Populus vult et non vult: Girolamo Savonarola

Girolamo Savonarola(1452-1498) the name of monk Savonarola said very short, because is a marginal personage in the Florence of 15^th century, certainly I don’t wait an knowledge  much breaded of this spiritual dictator, because he was it, some years in Florence the religious dictatorship of Savonarola was very important motive, and he has condemned to capital pain through the stake, from same agent that have had the success to him, this is the Florentine people. It isn’t alone a hypothesis it is a truth that we can take from the words of Sandro Filipepi, called Botticelli (1445 – 1510), very famous painter in Renaissance and in Florence, during a dialogue to Doffo Spini, political personage in Florence and against the Savonarola, asked about the stake of condemn of the monk, and Spini said that the condemn of Savonarola has decided from superior orders; we can imagine that this order came from the pope, but in this dialogue we can identify the supreme judge that has wanted this sentence, who is? The people, in fact in dialogue is element fundamental: “Asking to him, Sandro, because he known that Doffo has been one of the principal, that has examined Savonarola, that he say the truth: what sins have found in Savonarola, for this punishment so drastic. And Doffo answered: “Must I say the truth? We didn’t find nothing mortal sin and neither venial. And Sandro asked: “Why do we have condemn him to this death so shameful? And he answered: it isn’t my responsibility but the principal cause has been Benozzo Federighi; if we didn’t condemn this prophet the people have condemn us, and cut to pieces. The question was so important that we have decided for our life that he have to die”; this step is very important for the motive of this essay, because revels what is the importance of people in policy; the comments are: “It is simply obvious”, no! Because alone the violent reactions of peoples has determined historical change, the American “revolution”, that has determined the birth of a new nation, the French Revolution, that has determined the new with and new conception in policy, this is the republic state; in this case, very much modestly, the change was a continuity, because in Florence the govern of the city was, formally, held form the richest and important families, but the truth is that the power has held from the people, and the policy has dread of people, because it is always thought as inert form the policy and when it instead has revolted the reactions are uncontrolled and very violent, and the importance of this step is also in the biographical date of death of Savonarola, in year 1498, when the democracy wasn’t neither thought and the right was, as in this case, used for the context, policy context, that Spini has confessed: “…the people have condemn us, and cut to pieces…”; it is the dread of a policy that in front of the people, have to satisfy the principal judge, this is the people, that wanted the death of Savonarola. Why this condemn if he was innocent? Simple because the people was very boring of this austerity, and the memories of precedent time were again life. The Florentine people wanted the immoral richness.

Alessandro Lusana     

                

 

 Other rationality of protagonist; Baron von Munchhausen

The Baron von Munchausen is a romance absolutely imaginary written in 1785 from Rudolf Erich Raspe(1737-1794), German writer, that has took from a German soldier; the tale is the other side of Enlightenment because now is the predominance of irrationality, instead the rationality, the science now isn’t because alone the fantasy is dominant, in fact the author tells: “My father(a student of physic thing, astronomic and geographic and he written much treaties among The influence of sun on the fur of bats…”; this introduction naturally is false because the bats haven’t fur, and second the name of his father, but the amusing lies continue in front of the chimney: “(the chimney that has had the measures an high of 12 meters and it was large 9 meters…”; I think that it wasn’t a chimney a condominium. A passion to travels is press for his parents whole grade of kinship is very comic: “..finally a good day come to our house a parent(cousin of wife of uncle of brother in law of sister of my grandfather)”; for the grade of kinship to this person was very rational and common consanguinity, who have some problem asks to secret service of some country. The fantasy is again the principal motive because after landed in an island a storm has brought the destruction, in spite of tragedy, is very comic: “…and a storm burst. It was a violence extreme, so strong that it torn the enormous threes that fleeted on air; beyond the fantasy I think that this image has suggest a scene of Witchcraft of Oz in 1939, although the movie is translation of a romance written in year 1900 by L. Frank Baum, but may the scene of storm is took from this step. The author evidently wanted amused herself because the description od end of storm is very absurd: “And when the storm was ended, every threes failed on the original position and the roots gone back in the earth, and the cucumbers are born on the threes. A crocodile long 40 meters is very laughable; it is a romance of reaction to Enlightenment, and his rationality, as after at last a century after it is going to be as the Verne, when the rationality of Positivism is very important. But among very much fantasy some cultured step is when Raspe tells that the baron was swallowed of a fish very great, it is the step of Iona when he has swallowed from the wheat that has, for theological explication, the announce of the resurrection of Christ, that before is swallowed of death and after he is born again through the resurrection. But I think that this image has suggested also the steps of Pinocchio, written in 1880 by Italian writer Carlo Collodi(1826-1890), that has took or from the Holy Bible or from the Munchhausen Baron; and the Baron, in this enormous fish, has found a nurse and child. We must laugh of these tales because he has written so that the reader laughs, but we must also think that this lively fantasy is the sign of a reaction to the prevalent rationality. It is individual rationality of Munchhausen; this is other rationality of protagonist.

