The Socratic technic

We certainly can’t know how Socrates(b.Ch. 469-399) interrogated his pupils and other, his lesson were in Athens agorà, in ancient Greek άγορά, this is square, he hasn’t written something, hence we haven’t document, except the testimonies that known him and followed his lessons, although he never considered him a master; but the read of the Republic of Plato(b.Ch. 427-347), a his pupil enables to us know the thecnic of Socrates; in the 6th book, or chapter, of the book of Republic, we can consider, although alone hypothesizing, what was the technic of Socrates for the questions that he given to his pupils, the actual title is: “The philosopher loves and makes in herself the major virtus”,  the dialogue is between Socrates and Adimantus, brother of Plato, and Socrates says: “After you can see if those men that we want be worthy of our needs they not must in their nature thi character.” And Adimantus asked: “About character do you are speaking?” and Socrates: “About the sincerity: they were aware that they never must enable to lie. They(the philosophers) must hate it for the love of truth”, and Adimantus: “It is probable” and Socrates: “Dear friend, it isn’t alone probable, but absolutely necessary that the man very inclined to love he love everything is similar to object of his love”, and Adimantus: “Its true”, and Socrates: “hence can you find something that is more similar to the knowledge than the truth?”, and Adimantus: “How could make it?”, and Socrates: “A same man can be philosopher and friend of lie, and Arimantus: “Absolutely no”, and Socrates: “Wherefore who aspires to knowledge, he must ouset he search the truth”, and Arimantus: “Absolutely”; this boring interlocution is necessary to explain the Socratic technic for to give the questions to his pupils; he given questions that were absolutely obvious, and the answers could be alone consent or not, but the question that he given to Arimantus are elementary, and the answers are likewise elementary, because obvious. But this book although has Socrates, inasmuch the rationality, has written from Plato, that is abstract: “Hence if every tension of man is toward to studies and the science, I would say that his pleasure is limited to soul instead the pleasures of body would be quitted…”, and Adimantus: “It is necessary”, and Socrates: “A person so is also tolerant and never attracted from the richness, because the motives that determined the run to easy money, are adapted more to other than to him”, I want consider that this imagine, very idealized, of philosopher is the same image that until the past century was canonic; the philosopher that has quitted the richness; but I think that Plato has took this image directly from the reality, Socratic reality, this is how Socrates lived, absolutely poor.

Alessandro Lusana      

  

 The speculative lesson of Aristophanes

Aristophanes, an ancient comedy writer(b.Ch.445-385), that written the Clouds, a very famous comedy and it is famous because one of role is Socrates; he has used the speculative inquiry and certainly he has seen and known Socrates, but his inquiry is extended also to other not personages but character, some step is going to explain the meaning, a soliloquy of Strepsiade, father of Fidippide, that during the night is awake for the debts, and he remembers his life before of marry: “I brought in campaign a bless life, with ugly cloths, laid, and rich of bees, sheep. After I am resident in campaign have married a resident in the city…woman delicacy, luxurious, she was every delicateness, and luxury, perfume, smell of a thousand essences and fire of luxury…”; the right question is: “What is speculative inquiry”, simple in the narration of Strepsiade, he told that he wife was a rich woman that has married a poor; it is normal, a woman searches always somebody or very much rich or somebody that she can subdue, because it is a revenge of female sex against hers weakness, hence I want the domain or through the beauty or through the richness. The speculative attention of Aristophanes is in this particular, when Fidippide after an indication of his father he describes summary Socrates and he mentioned him: “The miserable I know them. Do you want hint to these charlatan without shoes on feet, among is also Socrates and Cherophontes”, Aristophanes has certainly seen and studied Socrates, because Cicero, for example, called Socrates “pedes rudes”, this is barefoot, but Cicero known it from some narration instead Aristophanes, contemporary of Socrates, seen him during his investigation. The investigation is confirmed from the words of Socrates to the clouds, he speaks to clouds as goods; this is a hide polemic against the Sophistic members, that spoke about everything without logic arguments, and the Socrates is took for reference, but the object of this polemic are the sophistic school, that Aristophanes has seen. The clouds answer, and the polemic is clear: the sophistic school of nothing that, as the clouds, are alone air, this is nothing, the question is, why Socrates? Because Socrates was the eminent personage in Athens but he was also impotent, this is without power, hence he could took very easy model of philosopher. The confirm of this my opinion is in the words of Socrates: “The clouds, great goddess  of men and they alone give the think, the art of word, the intelligence, imposture, the speech and cunning”, it is the proof that Aristophanes has seen both Socrates and the sophistic school, these words are unworthy of Socrates because, from witnesses, he never has said it; but Socrates is reference to Aristophanes also because he was the eminent personage in Athens, inasmuch Aristophanes has used the figure of Socrates, because the more famous philosopher in Athens, and he has represented the Sophistic school.

