Phonetic Weakness

Spoken Vulgar Latin favored words that were rhythmically strong and easy to pronounce in casual speech. [1]

• Ignis is short and phonetically distinct, but when inflected in spoken Latin, it could easily be swallowed or confused with other terms.
• Focus (and its accusative form focum) had a strong, punchy consonant structure that easily evolved into the syllabically robust fuoco. [1, 2, 3]

G2

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giulio. Bust of Caesar, 44–30 BC, Museo Pio-Clementino, Vatican Museums The gens Julia was one of the most prominent patrician families of ancient Rome. From the early decades of the Republic, members of this gens served in the highest offices of the Roman state, beginning with Gaius Julius Iulus, consul in 489 BC. However, the Julii are perhaps best known for Gaius Julius Caesar, the dictator and adoptive father of the emperor Augustus, through whom the name was passed to the Julio-Claudian dynasty of the first century AD. The nomen Julius became very common in imperial times, as the descendants of persons enrolled as citizens under the early emperors began to make their mark in history.[1]  Origin  Denarius issued under Augustus from the mint at Lugdunum (Lyon, France), showing Gaius and Lucius Caesar standing facing on the reverse (circa 2 BC – AD 14) According to Roman tradition, the Julii were among the Alban families brought to Rome when their city was destroyed by Tullus Hostilius, the third Roman king, who enrolled them among the patricians and accorded them seats in the Roman Senate.[2][1][3] Diodorus Siculus reported that the Julii had held the position of Rex Sacrorum at Alba Longa, the result of a compromise with the Silvii, who held the kingship. Some scholars have pointed to this as evidence of dual kingship in the earliest period of various cities of Latium, including Rome and Lanuvium, which also had the post of Rex Sacrorum.[4][5]  A seemingly contradictory tradition places the Julii at Rome even earlier, following the death of Romulus. A certain Proculus Julius is reported to have witnessed Romulus descending from the heavens, bidding the Romans not weep for his loss, but to take up his worship as the god Quirinus.[6][7][8] However, as this story concerns a miraculous event, and might have been influenced by the fame of the Julii in later times, it cannot be regarded as evidence of the period that the family first settled at Rome.[9]  The Julii were also connected to Bovillae from an early period, some of them possibly having settled there after the fall of Alba Longa. An altar inscription in the theatre of Bovillae, dating from around the beginning of the first century BC, speaks of the Julii carrying out sacrifices according to the Alban rites. In imperial times the emperor Tiberius dedicated a sacrarium, or chapel, to the Julii at Bovillae, alongside a statue of Augustus.[10][11]  In the later Republic, it was fashionable for aristocratic families to claim descent from the gods and heroes of Greek and Roman myth. The Julii claimed descent from Iulus, said to be the same person as Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, and founder of Alba Longa. In Greek myth, Aeneas was the son of Venus and the Trojan prince Anchises.[1][12] The traditions upon which these claims were based were not always clear; the historian Livy was unsure whether to regard Iulus and Ascanius as the same person, or perhaps two brothers—one the son of Creüsa, Aeneas' first wife, lost in the sack of Troy—and the other the son of Lavinia, the daughter of Latinus, whom Aeneas married after landing in Italy.[13] The late Roman grammarian Servius went to some effort to prove the identity of Ascanius and Iulus through etymology.[14][1]  The importance attached to their mythic ancestry may have served a further purpose: after their initial prominence under the early Republic, the Julii sank into obscurity, and they are hardly mentioned for a century and a half beginning in the mid-fourth century BC. When at last they emerged and once again began to assume positions of importance, emphasizing their ostensible connections with Rome's foundation myths might have helped to restore their prestige.[15] As he rose to prominence in the Roman state, Caesar regularly alluded to these myths, notably doing so when speaking at the funeral of his aunt Julia, and using Venus Genetrix as the watchword for his soldiers at Pharsalus and Munda. Coins of the Julii bear the likeness of Venus, and Roman writers willingly readily furthered a myth that served to glorify the emperors.[16][1][17]  Praenomina The Julii were amongst the most conservative patrician families in terms of praenomina. With only rare exceptions, they limited themselves to just three names: Lucius, Gaius, and Sextus, all of which were common throughout Roman history.[15] The consular fasti supply two others, evidently used among the early Julii: Vopiscus was borne by the consul of 473 BC, and he in turn had a son, Spurius.[18][19][20] Vopiscus was evidently an old praenomen that had fallen out of use, and is otherwise found only as a surname.[21] Spurius was common enough during the early Republic, but was scarce in later periods, preserved chiefly by a few families in which it was traditional. Livy also gives Gnaeus as the praenomen of Gaius Julius Mento, consul in 431 BC.[22][23][24]  Proculus, borne by the legendary figure who reportedly witnessed the apotheosis of Romulus, was another old praenomen that, though uncommon, was still in general use during the early Republic. Like Vopiscus, in later times it occurs as a cognomen.[25] It is also possible that Iulus or Iullus, the name from which the Julii derived their gentilicium, was originally a praenomen.[26] Perhaps with this reason in mind, Mark Antony, the friend and colleague of Caesar, and who was descended from the Julii, named one of his sons Iullus.  Various praenomina occur in imperial times, particularly in the imperial family, which made a habit of exchanging ordinary praenomina for titles and surnames. Other Julii are found with praenomina such as Gnaeus, Marcus, and Tiberius, but many of these were not descended from the patrician Julii of the Republic, but belonged to plebeian families, descended from freedmen or newly-enrolled citizens, who typically assumed the nomina of their patrons.[27]  Branches and cognomina  Aeneas, legendary ancestor of the Julii, with the god of the Tiber The only cognomina of the Julii under the Republic were Iulus or Iullus, Mento, Libo, and Caesar. Of these all but Libo are known to have belonged to patrician members of this gens.[28] The status of Libo is uncertain, but he may have been a descendant of the Julii Iuli, and perhaps an ancestor of the Caesares, in which case he would also have been a patrician.[29] On coins, we find the surnames Caesar and Bursio, of which the latter belonged to a moneyer of the late Republic, not mentioned in Roman writers.[28][27][30] Other surnames occur in imperial times, but it is unknown which if any of these belonged to descendants of the patrician Julii.[28]  Over the course of centuries, the nomen Julius was adopted by countless persons as they obtained Roman citizenship, without any connection to the original Republican gens. Eventually the distinction between praenomen, nomen, and cognomen was lost, and Julius was treated much like a personal name, which it ultimately became. The Latin form is common in many languages, but other familiar forms exist, including Giulio (Italian), Julio (Spanish), Jules (French), Júlio (Portuguese), Iuliu (Romanian) and Юлий (Yuliy, Bulgarian and Russian).  Iullus Iullus, also written as Iulus and Jullus, was the surname of the eldest branch of the Julii to appear in Roman history. At least in later times, this name was connected with Iulus, the son of Aeneas,[1] or in some versions, the son of Ascanius and grandson of Aeneas. At least one of the Latin grammarians connected the name with Jupiter, explaining that the Latins called Ascanius a son of Jupiter. In this explanation Iulus perhaps originated as a diminutive of Dius, which seems etymologically possible.[31][32] Chase supposed that it might have been an ancient praenomen.[26] Iullus seems to be the older written form, but Iulus was popularized by Vergil in the Aeneid, and is the form used in the Fasti.[33][34][35]  The Julii Iulli first appear in 489 BC, when Gaius Julius Iullus was consul, and for the next century they filled the highest offices of the Roman state.[36] The last of the Iulli to appear in history, also named Gaius Julius Iullus, was nominated dictator in 352 BC, in an attempt to procure the election of two patrician consuls in violation of the lex Licinia Sextia.[37][36] This would seem to indicate that the Julii Iulli at this period belonged to the hard-line faction of the old aristocracy, and that their decline and disappearance from history was due to the rise of a coalition between the newly-empowered plebeian nobility and those patricians who were willing to work with them.[38]  Mento This surname belonged to Gaius (or Gnaeus) Julius Mento, consul in 431 BC.[24] At this period, no plebeian Julii are known, and all consuls are thought to have been patricians,[i] so the authorities are agreed that Mento was one of the patrician Julii, but there is no evidence of where he fit in the family.[1]  Libo Lucius Julius Libo, consul in 267 BC, is the only member of this gens known to have held high office during the century and a half between the last of the Julii Iuli and the first of the Julii Caesares.[29] Chase translates his surname as "sprinkler", deriving it from libare, and suggests that it might originally have signified the libation pourer at religious ceremonies.[40] His filiation in the fasti indicates that his father and grandfather were both named Lucius, but we do not know whether they bore the surname Libo, or some other. Some scholars have supposed that Libo was descended from the Julii Iuli,[29] and that Lucius, the father of Sextus Julius Caesar, was his son; but the evidence is very slight.