Alessandro Lusana        

    

  

    

 

 

 New Munchhausen: Jules Verne

The new Munchausen, what means? Simple it is sufficient read The adventures of Baron Munchausen of German writer Rudolf Erich Raspe(1737-1794), that in 1785 edited this book where he told the adventures of this baron, that is truly existed, in fact Karl Friedrich Hieronymous von Münchhausen, a German soldier, that Raspe, has took for the adventures of his Baron; until here nothing of interesting , but the interesting is in the time when Raspe and Jules Verne(1828-1905) written their romances the times were different, but same faithful in rationality, aseptic and scientist rationality, and the reactions of these two writers are similar, some step of Raspe is indicative: “The essential advertence that I must set before of narration of adventures of my life much dynamic is this: I want declare that in the narration of modest occurred things whole I have been protagonist I have had fro the absolute sake the scrupulous truth. Unfortunately are the writers that, for the have an easy success, adorn their narrations…”, naturally it is an antithesis, this is the literary figure that has near two words that are contrast between them; the step that we have read is the semiotic contrast between a wit, this the 17^th century, and the wit of romance that is alone a fantastic narration, and Verne lived in a time that was similar, during the Positivism, where the science was dominant and the rationality was likewise; in fact in the romance of Munchhausen, Raspe begin saying that he want tell alone the truth, and in this romance are words, letters, point and commas but the truth nothing, and he is very immediately “lier”, other step is necessary: “I remember the advisement of my grandfather that is has died to age of 306 years for the fishbone of a whale( this good man was very great eater, and a whale of shark were his hors-d’oeuvre…”; it is naturally a book for childhood and the fantasy is fundamental for the childhood, but here is also a reaction to Enlightenment. The same reaction that Verne has had against the Positivism, in fact in his romance, The travel to center of earth, he described a code conversion of a document in Latin language that he code converses read it contrary, already here it impossible, but the text said: “Go down in the crater  of Yocul…and you are going to arrive to center of earth…”. The vulcan Yocul is in Island and the last eruption is in 2010. Some rationality is present in nephew of Lidenbrock, Axel, protagonist and scientist in this romance, his nephew: “Alone the scientific arguments could persuaded the professor Lidenbrock. Now I have excellent against this possibility for this travel. Come to center of earth. It is crazy! The connection to reality Verne has kept it for the descriptions, that have a valor of representation of reality, very much particulars that haven’t motive to be present, and also the interior dynamic, the wit that emerges the other tie to reality; the arrive to Island is the catalog of geography, because Verne mentioned every town; it is because the environment descripted must be motive to induce that also the travel in the center of earth is real. Hence this romance is has dual validities on for the real and other for the fantasy.

Alessandro Lusana  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The first awareness of class: the French Revolution

