that psychological tries to dodge impossibility prejudice; while to establish observing, a volumebased on of the poetry, death ofthe Otto Triestinians Weininger. ForSlataper their part,and motivatedBenco do it shows. A good word to describe this last act is “mystery”, by the novelty of the publication of Michelstaedter’s first reliable cause. When we talk about suicide, we tend to address judgment,their part. committing In this case suicide suicide for takes the onsake a differentof work, aspect:for the thanextreme as an moods, epiphenomenon. either reductionist Michelstaedter’s or emergent, suicide remains because sakework of is trutheverything,. More unusualthe truth thing is everything. is that the It countrymenis worth, in his of there is no way to think about suicide in a simple way, other Michelstaedter appeal again to the Papinian source, to the in the anecdote, as this does not produce any kind of archive or memory. Let us try with a clear and concise definition: one who did not even read the work and equally ventured a thesuicidal Life is thethat one pursued who cannot by Michelstaedter. tell us his experience, Be that as the it may, one monotonytheory. But of these their weren’t hypotheses—, the only Amendola ones to talk. sees After the passage Cecchi of which there is no trace or trace, the solitary acolyte. Maybe fromand Borgesetheorein —whichto aggire we (act), decided from the to omitsaying because (seen) ofto the and to match him with the thinker we made use of at the beginning of this little work, Gilles Deleuze, maybe he didn’t fact (heard) as a sufficient motive (Campailla, 2018). take his own life. It is possible that neither the Frenchman at our days to discover a revealing article in this sense: nor the Gorizian thought of Life denial when they launched “SobreBut el that suicidio is not lógico”all, since (“On it is logical enough suicide”) to look byback Miguel a bit isthe to final recreate act. Perhaps once again our the introspection rhetoric, the will game tell usof referencesthis: to try to know what happened, how it happened, why it happened “metaphysical” and “logical” as adjectives of the suicidal act. InspiredMorey (2014). by the Here challenge we rehearse of Albert a returnCamus, to Morey the concepts invites usof political,that we sisterdescriptive, (and enemy) evaluative as ora society.“philosophical”. But the Torhetorical remove machine always assumes a certain violence, whether to review a littleTesi the di laurea paths that Michelstaedter traveled in the absolute from the environment, or not to make of one’s his last years of life, between 1908 and 1910, time of writinggave own will a mere will-for, will-over-means, will of absolute. ofhim his infinite . He reminds us that his friend At first we talked about the concepts, those “ontologics” that Enrico,Argentina, who going was intoat the the genesis sea, going of his into doctoral the desert project,21. Morey get tired, that are exhaustive, that we exhaust, and perhaps the revolver that would end his days before leaving for it does make sense to return to this endearing character, despite the temporal, local and physical distance, to liveQuietiv with points out something concrete: Carlo, as we said, did not him.(“barbituric”) Whether lifeof music, deserves let tous be say lived that or for not, this great time dilemma; it does theexperience Reich the horrors of war, nor fascism, nor communism, however, and away from the schopenhauerean nor Auschwitz (Morey, 2014); he did not see the birth of and petty andphenomena, the familiar-cathexis. clearly rhetorical. But that Thus, is not his what friend is not matter. I write this in a context of pandemic, quarantine, important; the important thing is that he knew these selfish uncertainty: there is no better time to link up with the past mythicaland the future. resolutions. Revisionism Myth about and opinions myth, as everywhere is rhetoric, letcome us Enrico Mreule has to wander through afollows world. that Carlo had together and articulate our daily lives, waiting, perhaps, for glimpsed thanks to Parmenides, Plato, Schopenhauer and Buddha: the good disciple is that who not get carried away by messianism and resort to thetopoi doubly. I utopian idea of Michelstaedter: we must renounce the non- place, as well as the Aristotelian rhetoric of the apologize for this fleeting inclusion and without excuse, but “vain”. we are, in short, a weight that falls or a hot-air ballon that 20 He came to feel real contempt for this last profession which he calls This perspective is revived and narrated by Magris in his novel (1991), isfloats; gravity. that falls because it falls, that floats because it floats. It doesn’t matter. What needs to be overcome in both cases Patagonian21 journey. where he gathers the supposed experience of Enrico Mreule and his

References 6. Foucault M (1979) Un plaisir si simple. Le Gai Pied. 1. Ara A, Magris C (1982) Trieste. Una identità di frontiera. 7. - Einaudi. manitas 66: 811-835. La Rocca C (2011) La persuasione (e l’oratoria). en Hu 2. 8. Magris (2012) Un altro mare. Milano: Il sole 24 ore. Italian Culture 34(2): 81-97. Benvegnù D (2016) Toward a Minor Michelstaedter. en 9. Michelstaedter C (2010) Epistolario. A cura di Sergio 3. Campailla S (2018) Las primeras interpretaciones de Mi- Campailla. Adelphi, pp: 18-489.

6(1): 51-62. 10. Michelstaedter C (1995) La persuasione e la retorica. chelstaedter (1910-1916). Zibaldone, Estudios Italianos Adelphi, pp: 18-387. 4. Campailla S (2010) Il segreto di Nadia B. Marsilio, pp: 248. 11. Michelstaedter C (1958) Opere. Firenze: Sansoni.

5. Campailla S (1974) A ferri corti con la vita. Comune di 12. - Gorizia, pp: 141. mantica 2(3): 56-70. Morey M (2014) Sobre el suicidio lógico. en Scientia Hel