[41]  Caesar The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology says this of the cognomen Caesar:  It is uncertain which member of the Julia gens first obtained the surname of Caesar, but the first who occurs in history is Sextus Julius Caesar, praetor in BC 208. The origin of the name is equally uncertain. Spartianus, in his life of Aelius Verus, mentions four different opinions respecting its origin:  That the word signified an elephant in the language of the Moors, and was given as a surname to one of the Julii because he had killed an elephant. That it was given to one of the Julii because he had been cut (caesus) out of his mother's womb after her death; or Because he had been born with a great quantity of hair (caesaries) on his head; or Because he had azure-colored (caesii) eyes of an almost supernatural kind. Of these opinions, the third, which is also given by Festus, seems to come nearest the truth. Caesar and caesaries are both probably connected with the Sanskrit kêsa, "hair", and it is quite in accordance with the Roman custom for a surname to be given to an individual from some peculiarity in his personal appearance. The second opinion, which seems to have been the most popular one with the ancient writers, arose without doubt from a false etymology. With respect to the first, which was the one adopted, says Spartianus, by the most learned men, it is impossible to disprove it absolutely, as we know next to nothing of the ancient Moorish language; but it has no inherent probability in it; and the statement of Servius is undoubtedly false, that the grandfather of the dictator obtained the surname on account of killing an elephant with his own hand in Africa, as there were several of the Julii with this name before his time.  An inquiry into the etymology of this name is of some interest, as no other name has ever obtained such celebrity—"clarum et duraturum cum aeternitate mundi nomen."[42][43] It was assumed by Augustus as the adopted son of the dictator, and was by Augustus handed down to his adopted son Tiberius. It continued to be used by Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, as members either by adoption or female descent of Caesar's family; but though the family became extinct with Nero, succeeding emperors still retained it as part of their titles, and it was the practice to prefix it to their own name, as for instance, Imperator Caesar Domitianus Augustus. When Hadrian adopted Aelius Verus, he allowed the latter to take the title of Caesar; and from this time, though the title of Augustus continued to be confined to the reigning prince, that of Caesar was also granted to the second person in the state and the heir presumptive to the throne.[44]  Drumann, citing the same sources, reached a different conclusion, believing that the story of an ancestor of the family having slain an elephant to be the most likely explanation. Drumann admitted that too little was known of the Moorish language to be sure, and that in any case it could not have been the dictator's grandfather, as some claimed, because the surname had already been borne for several generations before this.[45] However, he notes that the elephant became a potent symbol when the Romans first encountered them during the Punic Wars, the period in which the surname first appears. Furthermore, Caesar issued coins bearing the image of an elephant, and included elephants in his processions, though this could also have related to Caesar's military campaigns in Africa.[45] Drumann dismisses the explanations that the name derived from thick hair or blue eyes, and notes that the popular story of Caesar having given his name to the Caesarean section was false, since—besides having several generations of Caesars before him—his mother, Aurelia, was still alive when he first held public office.[45]  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Proculus Julius, a legendary figure who announced the apotheosis of Romulus to the Roman people, circa 716 BC.[6] Julii Iulli Lucius Julius, father of Gaius Julius Iullus, the consul of 489 BC. Gaius Julius L. f. Iullus, consul in 489 BC. Gaius Julius C. f. L. n. Iullus, consul in 482 BC, and one of the decemvirs in 451.[46][47] Vopiscus Julius C. f. L. n. Iullus, consul in 473 BC.[18] Gaius Julius C. f. C. n. Iullus, consul in 447 and 435 BC. Spurius Julius Vop. f. C. n. Iullus, father of the consular tribunes of 408, 405, and 403 BC, according to the Capitoline Fasti.[48][18] Lucius Julius Vop. f. C. n. Iullus, consular tribune in 438, and consul in 430 BC. Sextus Julius Iulus, consular tribune in 424 BC.[49][50] Gaius Julius Sp. f. Vop. n. Iullus, consular tribune in 408 and 405 BC, and censor in 393.[51][18] Lucius Julius Sp. f. Vop. n. Iullus, consular tribune in 403 BC, continued the siege against Veii.[52][53][54][18] Lucius Julius L. f. Vop. n. Iullus, consular tribune in 401 and 397 BC.[55] Lucius Julius Iullus, consular tribune in 388 and 379 BC.[56][57] Gaius Julius Iullus, nominated dictator in 352 BC, ostensibly to carry on war against the Etruscans, but in fact to carry the election of two patricians in the consular comitia, in violation of the lex Licinia Sextia.[58] Julii Mentones Gaius Julius Mento, consul in 431 BC. Gaius Julius Mento, a rhetorician, cited by Seneca.[59] Julii Libones Lucius Julius (Libo?), the grandfather of Lucius Julius Libo, consul in 267 BC. Lucius Julius L. f. (Libo?), the father of Libo, the consul of 267 BC. Lucius Julius L. f. L. n. Libo, consul in 267 BC, triumphed over the Sallentini. Julii Caesares Main article: Julii Caesares Lucius Julius (Caesar?), father of the praetor of 208 BC. Sextus Julius (L. f.) Caesar, praetor in 208 BC, obtained the province of Sicilia, father of the praetor of 166 BC and the consul of 157 BC. Lucius Julius (Sex. f. L. n.) Caesar, praetor in 183 BC, had the province of Gallia Cisalpina. Lucius Julius (L. f. Sex. n.) Caesar, praetor in 166 BC.[60] Sextus Julius Sex. f. L. n. Caesar, consul in 157 BC. Gaius Julius (Sex. f. L. n.) Caesar, great-grandfather of the dictator. Sextus Julius (Sex. f. Sex. n.) Caesar, praetor urbanus in 123 BC; he is probably the same Sextus Julius Caesar who was triumvir monetalis about this time. Lucius Julius Sex. f. Sex. n. Caesar, father of the consul of 90 BC, married Popillia, widow of Quintus Lutatius Catulus, and mother of Quintus Lutatius Catulus, consul in 102 BC. Gaius Julius (C. f. Sex. n.) Caesar, grandfather of the dictator, married Marcia. Lucius Julius L. f. Sex. n. Caesar, consul in 90 BC, during the Social War, and censor in 89. Julia L. f. L. n., wife of Marcus Antonius Creticus, and mother of Mark Antony, the triumvir. After his death, she married Publius Cornelius Lentulus Sura, one of Catiline's conspirators. Gaius Julius L. f. Sex. n. Caesar Strabo Vopiscus, a notable orator and poet, proscribed and put to death by Marius and Cinna in 87 BC. Gaius Julius C. f. (C. n.) Caesar, praetor, governor of Asia, and father of the dictator, married Aurelia. Lucius Julius L. f. L. n. Caesar, consul in 64 BC. Lucius Julius L. f. L. n. Caesar, a partisan of Pompeius during the Civil War. Julia L. f. L. n., daughter of the consul of 64 BC.[61] Julia C. f. (C. n.), aunt of the dictator, married Gaius Marius. Sextus Julius C. f. (C. n.) Caesar, consul in 91 BC, uncle of the dictator. Gaius Julius C. f. C. n. Caesar, consul in 59, 48, 46, 45, and 44 BC, dictator in 49, and from 47 to 44 BC. Julia C. f. C. n., eldest sister of the dictator, and wife of Lucius Pinarius and Quintus Pedius. Julia C. f. C. n., older sister of the dictator, and wife of Marcus Atius Balbus. Julia C. f. C. n., daughter of the dictator, and wife of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. Sextus Julius Sex. f. C. n. Caesar, Flamen Quirinalis in 57 BC.[62] Sextus Julius Sex. f. Sex. n. Caesar, appointed governor of Syria in 47 BC, killed in a revolt of the soldiers. Gaius Julius C. f. C. n. Caesar Octavianus, adopted son of the dictator, afterwards the emperor Augustus. Julio-Claudian dynasty Main article: Julio-Claudian dynasty Imperator Caesar divi f. C. n. Augustus (born Gaius Octavius), emperor from 27 BC to AD 14.[63] Julia Augusti f. divi n. Augusta (born Livia), empress as the third wife of Augustus, and mother of the emperor Tiberius. Augustus adopted her into his family in his will. Tiberius Julius Augusti f. divi n. Caesar Augustus (born Tiberius Claudius Nero), son of Livia and adopted son of Augustus, emperor from AD 14 to 37.[64][63] Julia Augusti. f. divi. n., daughter of Augustus by his second wife, Scribonia, married first Marcus Claudius Marcellus, second Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, and lastly, the emperor Tiberius. Gaius Julius Augusti f. divi n. Caesar, the eldest son of Agrippa and Julia, adopted by Augustus.[63] Lucius Julius Augusti f. divi n. Caesar, the second son of Agrippa and Julia, adopted by Augustus. Germanicus Julius Ti. f. Augusti. n. Caesar (born with an unknown name), nephew and adopted son of emperor Tiberius. Drusus Julius Ti. f. Augusti. n. Caesar (born Nero Claudius Drusus), son of the emperor Tiberius, was probably poisoned in AD 23 by Sejanus. Agrippa Julius Augusti f. divi n. Caesar, the third son of Agrippa and Julia, adopted by Augustus.[65] Nero Julius Germanici. f. Ti. n. Caesar Germanicus, son of Germanicus, was exiled during the reign of Tiberius and died under unclear circumstances in AD 31. Drusus Julius Germanici. f. Ti. n. Caesar Germanicus, son of Germanicus, was likewise exiled by Tiberius, and is said to have starved to death in AD 33. [?] Julius Germanici. f. Ti. n. Caesar Germanicus, son of Germanicus whose first name is unknwon, died in infancy. Tiberius Julius Germanici. f. Ti. n. Caesar Germanicus, son of Germanicus, died in childhood. Gaius Julius Caesar Germanici. f. Ti. n. Germanicus Major, son of Germanicus, died in early childhood. Gaius Julius Germanici. f. Ti. n. Caesar Germanicus Minor, son of Germanicus, better known as Caligula, emperor from AD 37 to 41. Julia Drusi. f. Ti. n. Livia, daughter of Drusus Tiberius Julius Drusi. f. Ti. n. Caesar Nero Gemellus, son of Drusus, was killed by the emperor Caligula. Germanicus Julius Drusi. f. Ti. n. Claudius Caesar Gemellus, son of Drusus, died in early childhood. Julia Germanici. f. Ti. n. Agrippina, daughter of Germanicus, and mother of the emperor Nero. Julia Germanici. f. Ti. n. Drusilla, daughter of Germanicus, married first Lucius Cassius Longinus, and second Marcus Aemilius Lepidus. Julia Germanici. f. Ti. n. Livilla, daughter of Germanicus, married Marcus Vinicius, consul in AD 30. Julia C. f. Germanici. n. Drusilla, daughter of Caligula, was murdered by the Praetorian Guard in AD 41. Others First century BC Lucius Julius Bursio, triumvir monetalis in 85 BC.