During the past century above all in socialist literature was repeated one true concept, this is the awareness of class; this is the conscience of a last class, the workers, that Karl Marx(1818-1883) has expressed in his book, The misery of philosophy, an answer to Proudhon, an French anarchic; in some step of this book Marx explained the consciousness of class, that is the right concept, but absolutely fliting, because if some worker has had the money, he has forgotten the consciousness, the class, the socialism and other; but the concept that I want consider isn’t the right or not of Marx, but the reality of this phenomenal, purely psychologic, this is the awareness that in history has determined a upheaval of a social class, that by now was already died and buried, but the final act, this is the funeral, was celebrated through the French revolution. The bourgeois class was the first in the history that has had the awareness of his importance; we must also consider the economic and social context of French during the reign of Lewis 16^th, by now the bourgeois was a social class definite in his nature, although the name didn’t mentioned, but it was the vital and economic lively that allowed to nations of to live; the taxes that in French there were for commerce and entrepreneurs, were very relevant, the bourgeois already has the true power in French, wasn’t the politic but economic, the 20^th June 1789, the bourgeois class was met in a room of regal palace, celled in history through the name of Real tennis court, and it is the first example of awareness of his importance, but the historical importance, and it is the central argument of this oath, that was alone an formal act; we can today read a chronicle of a English, Arthur Young(1741-1820), that has written, in a diary of travel in French, regard this oath: “26th. Every hour that passes seems to give the people fresh spirit: the meetings at the Palais Royal are more numerous, more violent, and more assured; and in the assembly of electors, at Paris, for send ng a deputation to the National Assembly, the language that was talked by all ranks of people was nothing less than a revolution in the government and the establishment of a free constitution: what they mean by a free constitution is easily understood — a republic ; for the doctrine of the times runs every day more and more to that point; yet they profess that the kingdom ought to be a monarchy too; or, at least, that there ought to be a king.” And the other chronicle of Jean Sylvain Bailly(1736-1793), described the meeting and the oath: “For the form of their constitution, where they have called two superiors orders, the municipalities, that composed almost the totality of nation, and counting the two present orders, they have could without usurpation, they attributed to them the rights of general States…”; it is the first gest of the French Revolution, that has took the principal motive of survival of the bourgeois class, why this reaction? And here the awareness of political class is present certainly, also because the bourgeois  was the intellectual class, of professional, and cultured class, therefore the awareness of to be a class was a sureness, but the question is same, why? The principal cause was the economy, the aristocratic classes and the clergy were exempted from the taxes that instead were on the other classes, this the bourgeois and grangers, that kept other two classes, we can also to doubt of this interpretation, but I ask: “Why the supreme politic organ, was called for  this meeting, after 175 years that it wasn’t met?”, the answer is the following: “Evidently also an idiot as Lewis 16^th has been informed that the economic condition was a disaster”; it is sufficient think that if the French have to go back every debts, the same French would have declared bankrupt. The refuse that to Jacques Necker(1732-1804) responsible of department of economy and finance during the reign of Lewis 16^th, that asked to clergy and aristocratic to pay the taxes, and they refused, the question is why? The obvious answer is: “because they didn’t want lost their privileges”, it is the automatic and ideological explication, but it is so or not? Not certainly, why? Because the clergy and aristocratic class haven’t one money, because the aristocratic has quitted the administration to the bourgeois, that during the time was become aware of its power, and hence the oath in the room of Royal tennis: “We oath that we never will be separate from the National Assembly, and we will meet everywhere the causes ask it, until the Constitution of Reign not is going to issue…”; the principal step is the word “constitution”, that reveled the politic program of bourgeois, this is the limitation of power of king, that occurred in 1791, when form the absolutely monarchy the French become the constitutional monarchy, inasmuch also the king has limited to his power, because the first power was alone the law. It is the first authentic awareness of class, that alone the intellectual bourgeois had, because the common people hasn’t absolutely extrange.

Alessandro Lusana                 

 

 