Alessandro Lusana    

'

 The human wit: Seneca

The tragedy of Seneca(50b.Ch.-40a.Ch.), has some symbolic translation, in Oedipus king, in the first dialogue to himself, some wheatear and natural phenomenology become a motive of grieve, because he tied, we can imagine his destiny this involuntary incest, the protagonist says: “Now night is driven out. A hesitating Sun returns and lifts his beam, shrouded with a filthy cloud. Bringing somber light with his fi re that heralds grief, his view will be of houses wasted by devouring plague: the day will show the devastation of the night. Does anyone rejoice in kingship? A deceptive blessing: how many evils you conceal behind a smiling mask! As elevated ridges always catch the gales, and as the rocky crag that juts into the massive strait is pounded by the surge, however calm the sea…”, the soul of tragedy of Seneca is in these words: “Does anyone rejoice in kingship? A deceptive blessing…”, the words of Seneca are certainly much indicative for the wit of stoicism of Seneca, in fact his phrase is indicative: “Et vivere fortibus facere est”; this is also to live is destiny of alone the strong persons; it is the wit of Oedipus, that have to live the his life with the drama of incest; and it evident for the rest od dialogue, above all in the words: “the massive strait is pounded by the surge, however calm the sea…”, because it is representation of human with, that we can identify to Oedipus, because the grief is present as the felicity, but for some occasion we must quit this condition and hide it under a smile, it is the: “however calm the sea…”, and other note that is very important to understand the wit of stoicism and of Seneca: “…so the heights of power lie exposed to Fortune.”, with the word of fortune, that Seneca written as a name, why? Simple because Fortune was a goddess, that managed the cases positive or negative of men, in ancient Greek was called Τύχη, this is Tike, a translation of Fortune or in Roman ancient  theology, also Fors, from this word is sort, that has kept the primary meaning of goddess, this is casual, because the sort is genre, species and types, it is the typical of semiotic translation, typical of Latin and ancient Greek, but the semiotic mean because the genre or type of somebody is casual; hence the Fortune is a case, and it manages the life of men. He continues his discourse: “How well I did to flee the scepter of my father Polybus! Free from my anxieties, an exile, fearless, wandering, I stumbled (sky and gods I call to witness) into kingship.”; the destiny of Oedipus and the think of Seneca regard to the fortune are carved here, the case that the ancient peoples attributed to goddess Fortune or Τύχη, is so, and the example that Seneca reported is the involuntary homicide of father of Oedipus: “My fears are monstrous: that my sire be slaughtered by my hand…”; it is the case that Seneca has took for example necessary to justify the precedent words: “Et vivere fortibus facere est”; in fact Oedipus shows his interior strong facing his grieves; naturally we must also consider that he has that grieves for the involuntary homicide of father, but not certainly for the incest; it is for the primary roll of father or man in the family and in the life of ancient time. Anyway Seneca has told the casual wit of human gender.

Alessandro Lusana  

            