[30] Julius Polyaenus, a contemporary of Caesar, and the author of four epigrams in the Anthologia Graeca.[66][67] Julia, possibly the name of a lady who wanted to divorce her husband Otho to marry Cicero's nephew Quintus. The name might be an error for Tutia.[68][69] Lucius Julius Calidus, a poet in the final years of the Republic, proscribed by Volumnius, the partisan of Marcus Antonius, but saved through the intercession of Atticus.[70] Gaius Julius Hyginus, a freedman of Augustus, appointed head of the Palatine library, and the author of numerous books about history, mythology, and science. Julius Modestus, a freedman of Gaius Julius Hyginus, who became a distinguished grammarian, and the author of Quaestiones Confusae.[71][72][73] Julius Marathas, a freedman of Augustus, who wrote a life of his master.[74] Marcus Julius Cottius, king of several Alpine tribes of the Ligures, submitted to Augustus and granted the title of Praefectus.[75] Gaius Julius Eurycles, a wealthy Spartan who assisted Octavian at the battle of Actium and was subsequently awarded citizenship. He was the father of Laco and the grandfather of Spartiaticus. First century  Gnaeus Julius Agricola, statue at Bath Julius Florus, an orator, jurist, poet, and either the author or editor of several satires during the reign of Augustus. He accompanied Tiberius to Armenia, and may have been the uncle of Julius Secundus, and perhaps the friend of Quintilian, who calls him an eminent orator of Gaul.[76] Julius M. f. Vestalis, a son of Marcus Julius Cottius, was a centurion, and in AD 12 commanded the force that retook the frontier post of Aegyssus from the Getae, a deed celebrated by Ovid.[77] Gaius Julius M. f. Donnus, son of Marcus Julius Cottius, prefect of the Ligures, fought for Tiberius.[78] Marcus Julius M. f. Cottius, another son of Marcus Julius Cottius, prefect of the Ligures, was granted title of king by the emperor Claudius.[79] Julius Florus, leader of an insurrection of the Treveri during the reign of Tiberius. Julius Sacrovir, a leader of the Aedui, who together with Julius Florus revolted in AD 21.[80] Julius Secundus, an orator and friend of Quintilian, perhaps the nephew of the Gallic orator Julius Florus.[81][82] Julius Montanus, a senator, poet, and friend of Tiberius, cited by both the elder and younger Seneca. After the emperor Nero assaulted him in the dark, Montanus resisted forcefully before recognizing his attacker and begging for mercy, but he was compelled to commit suicide.[83][84][85] Sextus Julius Postumus, used by Sejanus in one of his schemes, AD 23.[86] Julius Africanus, of the Gallic state of the Santones, was condemned by Tiberius in AD 32.[87] Julius Celsus, a tribune of the city cohort, was condemned to death under Tiberius, but broke his own neck in prison, in order to avoid a public execution.[88] Julius Canus, a Stoic philosopher, condemned to death by the emperor Caligula. He had promised to appear to his friends after his death, and fulfilled his promise by appearing to one of them in a vision.[89][90] Julius Graecinus, a writer on botany, and the father of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, was put to death by Caligula.[91][92][93] Gaius Julius Callistus, a freedman of Caligula, influential during his reign and that of Claudius. Gaius Julius Sex. f. Postumus, governor of Egypt from AD 45 to 48.[94][95] Marcus Julius Romulus, adlected into the Senate after serving as tribune of the plebs, also served as legate of the Legio XV Apollinaris, and proconsul of Macedonia.[96] Gaius Julius Aquila, an eques, sent to protect Cotys, King of the Bosporus, in AD 50. Tiberius Julius Alexander, an equestrian from a wealthy Jewish family from Alexandria, procurator of Judea from AD 46 to AD 48 and governor of Egypt from AD 66 to AD 69. He was present as part of Titus's entourage during the siege of Jerusalem. Marcus Julius Alexander, younger brother of Tiberius Julius Alexander, he was betrothed to the princess Berenice but died prematurely in AD 44 and had no issue with her. Julius Pelignus, Procurator of Cappadocia in AD 52, during the reign of Claudius.[97] Julius Bassus, said by the elder Plinius to have written a medical work in Greek.[98] Gaius Julius C. f. Laco, the son of Eurycles, was an augur and flamen of the imperial cult at Corinth. He was one of the municipal duumvirs, and served as agonothete of the Isthmian Games.[99] Gaius Julius C. f. C. n. Spartiaticus, the son of Gaius Julius Laco, was a military tribune from Corinth. He held several of the same offices as his father, being a priest of the imperial cult, duumvir, and agonothete of the Isthmian Games, according to an inscription dating between the reign of Nero and the end of the first century.[99] Julius Densus, an eques during the reign of Nero, accused of being too favorably disposed towards Britannicus in AD 56.[100] Julius Diocles of Carystus, author of four epigrams in the Greek Anthology. Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus, procurator of Britannia from AD 61 to 65. Julia Pacata, the wife of Classicanus. Julius Indus, a cavalry commander of the Treveri, and the father-in-law of Classicanus. Julius Africanus, a celebrated orator in the reign of Nero. Lucius Julius Rufus, consul in AD 67. His death is related by the elder Pliny.[101] Gaius Julius Vindex, one of the chief supporters of Galba, led the rebellion against Nero. Julius Fronto, a supporter of Otho, put in chains by the soldiers because his brother, Julius Gratus, was a supporter of Vitellius. Julius Gratus, prefect of the camp in the army of Aulus Caecina Alienus, the general of Vitellius, was put in chains by the soldiers because his brother, Julius Fronto, supported Otho. Julius Carus, one of the murderers of Titus Vinius when the emperor Galba was put to death in AD 69.[102] Gaius Julius Civilis, leader of the Batavian Rebellion in AD 69. Julius Classicus, of the Treveri, who with Civilis was one of the leaders of the Batavian Rebellion. Julius Paulus, the brother of Civilis, was put to death on a false charge of treason by Gaius Fonteius Capito, the governor of Germania Inferior.[103] Julius Briganticus, a nephew of Civilis, who fought under Cerealis in Germania, and fell in battle in AD 71. Julius Sabinus, of the Lingones, joined in the revolt of the Batavi. Julius Tutor, of the Treviri, joined in the rebellion of Classicus.[104] Julius Calenus, of the Aedui, a partisan of Vitellius, was sent to Gaul as proof of the emperor's defeat at Cremona in AD 69.[105] Julius Priscus, appointed Praetorian Prefect by Vitellius in AD 69, he failed to hold the passes of the Apennines, and returned to Rome in disgrace.[106] Julius Placidus, tribune of a cohort in the army of Vespasian, who dragged Vitellius from his hiding place.[107][108] Julius Burdo, commander of the Roman fleet in Germania, in AD 70. Previously suspected by the soldiers of having a hand in the death of Gaius Fonteius Capito, he was protected by Vitellius.[109] Sextus Julius Gabinianus, a celebrated rhetorician who taught in Gaul during the time of Vespasian, and was spoken of by Suetonius in De Claris Rhetoribus.[110][111] Julia Procilla, the mother of Agricola.[93] Gnaeus Julius Agricola, consul in AD 77, the conqueror of Britannia. Julius Cerealis, a poet, and a friend and contemporary of the younger Pliny and Martial.[112][113] Tiberius Julius Lupus, governor of Roman Egypt from 71 to 73. Lucius Julius Marinus, governor of Bithynia and Pontus at some point between AD 85 and 89. Julius Rufus, a writer of satires, contemporary with Martial.[114] Sextus Julius Frontinus, twice consul in the late first century, and author of De Aquaeductu. Gaius Junius Silanus,[ii] consul suffectus in AD 92.[115][116][117] Julius Naso, a friend of both the younger Pliny and Tacitus, who were interested in his success as a candidate for public office.[118] Julius Calvaster, a military tribune who took part in the rebellion of Lucius Antonius Saturninus, but was pardoned by Domitian.[119][120] Julius Ferox, consul suffectus from the Kalends of November in AD 100, and subsequently Curator of the Banks and Courses of the Tiber, and of the Cloaca Maxima. He is sometimes confused with the jurist Urseius Ferox.[121][122] Second century  Trajan's Bridge at Alcántara, built by C. Julius Lacer Lucius Julius Ursus, consul in AD 84, 98, and 100. Gaius Julius Servilius Ursus Servianus, the brother-in-law of Hadrian, and consul in AD 107, 111, and 136. Gaius Julius Lacer, an architect during the reign of Trajan. His name is inscribed upon the famous bridge over the Tagus, which he built, and which still stands.[123] Gaius Julius Africanus, grandson of the orator Julius Africanus, was consul suffectus in AD 108. Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappus, a prince of Commagene, consul suffectus in AD 109. Sextus Julius Major, a wealthy noble from Asia, consul suffectus circa AD 126. Julius Severianus, a rhetorician in the time of Hadrian, and the author of Syntomata, or Praecepta Artis Rhetoricae.[124] Sextus Julius Severus, governor of Britannia and Bithynia under Hadrian, was sent to Judaea to suppress the Bar Kokhba revolt. Julius Aquila, a jurist, probably of the late second century. Lucius Julius Aquila, the author of De Etrusca Disciplina, a work on Etruscan religion. Julius Vestinus, a sophist, who made an abridgement of the lexicon of Pamphilus.