 Performances of private life: Francis Scott Fitzgerald

This Side of Paradise or in the first version The Romantic Egotist of Francis Scott Fitzgerald(1896-1940),  is an absolutely decontextualization, this is an absolutely will of remove of original education, for to assume behavior that are distant and stranger of the American habit; the principal motive is that the Beatrice Blaine, mother of Amory Blaine protagonist, has travelled on the word, she has studied in Rome, Italy, Austrian and England, hence she has received a formal education that was certainly much polite but also formal alone, we must also think to the historical context that seen the American women more emancipated in confront to European women, and Beatrice was also much rich inasmuch much freedoms were enables from the money, in fact he said: “A brilliant education she has had, hers youngness is past in the Renaissance, in the gossip of Roman nobility, she was famous as a American young, very much rich, and she was known from the queen Margaret and to the cardinal Vittori; it is alone a told about to the education of a teen but where is the contextualization? Simple is the following step: “Beatrice O’Hara assumed that kind of education, that isn’t possible; an education whose measure was given from the things and persons that she can despise…”; it is the remove of American education; he has received an education very fine and he has seen the American country, Fitzgerald mentioned some town of California, as Coronado and in the Mexico in the City of Mexico; but the finest education of Beatrice emerges from the impatience, that she bored in California and she has risked a nervous collapse; it is the effect of finest politeness that translated on itself the effect of extreme boring, that hides a weakness very radical of the women of high society, but not certainly of uptown, that are alone farmer cleaned. Anyway Amory felt herself superior to other, and here Fitzgerald is master when he describes the sense of superiority of Amory: “Amery resided by two months to Minneapolis, and his principal cure was hide to his classmates as he fells herself superior to everybody…”; certainly Fitzgerald, has seen and studied the human typologies that he has described, because is perfect this description, that followed to other, when Beatrice said to hers friends: “This is my son is very sophisticated très charmant but delicate. We are every delicate. Here.”, the decontextualization is also evident in the rescue of form, that must hide other origin: “Those pilgrims on every part of USA were always through the luxury: on the car with driver, two waiters Ms. Blain when he could and also the doctor…”; it is a pitiless of a social class that tries overcome his inferiority and can uses alone the form. And the form tries of rescues also the other women, because the description of Fitzgerald is very cruel when Beatrice spoke about the women of west: “They spike as would spike a English waiter that has lived much years in Chicago, in the theatre”…”it is the moment when a woman of west thinks that she considers her husband so rich that she can permits one accent, in short they tries impress me…”. Very pitiless because it is the egocentric reaction of nonentity that want believes that to be something. It is the distance from the context, social, cultural and it is alone a simulation of something that is very ridiculous. The tentative of imitation, hence of decontestualization, is after in other step: “There was, therefore, a curious weakness of wit, hence a phrase  sharp of a major boy turned to him, was sufficient  because he lost the calm and he becomes touchy or timidly stupid. He was slave also of his changeable humor, and although he was able to bold actions, he felt that he…”; the decontestualization is in the portrait of Amory that is almost mirror to a portrait of young lord of Italian writer Giuseppe Parini(1729-1799), perfectly idler and useless. Anyway this romance is alone a translation decontextualized of the humor and life of author, therefore Fitzgerald has translated in a romance his life.

Alessandro Lusana     

 

 Speculative category

What fuck is the speculative category? “This is the problem”, some years ago these were the words that in Denmark were recurrent; the speculative category in the first place isn’t other form of declaration of war, but alone a inquiry about the object that we study; it is alone the object that we consider for our inquiry, and hence we pick our method that is always equal, this the observation, but the change is in object; in philosophical words: we follow Aristotle for the speculative method, but as same Aristotle we change object, therefore that we see for the humankind we don’t see for a book, that although it is written from a human we read indirectly the author and not certainly the man, that there isn’t. The category is change; from the human to a book, inasmuch other category and other method, because with the category must change also the method, a book we can alone read, whereby the speculation is same, as I have said above, Aristotle “docet”, this is Aristotle teaches, but the object is different, thereupon the method must change, an example: we can gaze a painting, a sculpture, a tragedy or comedy in theatre, but the object is different, hence that before was the principal object, the book, during afternoon, in night it isn’t therefore the method is changed. Every object is a category, a scientist man inquiries something that can be anomalous or unknown, but the inquiry is always through same method, this is the speculation, but he study something that is very different from a book, that is in the same method seen but for other motive and for other material, but the motive is the major distinction, because also the scientist man read or has read, but for causes that are different from the literature man, hence the category of interest and the sakes are different, hence also the categories are different, what is valid for the painting, when the painter as Rembrandt(1606-1669) has painted the lesson of anatomy of doctor Nicolaes Tulp, an art history man can study this painting for the style, the reality, the growth of painter, but the surgery sees it for the correctness of anatomy, for the correctness of muscles and other, hence the category and the object are different but the method, this the speculative, is same. And two persons a surgery and art historic man see two different categories, but, repeat, the object is same, the painting of Rembrandt; why this change? Because, in the first place the obviousness, the interest is different and in the second place because the categories are different, the painting is always loved both it is seen from a surgery or art historic man, and Rembrandt would see twice for a portrait, if somebody pays him; and the portrait is opportune reference for this think, why? Simple because a painter portrait a model, and he must draw the anatomy, but his interest is limited to the face and body and neither other, but the object is same of surgery, that gazed the symptom of some ill, but the face is same, but the category is changed, the difference is in speculative category.