 Cultured irony: Plautus

About Titus Maccius Plautus(255-184 b.Ch.), a Roman writer of comedy much has been written, and I don’t want add other to already is said, but a short note about the irony, that didn’t save neither the holy, or Roman holy, this the memory, more mythological than real, that Plautus has adopted for example in Amphitrus, an his comedy where he has joked, with prudence, with mythological brothers Romulus and Remus, whose the first has founded Rome; the comedy begins with an explication of Mercury, Roman god of merchant, that explains what is argument of this comedy, and he highlights that Alcmena, husband of Amphitrus, is gravid of two sons, it is the clear reference to Romulus and Remus, but he rescues the two sons and the mythological origin because the childes are sons of Jupiter, hence an divine origin that avoid the illegal adultery, because the two sons have a paternal origin that is sublime. Anyway Jupiter changed his shape and become Amphitrus, that is busy in war, has met the Alcmena. But Plautus jokes also with the human figure of philosophers, as the Diogenes of Sinope(412 b.Ch.323b.Ch), that walked in Athens with a lantern during the day, and when some body asked because the lantern he answered: “I am searching the man”; this fantastic narration certainly is arrived to hears of Plautus, that has take occasion to joked about this strange habit, although he doesn’t mention Diogenes, but Sosia the serve of Amphitrus goes in the scene with a lantern, and this opinion is confirmed from the words of same Sosia: “What I could make , if now the guards throw me to prison? From there, tomorrow, I am going to take and I am going to bore the whip, and I am going to can defense me and nothing aid from my patron”; it is certainly can’t consider a philosophical discourse, if we read so and with of comedy wit and alone amusing; but behind is a truth; the philosopher Diogenes, was a cynic philosopher that lived through alone of necessary, without other; the similitude to Sosia is evident, he lives as a serve therefore alone the necessary, and when he said: “I am going to can defense me and nothing aid from my patron”, the reference is directly to Diogenes that hasn’t the patrons, and Sosia that has a patron, but when he is useful, he isn’t, inasmuch Sosia in that moment has a patron, as Diogenes., and the compel of Sosia toward his patron, that is Jupiter, is indicative od a dislike: “It is true that to be to orders of a rich patron is hard, that a slave of rich is more unlike: night and day. The patron, rich of needs and free from toil, every will he has had, he thinks that it is possible, he thinks that it is right: he doesn’t think on the toil that is necessary, and he is going not to think if his order is right or not. So to slavery occurred much dislike and injustices thing…”; it is the manifest will, although hide, of Sosia for the freedom; the same freedom that Diogenes has had always, because he was also naked, and he lived in the barrel because also the home was a slavery. Sosia is representation of Diogenes, and the two sons are from Romulus and Remus, cultured reference that Plautus has took and translated in comedy. A soliloquy of Mercury is indicative for other example, now Socratic; in fact Mercury, speaking od Sosia and his awareness, he said: “He has a quality much rare: he knows what he merits!”; it can seems an notation alone but behind is a example, Socrates, that refused the escape from prison, although a pupil, Critones has proposed it; hence Socrates was aware that his guilt was false, but he bored the death capital because as he said to Critones: “What say to me the laws of Athens, Socrates you have defensed and respected us and now you escape because you are scared from us?”; it is full awareness that Sosia has manifested. Other reference, now from Thebes, is the words of Sosia: “That city, that bitter fruits brought to Thebes, for the force an valor of our soldiers it was wined, above all for the lucky of Amphitrus…”; this reference to Thebes, in year 457 b.Ch. Thebes was wined from Athens army, and the celebration of Amphitrus is a hypothetic celebration of Pericles after this victory; because Amphitrus has sent Sosia to his husband, Alcmena, for to inform her that the victory: “From the harbor he sent me to his home, for to give his husband the notice: how he has hold the State through his lead, his command and his fortune.”; both us and Plautus can alone imagine that Pericles has said so, but certainly Pericles wasn’t much distant from this speech. A question is relevant for this hypothesis, and the question is: “How Plautus known the Pericles, these battles, Socrates and other Greek examples, Plautus was form actual Umbria, a Italian region and the books then aren’t, and Plautus didn’t know the ancient Greek, inasmuch he could not know it, therefore this hypothesis is mistook”, this is comment and the logic is purely Socratic, hence right, but we must consider that Rome, already from before of third century of Christ, has had commerce to Naples, that was a Greek colony, where the ancient Greek was the principal language and the information from the Greek arrived, thereupon Plautus can be informed from some seaman; because the Roman seamen gone toward Naples, but also from Naples toward Rome arrived Neapolitan seamen. The confirm of this method, that in that time was normal, is confirmed from the following words of Sosia, regard the narration that he must give to Alcmena, he says: “For every way, I will affect to be present there and I will refer that I have heard.”; the importance of these words is in the last verb, this is heard; why? It is question, simple because Sosia says to herself that he have to says, but he used the verb hear, not the verb see; in a fight Sosia would see and not alone heard; but Plautus took the common exercise of hear, as he has made for the merchants both to Naples and Rome. Further proof of this opinion, are the following words always of Sosia, that must before consider his lies: “I will begin so: We have arrived there, and we have landed, and Amphitrus picked the firsts, and he sent them as ambassadors; he ordered that they say to Teleboi.”; this last name is the confirm of the practical exercise of Plautus, why? Because he has took a information about a people that is absolutely imaginary, as the Teleboi, in Acarnania, a region of ancient Greek; Plautus certainly believed to this history because he could not control the credibility of this history, whereby he has took as truth, and he has set in the narration of Sosia.      