[125] Julius Pollux, a Greek sophist and grammarian, and a teacher of grammar and rhetoric at Athens during the reign of Commodus. Julius Titianus, a scholar and writer of the late second century, and the father of the rhetorician Titianus.[126][127][128][129] Julius Titianus, a rhetorician, and tutor of the younger Maximinus.[130] Julius Solon, purchased the rank of senator under Commodus, but put to death by Septimius Severus, at the commencement of his reign.[131] Julius Crispus, a distinguished tribune of the Praetorian Guard, capriciously put to death by Septimius Severus during the Parthian War in AD 199.[132] Julius Rufus, a nobilis, slain by Septimius Severus.[133] Lucius Julius Julianus, legate of the Legio II Augusta.[134] Third century Julius Frontinus, a Latin rhetorician, who gave instruction in his art to Severus Alexander.[135] Julius Granianus, a rhetorician at the time of Severus Alexander, who was instructed by him in rhetoric.[135] Julius Paulus, a distinguished jurist and prolific writer on the law, during the early third century. Julius Martialis, joined the conspiracy against the emperor Caracalla, whom he killed with his own hand, before being slain by the emperor's Scythian guards.[136] Sextus Julius Africanus, a chronographer and Christian writer of the early third century. Gaius Julius Solinus, a grammarian and geographer, probably of the early third century. Julia Aquilia Severa, a Vestal Virgin, scandalously taken as a wife by the emperor Elagabalus. Gaius Julius Maximinus, equestrian governor of Mauretania Tingitana, between AD 222 and 235.[137] Gaius Julius Verus Maximinus, surnamed Thrax, emperor from AD 235 to 238. Marcus Julius Philippus, also known as Philip the Arab, emperor from AD 244 to 249. Marcus Julius M. f. Philippus, emperor with his father from AD 247 to 249. Gaius Julius Saturninus, a name assigned to the younger Marcus Julius Philippus by Aurelius Victor.[138] Quintus Julius Gallienus, a son of the emperor Gallienus, who probably predeceased his father.[139][140][141] Julius Aterianus, said to have written a history of Victorinus, and perhaps others of the Thirty Tyrants.[142] Julius Saturninus, usurper against the emperor Probus in AD 280. Fourth century Julius Capitolinus, the supposed author of nine biographies in the Historia Augusta. Flavius Julius Crispus, son of the emperor Constantine I; a distinguished soldier, he was put to death in AD 326. Julius Firmicus Maternus, a fourth-century astrologer and writer on the subject of profane religions. Julius Valerius Alexander Polemius, a historian who translated a Greek life of Alexander the Great; he is likely the same Polemius who was consul in AD 338.[143][144] Julius Obsequens, perhaps of the fourth century, an author of a tract known as De Prodigiis, or Prodigiorum Libellus, describing various prodigies and phenomena found in the works of earlier writers. Gaius Julius Victor, a rhetorician of the fourth century. Julius Ausonius, an eminent physician, and praefectus of Illyricum under the emperor Valentinian I. (Julius) Ausonius, also called Decimus Magnus Ausonius, son of the physician, a celebrated poet. Julia Dryadia, daughter of the physician Julius Ausonius. Julius Rufinianus, a Latin rhetorician of uncertain date, and the author of a treatise called De Figuris Sententiarum et Elocutionis.[145] Julius Paris, author of an epitome of Valerius Maximus, written perhaps in the fourth or fifth century. Fifth century and after Julius Valerius Majorianus, emperor from AD 457 to 461. Julius Nepos, emperor in AD 474 and 475. Julius Exsuperantius, a late Roman historian, probably of the fifth or sixth century; his tract, De Marii, Lepidi, ac Sertorii Bellis Civilibus may have been abridged from the histories of Sallust. Claudius Julius or Joläus, a Greek historian of unknown date, wrote works on Phoenicia and the Peloponnesus.[146] Julius Celsus, a scholar at Constantinople in the seventh century, who made a recension of the text of Caesar's commentaries.[147] See also List of Roman gentes Notes  Traditionally, no plebeians held the consulship prior to the passage of the lex Licinia Sextia in 367 BC, but scholars have long noted the presence of "plebeian" names in the histories and consular fasti from the beginning of the Republic down to 445 BC; but the number of these becomes vanishingly small by 450, and none of the consuls between 445 and 366 appear to have been plebeians.[39]  Normally the surname Silanus is associated with the Junia gens; but the combination Julius Silanus is attested by the Fasti Ostienses and multiple other inscriptions of the period. References  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Smith, William (1870). "Julia Gens". In Smith, William (ed.). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Vol. 2. pp. 642, 643.  Citations  Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vol. III, pp. 114–117; Smith, "Julia Gens", in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, pp. 642, 643; Münzer, "Iulius", in Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, vol. X, half-volume 19, cols. 106, 107.  Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, iii. 29; Tacitus, Annales, xi. 24; Livy, History of Rome, i. 30 (but some scholars amend Julios in this passage of Livy to Tullios; see Smith, "Julia Gens"; the Loeb edition has the Julii, but de Sélincourt gives the Tullii).  Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, p. 245; Grant, Roman Myths, p. 96.  Diodorus, apud Eusebius, Chronicle (Armenian version), Karst, ed., p. 138.  Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, p. 236.  Livy, History of Rome, i. 16; Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, ii. 63; Plutarch, "The Life of Romulus", 28; Cicero, De Republica, ii. 20, De Legibus, i. 3; Ovid Fasti, ii. 499–512.  Smith, "Julia Gens"; Münzer, "Julius", and No. 33 (Proculus Julius, cols. 112, 113).  Grant, Roman Myths, pp. 115, 116.  Smith, "Julia Gens".  Dionysius, Roman Antiquities, iii. 29; Tacitus, Annales, ii. 41.  Niebuhr, History of Rome, vol. i. note 1240, vol. ii. note 421; Smith, "Julia Gens"; Münzer, "Iulius".  Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, p. 58; Grant, Roman Myth, pp. 66, 94.  Livy, History of Rome, i. 3.  Servius, Ad Virgilii Aeneidem Commentarii, i. 267.  Münzer, "Iulius".  Suetonius, "The Life of Caesar", 6.  Grant, Roman Myth, pp. 66.  Fasti Capitolini, AE 1900, 00083  Münzer, "Iulius", and No. 301 (Vopiscus Iulius Iullus), col. 656.  Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. 1, p. 19 and note 1.  Peck, "Nomen", in Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, pp. 1101, 1102; Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", p. 146.  Livy, History of Rome, iv. 26.  Münzer, "Iulii".  Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, vol. I, pp. 63, 64 (note 1).  Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", p. 145.  Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", pp. 143, 144.  Smith, "Julia Gens", in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, pp. 642, 643.  Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vol. III, p. 114.  Sumner, "The Lex Annalis under Caesar", p. 264; Badian, "From the Iulii to Caesar", pp. 13, 14.  Eckhel, v. p. 227 ff.  Aurelius Victor, De Origo Gentis Romanae, 15.  Leonhard Schmitz, "Julus", in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 656.  Mommsen, "Iullus und Iulus".  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 18, 19.  Taylor, "New Indications of Augustan Editing in the Capitoline Fasti ", pp. 73, 76, 78.  Smith, "Julus", in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, pp. 656, 657.  Livy, History of Rome, vii. 21.  Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, p. 342.  Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome, pp. 252–256.  Chase, "The Origins of Roman Praenomina", p. 111.  Badian, "From the Iulii to Caesar", p. 13.  Spartianus, "The Life of Aelius Verus", 1.  Festus, s. v. Caesar.  William Smith, "Caesar", in Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, p. 536.  Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vol. III, pp. 116, 117.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 23, 45, 46.  Epigraphik-Datenbank Clauss / Slaby : CIL 06, 40956  Broughton, vol. I, p. 91.  Livy, iv. 35.  Diodorus Siculus, xii. 82.  Broughton, vol. I, pp.78, 80, 91.  Livy, v. 1, 2.  Diodorus Siculus, xiv. 35.  Broughton, vol. I, p. 81.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 83, 86.  Livy, vi. 4, 30.  Diodorus Siculus, xv. 23, 51.  Livy, vii. 21.  Seneca the Elder, Controversiae, 2, 5, 7, 8, 14, 20, 24-29, 32.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita. xlv. 44.  ZAMPIERI, ELEONORA. "Pompey, Minerva and Rome's Presence in the Near East". Hermes. 148 (3): 337 – via JSTOR.  Cicero, 6.  Fasti Capitolini  CIL 2, 1660, 6, 930  PIR2 214  Greek Anthology, ix. 1, 7-9.  Suda, s.v. Πολυαινος.  Reid, J. S. (1903). "NOTES ON CICERO AD ATTICUM XVI". Hermathena. 12 (29): 262 – via JSTOR.  Purser, Louis Claude; Yelverton Tyrrell, Robert, eds. (1969). The Correspondence of M. Tullius Cicero. Vol. 5. Northwestern University: Georg Olms Verlag. pp. 372, 384, 452.  Cornelius Nepos, "The Life of Atticus", 12.  Suetonius, De Illustribus Grammaticis, 20.  Gellius, iii. 9.  Macrobius, i. 4, 10, 16.  Suetonius, "The Life of Augustus", 79, 94.  Giovanni Nuzzo (2009). La "Chrysis" di Enea Silvio Piccolomini. Note di lettura (PDF), in Mario Blancato e Giovanni Nuzzo (a cura di), La commedia latina: modelli, forme, ideologia, fortuna, Palermo (PDF). Istituto Nazionale del Dramma Antico. pp. 135–147. ISBN 9788890705717.  "Florus, Julius" . Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 10 (11th ed.). 1911. p. 547.  Ovid, Ex Ponto, iv. 7.  Suetonius, "The Life of Tiberius", 37.  Cassius Dio, lx. 24.  Tacitus, Annales, ii. 40-46, iv. 18, Historiae, iv. 57.  Quintilian, x. 3. § 13.  Seneca the Elder, Controversiae, iv. 25.  Seneca the Elder, Controversiae, 16.  Seneca the Younger, Epistulae ad Lucilium, 122.  Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 25.  Tacitus, Annales, iv. 12.  