Alessandro Lusana                    

 The categories of semiotics

The category of semiotics can be very much, and I want add some other; for my personal think about the semiotics that I want add to, we can add, or better to specify the nature of these categories, that can be verbal, a tone of voice both for anger or to give an ask, we can understand if it is a question through the verbal semiotics, because the ascendant tone toward the end of proposition indicates a question, hence it is the verbal semiotics, as the use of a language enables the identification of a nationality, and it said to us that the national origin of somebody, as the inflection, this is the pronounce of some word in other language has different sound, and we can understand the original birth, it is the verbal semiotics. After we beyond the verbal communication as the written communication, and already is the textual semiotics, but since the worse hasn’t the end, the three categories of textual semiotics are ready: the first is the pure semiotics, this is the translation the words that has kept same meaning from the original language, for example from the original Latin the Latin word “captivus”, the prisoner is a man or woman that is in prison because he has made an wicked action, and the “captivus” in Italian language is the linguistic mother of “cattivo”, this is wicked, and the wicked often are in prison; semiotics contradiction when the meaning is different or partiality equal.; similar semiotics translation, when the word kept a similar meaning but not mirror, and finally the basilar semiotics, this is the capacity of to understand from the context, through the words, behaviors, gestures; who manages to understand it is a basilar semiotics, the human semiotics has demands also experiences to human gender, that are different because the men and women are different, hence a behavior is necessary to a person but to other is impolite, why? Simple because beyond the human wit is present also the social origin that has character that are own, because if something can be impolite for somebody, for other is daily, but beyond the social origin and cultural, also the nationality is important, because a custom can demand same behavior, an example that is very laughable, in the Parliament of Union Kingdom is absolutely forbidden to die, because the Parliament is in the royal palace and the protocol want that the died has celebration very solemn, and the cost would be excessive, in Alaska State is absolutely forbidden to give a drink to an elk, in Germany to be without petrol is illegal; these are alone something that can be given to us some sign, semiotics signs, that are very important reference for the understand a context or a person; it is the human semiotics; what is? The behavior and the reaction are motives for the human semiotics; we usually consider the behavior of somebody, both directly and indirectly for distance, for example the television, but never we think that it is also an argument of semiotics, no certainly literary but simply human. The behavior can be argument for the study, psychological semiotics; this is the inquiry necessary to understand who is face to us; one guy that boasted and songs successes is a weak that must be impressive so that he can overcomes and wines his weakness; this feel we can also understand from the documents that are indirect, this is not written for somebody, in letters, personal letters it is more evident, because we are sure that these letters are going to read alone the addresses, hence also the hide arguments are confessed; but from these letters we can understand better the rapports and the dislike of somebody, inasmuch more better we can use the semiotics as a matter necessary to know the familiar life. The social semiotics is other category that we can use, because we can identify the social level, the social culture, the social politeness of somebody, we can see somebody and recognize from him some sign, that enables to us to recognize the origin and culture.

Alessandro Lusana               

 