 

Alessandro Lusana  

   

 

 Other source: Cicero’s letters

The other source that here I want consider is a other historical source, always considered marginal and alone occasionally considered, this is the letters, that can be familiar, or politic or formal and other gender; I want consider alone those familiar and of an author, Marco Tullio Cicerone(b.Ch.106-43), that he has written to familiars, the mean of the word familiar we must consider in acceptation Latin language, because in Latin the family was very extensive, and it enclosed also the friends, beyond the sons and daughters also the servants, when Cicero has written to some body that isn’t his familiar, we must think that also these friends were familiar. In fact a first letter he has written to Mark Terence Varrone(b.Ch.116-27), and Cicero want that he arrives to Rome: “To these letters by you written has informed me Atticus(b.Ch.109-32), I known that what you are making and where you stayed: when we can meet you I could not certainly understood. I come with hope that near is your arrive, that is to me support! Although we are fought from very much griefs, that nobody, if isn’t stupid, he must hope comfort…hence you must know that after I had gone back to Rome, I have been retied the old friendships(I want mean the books…”; a note that is important for to understand the context: the Cesar by now has almost took the absolutely power in Rome with Pompeo and Crassus in year 60 b.Ch.; and Cicero was a convinced republican and in fact he was exiled from Caesar to Cilicia because he was an political enemy, official motive was the condemn to capital pain of Catilina without proofs, Caesar got profit from this strategy for a law that a tribune of people Publio Clodio Pulcro that proposed the exile of Cicero for this condemn, and Cicero gone to exile in year 58 b.Ch.; but very anomalous that of same party was also Caesar, therefore we can imagine very easy that Caesar asked this law so that Cicero was remove from Rome; inasmuch we can think that Caesar have thought already the grant of absolutely power, not certainly in the form, but in essence, hence the enemy as Cicero have to be removed, and we can think, or we must think that the almightiness of Caesar was very symbolic because he certainly could, but to fear an orator, without weapons and armies would be useless, but the tongue of Cicero was very pitiless and Caesar can become victim of this tongue, he has had a power very extraordinary, but he known also the power of judge od important man as Cicero; these are alone conjectures but neither if today Caesar was live he would confess it, anyway we can hypothesize something. The validity of my consideration is manifest for the words of Cicero: “To these letters by you written has informed me Atticus, I known that what you are making and where you stayed: when we can meet you I could not certainly understood”; Cicero has known the position and the duties of Varrone through a letter of Atticus, that has informed Cicero, and for us the letters of Cicero are a source and for him the letter of Atticus was it, hence the letters were other source. The attention of Cicero to morality, and to other opinion is manifest in this letter: “Hence who of the victory are boast almost seen us as we are wined. Who that not bore our have been wined, to them dislike that we are life”; this step could be very low important, instead it is very important because it shows the attention of Cicero to other opinion, and therefore manifest also the weakness of Cicero, because his roll in the Roman society was relevant, and he considered the opinion, that is a sign of weakness, and it is shows also that opinion of Cicero for himself wasn’t so high, because who has dread of other opinion has deeply unfaith to himself. The proof of this my opinion is in following step: “Truly to me from sometime is in the brain to be right thing go out from some town for my will and neither consider nor hear what is said and make…”; it is natural for Cicero, because his roll is very important for Rome, or may Cicero isn’t so sure that his roll is so important for Rome and empire? May Cicero has a side, very short, of unsureness for himself? I think that it is so, because he could must it, because the question, or better, the other opinions aren’t importance, but evidently as every weak Cicero hided himself behind his fame and political roll, but he was an unsure. The truth of my opinion, this is that then letters are also personal documents is in following step, where Cicero describes himself: “I these suspects in my wit turning, against stay in Rome, and although with time the inure has already got the habit to my bilious wit”, it is a confession of Cicero about his character, hence a confession of his wit, and the valor of device of confession is in following words: “To you I manifest these sentiment.”; in confidence to Varrone that evidently known very well Cicero he could give these confessions. The admiration of Cicero for the ancient knowledge is in this step: “If nobody of our work emerges, nonetheless we are convinced write and read about ideas of public govern: and to give to Republic service, if not it possible to curie and forum, at last for the studies in the books, as the much knowledge have made and make explication about the customs and laws. For me it is right. It is going to be very like if you will write what is your fell.”; political faith of Cicero is in the step that mentions the Republic, for this he was against Caesar, because he has though that Caesar wanted become imperator.