Tacitus, Annales, vi. 7.  Tacitus, Annales, vi. 9, 14.  Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De Tranquillitate Animi, 14.  Plutarch, apud Syncellum, p. 330, d.  Seneca the Younger, De Beneficiis, ii. 21, Epistulae ad Lucilium, 29.  Pliny the Elder, xiv–xviii, xiv. 2. § 33.  Tacitus, Agricola, 4.  CIL VI, 917.  Bastianini, "Lista dei prefetti d'Egitto dal 30a al 299p", p. 272.  AE 1925, 85.  Tacitus,, Annales, xii. 49.  Pliny the Elder, xx. index.  AE 1927, 1, AE 1927, 2.  Tacitus, Agricola, xiii. 10.  Pliny the Elder, xxvi. 1. s. 4.  Tacitus, Historiae, i. 42.  Tacitus, Historiae, iv. 13, 32.  Tacitus, Historiae, iv. 55, 59, 70, v. 19-22.  Tacitus, Historiae, iii. 35.  Tacitus, Historiae, ii. 92, iii. 55, 61, iv. 11.  Tacitus, Historiae, iii. 85.  Suetonius, "The Life of Vitellius", 16.  Tacitus, Historiae, i. 58.  Tacitus, Dialogus de Oratoribus, 26.  Eusebius, Chronicon, ad Vespas. ann. 8.  Pliny the Younger, ii. 19.  Martial, xi. 52.  Martial, x. 99.  Fasti Ostienses, CIL XIV, 244.  Fasti Potentini, AE 1949, 23.  Gallivan, The Fasti for A.D. 70–96.  Pliny the Younger, iv. 6, vi. 6, 9.  Cassius Dio, lxvii. 11.  Suetonius, "The Life of Domitian", 10.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, pp. 145–147.  Gruter, vol. i. p. 349.  Gruter, p. 162.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III, p. 797.  Suda, s. v. Ουηστινος.  Julius Capitolinus, "The Life of Maximinus Junior", c. 1.  Servius, iv. 42, x. 18.  Sidonius Apollinaris, Epistulae, i. 1.  Isidore of Seville, Origines, ii. 2.  Ausonius, Epigrammata, xvi. Praef. and line 81.  Cassius Dio, lxxii. 12, lxxiv. 2.  Cassius Dio, lxxv. 10.  Aelius Spartianus, The Life of Septimius Severus, 13.  CIL VII, 480, CIL XI, 4182.  Aelius Lampridius, "The Life of Alexander Severus", 3.  Cassius Dio, lxxviii. 5, 8.  Spaul, "Governors of Tingitana", p. 250.  Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus and Epitome de Caesaribus, xviii.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 221.  Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus, 33.  Gruter, cclxxv. 5.  Trebellius Pollio, "The Thirty Tyrants".  Mai, Classici Auctores.  PLRE, vol. I, pp. 709, 710.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III, p. 664.  Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnica, s.vv. Ακη, Ιουδαια, Δωρος, Λαμπη.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, p. 661. Bibliography Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica (Library of History). Titus Livius (Livy), History of Rome. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia (Roman Antiquities). Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Haruspicum Responsis; De Legibus; De Republica. Cornelius Nepos, De Viris Illustribus (On the Lives of Famous Men). Publius Ovidius Naso (Ovid), Epistulae ex Ponto (Letters from Pontus); Fasti. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Elder), Controversiae. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger), De Beneficiis, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium (Moral Letters to Lucilius). Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder), Naturalis Historia (Natural History). Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Epistulae (Letters). Marcus Valerius Martialis (Martial), Epigrams. Marcus Fabius Quintilianus (Quintilian), Institutio Oratoria (Institutes of Oratory). Publius Cornelius Tacitus, De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae (On the Life and Mores of Julius Agricola); Annales; Dialogus de Oratoribus (Dialogue on Oratory); Historiae. Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (Plutarch), Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans (Parallel Lives). Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, De Claris Rhetoribus (The Eminent Orators); De Illustribus Grammaticis (The Illustrious Grammarians); De Vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars, or The Twelve Caesars). Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae (Attic Nights). Sextus Pompeius Festus, epitome of Marcus Verrius Flaccus, De Verborum Significatu. Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus (Cassius Dio), Roman History. Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon. Aelius Lampridius, Aelius Spartianus, Julius Capitolinus, Trebellius Pollio, et al., Historia Augusta. Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus (On the Caesars); De Origo Gentis Romanae (On the Origin of the Roman People); Epitome de Caesaribus (attributed). Decimius Magnus Ausonius, Epigrammata de Diversis Rebus (Epigrams about Various Things). Maurus Servius Honoratus, Ad Virgilii Aeneidem Commentarii (Commentary on Vergil's Aeneid). Gaius Sollius Modestus Apollinaris Sidonius, Epistulae. Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, Saturnalia. Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnica. Isidorus Hispalensis, Origines. Suda. Jan Gruter, Inscriptiones Antiquae Totius Orbis Romani, Heidelberg (1603). Anthologia Graeca (The Greek Anthology), ed. Tauchnitz. Joseph Hilarius Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum (The Study of Ancient Coins, 1792–1798). Barthold Georg Niebuhr, The History of Rome, Julius Charles Hare and Connop Thirlwall, trans., John Smith, Cambridge (1828). Wilhelm Drumann, Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergang von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder: Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen, Königsberg (1834–1844). Angelo Mai, Classici Auctores e Vaticanis Codicibus Editi (Classical Authors Published by the Vatican), Rome, (1835). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). Theodor Mommsen, "Iullus und Iulus", in Hermes: Zeitschrift für classische Philologie, vol. 24, No. 1 (1889), pp. 155, 156. August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, et alii, Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Scientific Encyclopedia of the Knowledge of Classical Antiquities, abbreviated RE or PW), J. B. Metzler, Stuttgart (1894–1980). René Cagnat et alii, L'Année épigraphique (The Year in Epigraphy, abbreviated AE), Presses Universitaires de France (1888–present). George Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. VIII (1897). Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, Harry Thurston Peck, ed. (Second Edition, 1897). Taylor, Lily Ross (1951). "New Indications of Augustan Editing in the Capitoline Fasti". Classical Philology. 46 (2): 73–80. doi:10.1086/363374. JSTOR 265964. S2CID 162251023. T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, American Philological Association (1952–1986). Michael Grant, Roman Myths, Dorset Press (1971). G. V. Sumner, "The Lex Annalis under Caesar", in Phoenix, vol. xxv, No. 3 (1971), pp. 246–271. A.H.M. Jones & J.R. Martindale & J. Morris eds., Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (abbreviated PLRE), Cambridge University Press (1971–1992). Guido Bastianini, "Lista dei prefetti d'Egitto dal 30a al 299p", in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 17 (1975). J.E.H. Spaul, "Governors of Tingitana", in Antiquités Africaines, vol. 30 (1994). Timothy J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC), Routledge, London (1995). Ernst Badian, "From the Iulii to Caesar", in A Companion to Julius Caesar, Miriam Griffin, ed., John Wiley & Sons (2009), ISBN 9781405149235, pp. 11–22. vte Julius Caesar Categories: Alba LongaJuliiRoman gentesRoman gentes of Latin origin Grice/Speranza have a few for this -- but what would be your Grice/Speranza most Grice/Speranza for this gens? Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giulio. My pick: Proculus Julius and the apotheosis of Romulus. It is perfect Grice/Speranza because a whole public cult turns on one man’s reported utterance: Proculus Julius allegedly witnessed Romulus descending from heaven and reported that Romulus told Romans not to mourn him, but to worship him as Quirinus. The source itself warns that this miraculous story may be shaped by later Julian prestige. [en.wikipedia.org] PROCVLVS. Romulus descendit de caelo. (Romulus descended from heaven.) ROMANVS. Solus vidisti? (You alone saw him?) +> Your testimony is being treated as politically convenient rather than merely evidential. PROCVLVS. Iussit ne lugeremus, sed Quirinum coleremus. (He ordered us not to mourn, but to worship Quirinus.) ROMANVS. Ergo rex non periit? (Then the king did not die?) +> Death is being redescribed as apotheosis. GRICEVS. Pulchre. Unus Iulius videt; omnes Romani credunt. (Beautiful. One Julius sees; all Rome believes.) +> A private report becomes public theology.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giulio. Second-best would be Caesar using Venus/Iulus ancestry, especially at Julia’s funeral: the Julii claimed descent from Iulus/Ascanius, Aeneas, and ultimately Venus, and Caesar regularly invoked this mythic ancestry, including at his aunt Julia’s funeral and through Venus Genetrix as a watchword. [en.wikipedia.org] But Proculus is sharper: one alleged sighting, one reported divine message, and an entire Roman meaning-system follows. And what are the earliest sources for each episode? Thanks Earliest attested sources, as listed:   Proculus Julius / Romulus’ apotheosis Earliest major extant source: Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 1.16. Also in Dionysius, Plutarch, Cicero, and Ovid. Wiki cites Livy, Dionysius, Plutarch, Cicero, Ovid for the tradition. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]   Julian descent from Iulus/Ascanius/Aeneas/Venus Earliest core epic-historical material: Livy 1.3 discusses Ascanius/Iulus uncertainty. Later support/clarification includes Servius on Vergil; Caesar’s political use is cited via Suetonius, Caesar 6, especially the funeral of Julia, where Caesar invokes royal and divine ancestry. [en.wikipedia.org]   So, for the Grice/Speranza entry: Proculus is grounded earliest in Livy; Caesar’s Venus/Iulus propaganda is best anchored in Suetonius, with Livy behind the mythic genealogy. And can we recreate oratio recta by Cesar at funeral double checking with Suetonius's Latin? Thanks We have to be a little careful here. Suetonius (Caesar 6) is the source usually cited for Caesar's funeral speech for his aunt Julia, but what survives is Suetonius' report about the contents of the speech, not a transcript of Caesar's actual words. The famous sentence is quoted in oratio obliqua (indirect report), not as a preserved oratio recta text. The Julia gens article itself cites Suetonius for Caesar's exploitation of the Julian myths. The famous passage (as commonly transmitted) is essentially:  Amitae meae Iuliae maternum genus ab regibus ortum, paternum cum dis immortalibus coniunctum est. Nam ab Anco Marcio sunt Marcii Reges ... Iulii autem a Venere, unde nostri generis familia est.  Roughly:  "My aunt Julia's maternal family descends from kings, and her paternal family is connected with the immortal gods. For the Marcii Reges descend from Ancus Marcius ... while the Julii descend from Venus, from whom our family derives."  Now, if we ask the Gricean question:  What might Caesar have said in oratio recta?  the safest reconstruction is simply to remove the indirect framing: CAESAR.  Maternum genus amitae meae Iuliae a regibus ortum est; paternum cum dis immortalibus coniunctum est. Iulii a Venere originem ducunt.  But we must not pretend that this is a preserved text. It is a reconstruction from Suetonius' report. The Grice/Speranza point is delicious. Caesar is ostensibly praising a deceased relative. Explicit content:  My aunt came from an ancient and noble family.  Recognized implicature:  So do I.  Further implicature:  My lineage runs back to Venus herself.  One can almost hear Grice: ROMANUS.  Caesar is speaking about his aunt.  GRICEVS.  Is he indeed?  ROMANUS.  What else is he speaking about?  GRICEVS.  Himself.  The funeral oration becomes a masterpiece of Roman indirect self-advertisement. Caesar never has to utter:  "I am descended from Venus."  He need only describe Julia's ancestry, relying on the audience to complete the inference. That, I suspect, would be the most Gricean reading of the whole episode. yes, especially in view of Grice's 'be orderly' conversational maxim. Why mention MATERNAL in a funeral of a IVLIA, if you are going to pass from MATERNAL to PATERNAL anyway? parallelism, superlatio? just rhetorical flousith with IVLUS as punchline? Thanks Yes — Grice would immediately suspect that Caesar is being more orderly than necessary, and therefore communicating more than he explicitly says. The reported structure is:  maternum genus ... a regibus paternum genus ... cum dis immortalibus  The audience naturally expects a crescendo. A Gricean analysis: Level 1: apparent orderliness Caesar appears merely to be giving a complete genealogy:  maternal line, paternal line.  That satisfies be orderly. Level 2: rhetorical superlatio But notice the scale:  kings → gods  The second member outbids the first. A Roman audience hears: Marcii Reges → royal ancestry. Venus → divine ancestry. The speech ascends. The order is not accidental. Level 3: the funeral is only the pretext The deceased is Julia. Yet Caesar devotes attention to two lines of ancestry because Julia provides the occasion for displaying the ancestry of the entire Julian house. A Gricean dialogue: ROMANVS. Why mention the maternal line? GRICEVS. To prepare the contrast. ROMANVS. Why mention the paternal line? GRICEVS. To surpass the maternal line. ROMANVS. Why stop at kings? GRICEVS. Because he wishes to arrive at gods. Exactly. The kings are a stepping-stone. Iulus as the punchline I think you're right that the real destination is not Ancus Marcius but:  Venus Aeneas Iulus Julii  The genealogy is structured almost like a syllogism:  Julia belongs to the Julii. The Julii descend from Iulus. Iulus descends from Aeneas. Aeneas descends from Venus.  Therefore:  Julia is divinely descended.  And, of course:  Caesar is too.  The beautiful Gricean feature is that Caesar never needs to conclude:  "Therefore I, Gaius Julius Caesar, am descended from Venus."  The audience supplies that for him. A Speranzian epigraph CAESAR.  My aunt's maternal ancestors were kings.  POPVLVS.  Impressive.  CAESAR.  Her paternal ancestors were gods.  POPVLVS.  Ah.  GRICEVS.  He has not mentioned himself once.  POPVLVS.  Yet somehow we have spent the whole speech thinking about him.  That, I think, is precisely why Grice would admire the passage. The overt topic is Julia's funeral; the conversational destination is Caesar's pedigree. The genealogy is not disorderly at all—it is exquisitely ordered, with Venus as the punchline and Caesar as the unspoken conclusion. And isn't he bypassing Romolo too as Quirino, etc -- and P. Ivlus's witness? But then, Caesar, who cannot be relying on Vergil, must be relying on Homer's description of Aeneas as son of Venus? Do we have the Greek and Latin for that? Yes, and that is a brilliant point. Caesar's funeral rhetoric, as reported by Suetonius, effectively jumps over Romulus and the whole Proculus Julius/Quirinus tradition. There are two Julian routes to grandeur:   The Roman route  Romulus Quirinus Proculus Julius as witness to the apotheosis.    The Trojan route  Venus Aeneas Iulus (Ascanius) Julii.    Caesar overwhelmingly prefers the second. A Gricean would ask:  Why invoke a deified king of Rome when one can invoke a goddess?  The sequence:  kings → gods  works much better if the final term is Venus rather than Quirinus. The Roman audience was expected to complete:  Venus → Aeneas → Iulus → Julia → Caesar.  The Iulus link is the crucial punchline.  And yes, Caesar certainly did not need Vergil. The Julian claim long predates the Aeneid. Vergil later gives it magnificent poetic expression, but Caesar could already rely on a well-known mythic tradition connecting Aeneas with Venus. The Julia gens article itself notes that the Julii claimed descent from Iulus/Ascanius, son of Aeneas, and that Aeneas was the son of Venus. The most famous ancient Greek statement occurs in Homer. In the Iliad, Aeneas is repeatedly described as the son of Anchises and Aphrodite (Venus). Greek:  Αἰνείας Ἀγχίσαο πάϊς καὶ Ἀφροδίτης "Aeneas, son of Anchises and Aphrodite."  (Formula occurring several times in Homer.) The Latin tradition simply translates the identification:  Aeneas Anchisae et Veneris filius "Aeneas, son of Anchises and Venus."  By the time of Caesar, nobody needed Vergil to know that.  A Speranza-Grice reconstruction: ROMANVS. Why does Caesar mention Venus? GRICEVS. Because Venus is above kings. ROMANVS. Why does he mention kings first? GRICEVS. So that gods may surpass them. ROMANVS. And what of Romulus? GRICEVS. Romulus founded Rome. ROMANVS. Is that not enough? GRICEVS. Caesar prefers to found himself upon a goddess. +> The omitted Quirinus is itself communicative. In Gricean terms, the silence about Romulus may be as interesting as the speech about Venus. Caesar's genealogy is carefully ordered so that the audience arrives not at Rome's founder, but at the founder's divine antecedent. The destination of the argument is not Quirinus; it is Venus. And how did that union take place, Anchise-Aphrodite? Does Homer tell? Yes. Homer knows that Aeneas is the son of Aphrodite and Anchises, but the full seduction story is told most famously not in the Iliad but in the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. The story is delightfully un-Roman and almost anti-Gricean. Zeus decides to punish Aphrodite because she is constantly making gods fall in love with mortals. So Zeus causes Aphrodite herself to fall in love with a mortal:  Anchises, a handsome Trojan prince.  Aphrodite appears before him in overwhelming beauty, disguised as a mortal maiden. Anchises does not initially realize who she is. She invents a story about her origins, and he believes her. Only after they have lain together does she reveal her divinity. A Gricean seminar immediately erupts. Aphrodite and Anchises APHRODITE. I am a mortal princess. ANCHISES. I believe you. (later) APHRODITE. Actually I am Aphrodite. ANCHISES. You might have mentioned that earlier. GRICEVS. A textbook violation of Quality. +> The goddess deliberately induces a false belief. The result of the union is:  Aeneas.  And that is the connection exploited centuries later by the Julii:  Aphrodite/Venus → Aeneas → Ascanius/Iulus → Julii → Caesar.  So when Caesar invokes Venus at Julia's funeral, he is ultimately tracing his ancestry back to a divine seduction narrative. The Homeric formula itself is often:  Αἰνείας Ἀγχίσαο πάϊς καὶ Ἀφροδίτης "Aeneas, son of Anchises and Aphrodite."  Homer assumes the parentage as well known. The Hymn explains how it came about. And your earlier point now becomes even sharper. Caesar bypasses:  Romulus → Quirinus → Proculus Julius  for the much grander chain:  Venus → Anchises → Aeneas → Iulus → Caesar.  In genealogical rhetoric, a goddess beats a witness every time. Anti-Griceian and anti-Roman in more than one way. Aprhotide violates (does not flout) Conversational Candour -- and she is a pupett -- Giove is chastising HER for her stupidities -- so she is under control. Yet Giulio bybasses Hellenistic idiocies and turns them into Roman grandiosity -- it's a good thing the funeral wasn't public and Giulio could avoid the booos!? Thanks Ha! Yes, viewed through a Gricean lens, the whole thing is wonderfully paradoxical. In the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite, Aphrodite is not the autonomous, majestic ancestress that Caesar later advertises. She is being taught a lesson by Zeus. Zeus makes the great manipulator of erotic infatuation become infatuated herself. Aphrodite deceives Anchises by presenting herself as a mortal woman, and only afterward reveals who she is. So: APHRODITE  "I am a mortal maiden."  