 The metaphoric theatre of Aristophanes

Aristophanes(b.Ch. 445-385), a comedies writer in ancient Athens is, as other authors after him, very much speculative, this is he is an observer of reality, and he seems managed it very nicely, in the comedy of Acarnians the soliloquist of Diceopoli is nice : “…Joys I have had scant, very scant,  three or four. Instead gravies very much, neither sand of sea…We consider the satisfactions? When they make so that Cleon split the five talents, I have recreated the soul, spectacular! It has been a very joy; I kiss the knocking, they are worthy of Elides. But other time I was waiting a tragedy of Aeschylus and that instead Teognides. I have felt a very grieve in the heart…”, it is alone a simple example of comedy that Aristophanes has written, the humor is, we must consider that the author lived in 5^th-4^th century before Christ, and then these were the canon for a comedy. The wit of this comedy is in the first motive that melted two events one comic, the comedy and other a historic event certainly not pleasant, as the war of Peloponnesian(b.Ch. 431-404); but Aristophanes has found a motive to laugh in this comedy because he has descripted of Diceopoli, a granger, that managed to reach a personal peace, it means alone for him and his family. An herald tells his misfortune: “I was running for to bring to you the truce, and some old Acarnian smelled the smell. They have very robust, bad as oak, robust marathon, and soon they cray: “Criminal, you are bringing the war…”, they gathered the stones in the mantles. I escaped and they back and crying.”, and Diceopoli: “Let them cry! But do you bring the truce?” and the absurd is in this step above all; because the herald gives to Diceopoli three small bottles and he says: “Yes I bring it. Three qualities. It is of five years, taste!”; in this context is also a hint demand for the peace, because the following words are very explicative of this will, because the herald gives the small bottle of thirty years: “hence it of thirty, for the sea and for the earth! There is!”, and Diceopoli. “O Dionysus what smell, ambrosia and honey…I take it, a drink…”; here we can get down on the practice life, because Aristophanes asked the peace, because evidently the Athens were very boring of war; therefore Aristophanes is spokespersons of Athens citizens. And the chorus leader that asks directly to public of indication regard the direction of flight of herald; some time in past in comedy movies the protagonist involved the public with request; and the chorus leader says: “Follow him everybody there! Ask to everybody passes. For the good of city we must take him(forward the public) Give to me a sign who he is, who brings the truce?”; this will of search of guest of truce is other polemical, alone hinted, to enemies of peace in Athens and Greek; Aristophanes hence takes the reality and translated it in theatre, also against the people considers the followers of war. The unicity of Diceopoli that want and reached the peace, is a metaphor like mirror to the same will in Athens, may the will of peace was asked from very scant, or from the great number but they were the common people that aren’t heard, because in those contexts was necessary the army, and the weapons and politic were very important. Therefore Aristophanes become the voice of short people.

Alessandro Lusana

    

 

                                               Impolitic very good citizen: Socrates

About the philosophy and the figure of Socrates(b.Ch.469-399) very much has been written and said, but a particular is always ignored, also because nothing testimony has said something about this particular side of Socrates, this is the his ideology or his political preference; in fact we haven’t nothing reference regard the Socratic ideology; the ancient books that has used Socrates, as the Republic of Plato, and the biography of Xenophanes(b.Ch. 430-355), has said about it something; evidently he haven’t ideology, and he respected alone the laws, as he said in the Crito, a pupil of Socrates that has offered to Socrates the possibility of to escape from the prison, because he would corrupt the guards, but Socrates refused it and he spoke to Crito about the valor of laws: “Socrates asked two things: the first is that Crito is convinced that the wreck never we must make, neither fo0r the revenge, and the second is if is licit don’t respect the faith of somebody after a right accord…Socrates goes toward the last side of dialogue and he made a personification of laws. The respect of Socrates was both for the Athens laws and for the divine laws, a step aids us, a religious particular, during the holiday of Delo was forbidden the capital condemn, hence the condemn of Socrates occurred 30 days after the sentence  Crito informs Socrates that the sheep from Delo will arrived in that same day, and Crito said: “hence Socrates you are going to quit the life”, and Socrates responds: “With good lucky, Crito! If it is the will, it must be so”; furthermore Socrates shows his adherence to laws of Athens in this long step, where he personalized the laws: “And if the laws asked me: “But Socrates, it was the pact that we have stipulated, or instead that you must obey to judges of the city?...What do you reproach to us and to the city? The first your father and your mother have married and you are born? Say to us, that regularize the marries, do you have some reproach to us because they aren’t good?”, and the concept is repeated over: “…You are violating the pacts and the accords that you have made to us, and made not because you are compelled or through deception…but during seventh years you could gone away, if we dislike to you? You contrary hasn’t preferred neither Lacedaemon and Crete, whose you lode for every occasion the laws and order, and neither other cities…and more than every Athens resident you have loved this city and its laws, because to whom like a city without laws? And now you don’t respect the pacts, you are going to be faithful to pacts, if you follow us…”, and the nature of rightest citizen of Socrates emerges in these following words: “In fact when you have violated your engage and made this guilt, think what good you can make to yourself  and to your friends. They are going to face the risk of exile and deprived of civil rights and deprived of their richness…”; it is the wit of Socrates, that in this context could make egoistically and gone away from Athens, inasmuch save his life; but he thought first don’t betray the laws, and it respect for the city and for the citizens; therefore he was a very good citizen of Athens, but first he was a very good citizen.

Alessandro Lusana    

   

 

 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