Alessandro Lusana       

        

 Return to order: Napoleon

Today an book about Napoleon(1769-1821) would be less than useless, because the libraries are full, but I want alone identify, in conformity, to the title, the important rule that napoleon has covered for the savage of Revolution; from a youthful anti French, because Napoleon was Corso, this is from Corsica, and he adhered to Revolution from the October of 1789, because the news hopes were born in his wit. In a letter that the Corsica sent of French to institution that given to French the new republican State, the represent of Corsica asked to this institution the extension of National guard also fro the Corsica, and the first sign is of Napoleon; it is the first political document that ratify the presence of Napoleon also in politic, and Saliceti, one of two represent of Corsica in National assembly says clearly that Corsica is French whole. The nationalist ideas of Napoleon are expressed in this step written for a letter that he sent to Matteo Buttafuoco, a represent of Corsica in National assembly in Paris, after the manifestation of groans of Corsica resident, he expresses his revolutionary and nationalist wit: “To enter to service of French you have reached your parents: you find the tyrant defeated and the national govern issued, and the Corsica resident dominated from great sentiments, and concord to contribution of public thing”, other letter is likewise important for this essay, but now is Lucien, brother of Napoleon(1775-1840), that written in a letter to Napoleon, he said, about Paoli represent of Corsica in National assembly: “In our immortal Revolution he has hold alone the crimes of terror”(1792-17949); this step is important, at last in my opinion because that Lucian attributed to Paoli, in truth he would say it to Napoleon, because he after the period of Terror is going to remember this period. Other step from a letter in date 20^th June 1792, he written about the Jacobins: “The Jacobins are crazy, and without of every common sense”, he considered the extremism of this faction, and they are guilt because they can compromise the result of Revolution. It was right Edgard Quinet(1803-1875), French historical man, that has synthesized: “31th May it was decided: “…the renew would has been not through the way of freedom but through the old method, this is the tyranny”; the conflagration between two systems brings one winner that often must use same methods, because the moment demands it. But where the Revolution, as every revolution, failed is in episode that shows the practice wit of French and other countries, because to the end of August, Toulon surrendered to English, between 18^th and 19^th December, for its geographic position, and its harbor; hence the economy overcame the ideal, it always so. I want add a specification, the position of Napoleon that wanted not absolutely the open to Spain and England of Toulon, was the position of Jacobins, hence Napoleon was in that time Jacobin, and it conforms that after became emperor he changed ideas; and a step of a book(Luigi Mascilli Migliorini, Napoleon, p. 73) said a great truth: “One want the end of revolutionary exceptionality for the sureness and for the individual right”; this consideration will have also Napoleon when he become the emperor. Other step of same book says: “He(Napoleon) said often of a theatre of war of relevant importance, where the republic is going to have easy victories and found the peace, this is the Italy”; why Italy? Simple because geographically was very near, and the Italian army were very scant; but the deep and secret motive for the invasion of Italy, about the year 1796, is evident in second part of mention: “…where the republic is going to have easy victories and found the peace, this is the Italy”; the Italy was necessary to keep the calm in French republic, this is the Italy was a motive for the distraction and for to address the French people toward economic resources that could feed the poverty in French; the distractions in policy are necessary always and in every time. The words of Benjamin de Constant, a French politic man that in his letter has written: “I want very much see end of the Revolution, because it could be by now very harmful for the freedom, and it is also one of motive for want very much also the affirmation of Republic…”; it was the think of Napoleon, the extremism has been necessary, but now it would be  harmful for the republic; and other step of same author: “The Republic is the sake, the Revolution has been a way”; this think was also of Napoleon, although I can alone imagine it, but I am sure of this think because he could be become king of French, that he never became; the Republic State could also involved the enemies that during the Terror, 1792-1794, were longest, it is other political think, peer to the think of Caesar, when he unified the social classes in Roman empire, because both the brains, aristocratic brain were necessary, and also the hands, this is the people; hence through the Republic different classes could collaborative to greatness of French, but two classes that Napoleon has unified; but he could unify because he represented a chief, a reference that by now was in the wit of French, he could take the power because the French govern was crowd by weak politic or presumed so, that haven’t nothing a politic plan or a interior strong to end a project, and it explained the period of terror, that was possible because the govern that would have govern wasn’t, because the opposition wasn’t, and evidently the people was boring of very much proclaims that weren’t practice conclusion, and the economy was evidently a disaster, hence the people have to distract through bloody devices as the guillotine, so that the enemies of people were killed; the people would have made a confront: “During the monarchy the condition was serious but the jobs was and the food was, now, in the Revolution, the economy is a disaster and the difficulties are the double, hence was better the monarchy”, was necessary the bloody spectacular, a device always useful, that Napoleon, as we have read above, used addressed the attention of French to Italy. And we can also think or better to ascertain that Napoleon, to save the French Republic become almost autocratic power, although it didn’t never say, to avoid the Terror, when great chief of Revolution were guillotined: Maximilien Robespierre 28^th July 1794, Louis Antoine de Saint Just, George Jacques Danton guillotined in April 1794, Jacques Hébert guillotined in March 1794; these were alone some head of revolutionary chiefs that were victim of internal plots among factions; Napoleon understood that the Revolution would be end and very soon following this way; hence the power formally on the national assembly but effectively in his hands, as Caesar. Therefore Napoleon is become imperator to save the French Republic.