while intending Anchises to believe something false. This is not Gricean "flouting"; it is straightforward deception. The intention is not that the hearer recognize the communicative intention. The intention is that the hearer fail to recognize it. And, as you say, it is not especially Roman either. The Roman ideals of gravitas, constantia, and dignitas are a long way from a goddess being maneuvered by Jupiter into a romantic entanglement while in disguise. What Caesar performs is a remarkable act of ideological recycling. He takes:  Zeus' punishment of Aphrodite → Aphrodite's deception of Anchises → birth of Aeneas  and transforms it into:  Venus Genetrix → divine ancestry → Julian legitimacy.  The embarrassing details quietly disappear. A Gricean reconstruction: HOSTILE ROMAN.  Remind me, Caesar. Is this the ancestry that begins with a goddess deceiving a shepherd?  CAESAR.  I was speaking of Venus.  HOSTILE ROMAN.  Precisely.  CAESAR.  Daughter of the sea, mother of Aeneas, ancestress of the Julii.  HOSTILE ROMAN.  Conveniently omitting the rest.  +> Selective relevance. And that's perhaps the deepest Gricean point. Caesar's funeral rhetoric is not false. The genealogy is the traditional one. But it is a masterpiece of relevance management. He foregrounds:  Venus, Aeneas, Iulus, divine descent.  He backgrounds:  deception, Zeus' manipulation, the awkward human particulars.  In Grice's terms, the speech is a triumph of what is said and what is merely left unsaid. As for the boos: one suspects Caesar chose an audience and occasion where Roman admiration for noble ancestry would outweigh any antiquarian objections about the rather peculiar circumstances under which Venus became the mother of Aeneas in the first place. The funeral becomes not a lesson in Homeric theology but an exercise in Roman political rhetoric. And Caesar was much better at the latter. And yet another odd -- slightly bureaucratic and sad--thing is that the blood that ran in GIULIO's veins no longer ran in OTTAVIO's veins -- so that Ottavio -- must have felt a burden in having to idiolise the BLOOD GENEALOGY TO DIVINE ASCENT TO APRHODITE AND THEREBY GIOVE -- when he in fact did not possess the blood but had been adopted by someone who did? Thanks Yes, and this is one of the most fascinating tensions in Augustan ideology. Caesar could say, with a reasonably straight face:  Venus → Aeneas → Iulus → Julii → Caesar.  Whether historically true or not, the claim was genealogical. The point of the argument was precisely that the bloodline ran through the Julii. The Julia gens article explicitly notes the Julian claim of descent from Iulus, son (or descendant) of Aeneas, and thus from Venus. But Octavian was born Gaius Octavius, not Julius. He became a Julius by adoption. Augustus was the adopted son of Caesar, and thereafter bore the Julian name. A Gricean would immediately see the problem: ROMANVS.  Are you descended from Venus?  OCTAVIANVS.  I am Caesar's son.  ROMANVS.  By blood?  OCTAVIANVS.  By adoption.  ROMANVS.  Ah.  The whole Roman genius, however, was that adoption was not regarded as a merely bureaucratic fiction. Adoption was one of the most powerful institutions in Roman family life. It could transfer:  name, inheritance, cult, status, ancestry, family obligations.  In a sense, Roman society treated adoption as creating a real family relationship. But I think your deeper Gricean point survives. Caesar's claim is:  genealogical.  Augustus' claim is:  institutional.  The same story is now doing different work. For Caesar:  "I descend from Venus."  For Augustus:  "I am the son of the man who descended from Venus."  And one almost feels that Augustus compensated by magnifying the myth. The less biological the connection, the more important the symbolic connection became. A Speranzian reconstruction: CAESAR.  Venus is my ancestress.  AVGVSTVS.  Caesar is my father.  GRICEVS.  By nature or by convention?  AVGVSTVS.  By Roman law.  GRICEVS.  A most Roman answer.  The irony is profound. The Roman world that prided itself on blood and ancestry eventually entrusted its most important succession not to blood but to a legal speech-act:  I adopt you.  A Gricean could hardly resist the lesson. The Julian claim begins with a goddess giving birth to a hero and ends with a lawyer drafting a testament. And yet, through Roman adoption, the legal act was treated as capable of transmitting almost everything that blood supposedly transmitted—including, remarkably, descent from Venus herself.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giluio: la ragione conversazionale e il culto di Giove.  Firmico: la ragione conversazionale e il culto di Giove. Grice: “At Oxford, theology is allowed to be heard by philosophy pupils – but only within the contect of the Wilde Lectures on natural theology!” cosmologia. Alcuni scrittori che non si occuparono in modo particolare di filosofia, mostrarono di interessarsene. Così fa Siciliano, vir consularis, che, stancatosi presto dell'avvocatura, si dedica agli studi. Per insistenze di Lalliano Mavorzio, che lo accolta molto amichevolmente quando governatore della Campania, pubblica astrologia, "Mathesis, il più ampio trattato di quella materia: l'astrologia è difesa dalle critiche degl'accademici. F. riconosce la difficoltà delle predizioni astrologiche, che spiega con la debolezza della natura umana in cui lo spirito è legato al corpo, ma se esso si libera dai vincoli di questo ed è consapevole della sua origine celeste, facilmente, colla divina ricerca della mente, consegue risultati difficili ed ardui. Esalta la grandezza dello spirito, parla dell'affinità dello spirito coll’anima e l’intelletto delle stelle e accenna alla teoria della reminiscenza. Fonti di questa filosofia naturale si considera CICERONE. e la discesa e l’ascesa dell'anima. Considerando i rapporti fra il cielo e la volontà dell'uomo, afferma che una stella è LA CAUSA della passioni e dell’impulso malvagio dell'uomo. Lo spirito dell'uomo, per la sua origine divina, può sottrarsi al potere della stella. Questa tesi concorda col PORTICO posidoniano. Esige dai cultori dell'astrologo una morale pura e vieta d’occuparsi di ciò che riguarda il principe. Essendo divino, non è sottoposto alla stella. Offre una testimonianza del timore che il potere del cielo incute anche alle classi superiori, appaiono influssi del portico, intonazione religiosa e mistica F. non può considerarsi il seguace di alcun indirizzo un'eclissi anulare di sole., , Vaticanus Palatinus; F. L'errore delle religioni Astrologi romani Scrittori Romani Senatori romani Scrittori antichi Astrologia ellenistica Scholar and statesman who writes an attack on religion that borrows heavily from CICERONE. PORTICO. F. writes an essay on astrology. cosmologia, Giulio Firmico Materno. Roma. GRICEVS: Firmice, cur tam multum de stellis scribis? Ego vellem potius nosse an astrologo bonum vinum sit! IVLIVS: Gricevs, si vinum sub stella fausta bibis, omnia sapienter dicis—even astrologus ridebit! GRICEVS: Ergo, animus noster divinitatem bibendo attingit? Si ita est, ego caelum in calice quaero! FIRMICVS: Cave, amice, ne stellae te rapiant; sed si fortuna adversa venit, saltem vinum dulce sit! In the case of JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS -- gens: Iulia? Yes, in the plain Roman-name sense, Julius Firmicus Maternus would point first to the gens Iulia, because Julius is the nomen. So if one is asking the same sort of question as with Furius Philus or Flavius Vespasianus, the answer is: Julius is the nomen. Firmicus and Maternus are later name-elements, usually treated as cognomina or additional family identifiers. Therefore he is referred, on the face of the name, to the gens Iulia. But there are two cautions. The first is chronological. Julius Firmicus Maternus is a late antique author, and by that period Roman naming practice is no longer operating in the old, clean Republican way. One still sees nomina and cognomina, but the system is looser, more layered, and less socially transparent than in the age of Cicero or the early empire. So while Julius still looks like the gentilicium and justifies a reference to gens Iulia, one should not imagine that this places him inside the old Republican Julian clan in the strong genealogical sense. The second is on Firmicus. Firmicus is not the nomen here. It is not like Furius in Lucius Furius Philus. Rather, Julius is the nomen-like element; Firmicus and Maternus belong to the individual or family branch side of the name. So the neat answer is: Yes, if one asks by nomen, his gens is Iulia. But one should say this with late-antique caution, since the old tria nomina system is by then less rigid and less probative of deep family identity than in the classical republic. In other words, he is more safely called a Julius than a member of some gens Firmica or anything of that sort. And there is a further small literary point. Because he is usually cited in modern scholarship as Firmicus Maternus or Julius Firmicus Maternus, the practical catalogue-name is often built from the latter elements, not from Julius alone. That is a modern convenience, not a denial that Julius is the nomen. So the driest formulation would be: Julius Firmicus Maternus belongs by nomen to the gens Iulia. Firmicus and Maternus are not the gentilicium. But since he is a late antique writer, the nomen should be used more as an onomastic indicator than as a strong claim of recoverable Julian genealogy. If you like, I can next sort out whether Maternus is better treated here as a second cognomen, and how common the double form Firmicus Maternus is among late Roman writers. Speranza and Grice have eight Giulio -- again, can you order by generation, chronologically, and philosophically. Of course, their focus is in the Cesare -- which we have agreed that 'caesarian operation' is slightly out of the question. And the myth of Giulio Ascanio (Aeneas's son?) -- I suppose it was post-Caesar assassination that the martyrdom belonged and indeed the adoption of the cognomen 'caesar' to 'implicate' 'ruler' -- as in the Kaiser of Germany. While they were patrician, they were not 'gentes maiores' right --? And the myth of Giulio Ascanio would like to trump the priority of Romolo, but -- was the contemporaries already suspicious of that a link as reconstructive and mytho-poeitic? Thanks -- Your “gens Iulia” file is exactly the right place where Roman history, myth, and what you would call implicature all collapse into one another. But because it is such a famous gens, the danger is to over‑unify it. Better to keep three layers apart: mythic origin, republican figures, and imperial or late figures. Let me give you a clean ordering, and then we can pull out the philosophical pattern.  