Alessandro Lusana 

                      

 The end of French Revolution: the terror

During the study about the French Revolution this period, called of Terror, is automatically, because it is an event occurred during the Revolution, but the question is why? By now the monarchic power was died and the French was becomes a republic, why this dictatorship? It hasn’t sense, the power was in the hands of national assembly, why the extremism? Simple because the Revolution was became a “revolution”, this is a simple change of power, and the promises were denied. An historic man M. Mortimer-Ternaux (Histoire de la terreur 1792-1794), didn’t why this period and dictatorship and bread of dread, but we can consider from his historical analysis a silent will: “The first tentative made from the demagogues for the proclamation of sovereignty of street”, or of common people: “Begin the period of riot and destroy the fundaments of the old build of monarchic power, it has been ably leaded. The discipline of army was destroyed, but to extreme moment of danger it can be returns. It was against them that have to lead the first efforts of the Jacobins, so trying the realization of the destructive policy. It failed because the ally of army and people was consolidated in spite to country for a great demonstration that the energy it could seem  that the nation has been accomplice…”; naturally we not can but we must think that this author M. Mortimer-Ternaux(1808-1871), was a monarchic later, hence his judge about the Terror is leaded from his personal opinion; it have to habit to the patriotic celebration and to precessions the mob that adore these manifestation…”, certainly it is true, but the author judged it with a ideology that is monarchic, because the words adopted, mob, for example can be no offensive but think with contempt, and certainly he didn’t love the mob, and this of this opinion is confirms form the judge and from following narration: “It was invented, for the solicitation for the war the great accident of Nancy, in year 1790, when the seafaring mutinied, and they told that 40 soldiers that were sent to prisons for the crimes as homicide and robbers…”, and other judges that are similar. Anyway the history continues and now it seems accuse the monarchy: “During the old regime(this is the monarchy) the regiments both strangers and French were employed through the money in the taverns. This blameworthy traffic was to official that wanted reach their sakes…The movement that worked under the wit in years 1789, and it is a counterstrike inevitable both in the army, the dreadful signs of insubordination were manifest for the great number. The policemen in Paris given the examples, and it was followed from same example in Marseille, Grenoble, Metz. In every regiment were committee of under officials and soldiers that have had discussions to superiors, and they discussed their right…”; it explains the birth of terror, the order was necessary in French and the disorder and insubordination were already born during ancient regime; hence the birth of biennial of terror was the exit of a disorder that continued, and the Revolution was by now ended, because the capital condemns were the evident manifestation of the decadence of wit of Revolution; in fact after one year Napoleon was has rescued the Revolution, he came to Italy in 1796, after the second year of Terror, when the Revolution was finished in the deep of soul.

Alessandro Lusana