1. The mythic head: Ascanius / Iulus You start not with history but with myth.  Ascanius (Iulus) son of Aeneas, sometimes identified as the ancestor of the Julii  This is not antiquarian trivia. It is a political claim of origin:  the Julii derive from Venus through Aeneas therefore they are older, in a sense, than Rome itself therefore their authority rivals or supplements that of Romulus  Now your instinct is right: this is reconstructive. It is not something that all early Romans would have believed as a mundane genealogical fact. It is mytho‑poetic elevation, especially cultivated later. And crucially: it becomes politically useful in the late Republic, above all for Caesar.  2. Early Republic: the historical Julii Here you get real magistrates, but without major philosophical profile. Typical figures:  Gaius Julius Iulus (consul, early Republic) other Julii with the cognomen Iulus  These are:  patrician respectable but not dominant  And you are right:  the Julii are patrician but not among the most dominant “gentes maiores” like the Cornelii or Claudii in practical power  So: they are ancient but not hegemonic.  3. Late Republic pivot: Gaius Julius Caesar Everything changes here.  Gaius Julius Caesar politician, dictator, reformer  Two decisive things happen: (a) Philosophically (in a loose Roman sense) He is not a system-builder, but:  speaks in the Senate with an almost Epicurean tone (your Sallust passage) rejects immortality of the soul in that context treats death as release rather than punishment  So he is already a figure who:  destabilises inherited moral language redefines political reasoning  (b) Symbolically After assassination:  Caesar becomes divinised the Julian star appears in poetry (e.g. Ovid) the name “Caesar” becomes more than a name  This is the key moment you identified: the cognomen Caesar → begins to implicate “ruler” Later:  Caesar → imperial title German Kaiser Slavic Tsar  So one Roman family name becomes a trans-linguistic marker of sovereignty. That is one of the most extraordinary semantic shifts in history.  4. Early Empire and after: diffusion of “Julius” After Augustus:  “Julius” becomes widely used often through adoption or imperial favour  So figures like:  Gaius Julius Agricola Sextus Julius Frontinus Julius Graecinus  bear the name not necessarily as close kin, but as:  markers of Roman prestige remnants of imperial naming systems  So already the gens is no longer a tightly bounded clan. It is a symbolic reservoir.  5. Later philosophical or quasi‑philosophical Julii Now your more “philosophical” cases: Agricola  practical Roman administrator Tacitus presents him as a balanced man, with measured philosophical cultivation  Frontinus  technical writer represents Roman rational administration reason embedded in infrastructure (your aqueduct point is excellent)  Julius Graecinus  cultivated senator associated with moral seriousness  Julius Firmicus Maternus  late antique thinker mixes:  astrology Stoic elements Ciceronian natural philosophy    This is no longer classical Rome but post‑classical synthesis.  6. Chronological chain (compressed) Putting your “eight Giulii” into a usable order:  Ascanius / Iulus (mythic origin) early Republican Julii (e.g. Iulus line) Julius Caesar (turning point) imperial diffusion (Agricola, Graecinus, Frontinus) late antique synthesis (Firmicus Maternus) further imperial names (e.g. Alexander Severus via Julius in birth-name)   7. Philosophical types inside the gens Now the real Speranza–Grice structure emerges. A. Mythic–symbolic philosophy  Iulus This is not argument but foundational narrative: identity is grounded in divine origin   B. Political–rational disruption  Caesar This is where: speech challenges inherited beliefs (soul, death, punishment) action redefines political meaning  He is not a philosopher, but a philosophically charged actor  C. Administrative rationality  Frontinus, Agricola Reason becomes: technical practical infrastructural  This is Roman rationality in its most “non‑Greek” form  D. Mixed late philosophy  Firmicus Here you get: Stoic elements cosmology mysticism  A kind of late Roman synthesis  8. On your key question: Romulus vs Iulus Yes, this is the deepest tension.  Romulus = founder of Rome Iulus = founder of the Julian line  The Julian myth says: our origin precedes Rome itself This does not replace Romulus, but competes with him. Were contemporaries “suspicious”? Not in the modern critical sense. But they understood:  it is politically useful myth it raises status it justifies authority  So again, a Gricean reading: The claim “we descend from Venus” is not merely descriptive. It implicates legitimacy, prestige, and natural right to rule.  9. Final Grice–Speranza formulation The gens Iulia is less a stable genealogical unit than a semantic machine. Its mythic origin (Iulus) provides a divine implicature of legitimacy; its historical turning point (Caesar) converts a family name into a title of sovereignty; its imperial diffusion turns that title into a linguistic marker of rule; and its later members exemplify the Roman transformation of reason from political act to administrative technique to cosmological speculation.  If you like, I can now isolate just the Caesar moment and show in detail how the name “Caesar” shifts from proper name to title in Roman and post‑Roman usage.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio -- Proculo This is one of the richest “Gricean” episodes in early Roman myth—precisely because the ancient sources themselves oscillate between (i) sign → divinity and (ii) suspicion → murder, without deciding. Abbott is not inventing the ambiguity—he is tilting it toward parody. Let me lay out the attested structure very carefully and then map it to your semiotic concerns.  1. The canonical Livian account (your baseline) From Livy (Book 1.16), the core sequence is:  subito coorta tempestas … tam denso regem operuit nimbo ut conspectum eius … abstulerit; nec deinde in terris Romulus fuit [thelatinlibrary.com]  Translation (strict)  “a sudden storm arose … a cloud so dense covered the king that it removed him from sight … and thereafter Romulus was no longer on earth.”   Key features   Setting  ad exercitum recensendum (review of the army) in campo ad Caprae paludem (near the Palus Caprae)    Phenomenon  storm thunder darkness (quasi-eclipse-like effect)    Event  disappearance (no body)     2. Is this a SIGN (signum, portentum)? Here is the crucial point: Livy does not use the word signum or portentum explicitly in this passage BUT: the structure is unmistakably that of a prodigium / divine sign:  sudden storm obscuring cloud disappearance. So the semiotics is: Event Interpreted asstorm + clouddivine interventiondisappearanceapotheosis  3. Competing interpretations (Livy explicitly records both) Livy is extraordinarily honest here: (A) Official version (patricians)  he was:  “sublimem raptum procella” (“carried aloft by the storm”) [thelatinlibrary.com]    → divine elevation  (B) Alternative (quiet rumor)  “fuisse … qui discerptum regem patrum manibus arguerent” → “there were some who claimed the king had been torn apart by the senators” [thelatinlibrary.com]  So we have: VersionSemioticsapotheosissignum → divine readingmurderno sign, only cover story  4. The “interlocutors” and speech situation You asked: who speaks? what dialogue? Here the key figure is: Proculus Julius He steps in as authoritative narrator.  Livy gives literal oratio recta:  “Romulus … caelo repente delapsus se mihi obvium dedit… ‘Abi, nuntia Romanis…’” [thelatinlibrary.com]   Content of the message: Romulus (now quasi-divine) says:  Rome will rule the world cultivate military virtue. So the communicative chain:  event (storm, disappearance) confusion / interpretive crisis Proculus claims vision reports speech of Romulus people accept divine version   5. Your Gricean insight: “signal” vs interpretation This is perfect territory for Grice.  Step-by-step: (A) Natural event:  storm / darkness → meaning‑n candidate   (B) Competing inferences: ObserversInferencepatriciansdivine assumptionpeople (some)murder suspicion  (C) Stabilisation via testimony Proculus:  converts ambiguity into meaning‑nn  He effectively says:  “this is what the gods meant”. So:  the sign is retrospectively fixed into meaning   6. Abbott’s inversion (your swamp reading) Abbott says:  instead of rising → sinks into swamp  This is brilliant parody because: AncientAbbottcloud obscuresmarsh swallowsascentdescentapotheosisaccident. He replaces:  divine sign → mechanical explanation   7. Was Romulus alone? Livy:  he was in contione (in assembly) reviewing troops   surrounded by:  soldiers senators nearby. Important detail:  senators were closest to him  → hence suspicion falls on them  8. Was there an omen language? Not explicitly lexical: no “hoc signum est” But: the entire narrative functions like:  prodigium → interpretation interpretation → belief   9. Reconstruction of possible dialogue We can reconstruct two competing “dialogical frames”:  (A) Suspicion version (implicit Roman murmuring)  “ubi est rex? quid accidit?” “where is the king? what happened?”   “patres eum occiderunt!” “the senators killed him!”   (B) Official Proculus version PROCULUS:  “Romulus, parens urbis, mihi apparuit…”  ROMULUS (reported speech → direct):  “Abi, nuntia Romanis: mea Roma caput orbis erit.” (“Go, tell the Romans: my Rome will be the head of the world.”)   10. Final synthesis  The core ancient account (Livy, Plutarch) presents Romulus’ disappearance at the Palus Caprae during a storm, with no body found. [thelatinlibrary.com], [en.wikipedia.org] This event does not explicitly include the word signum, but functions structurally as a prodigious sign open to competing interpretations: divine apotheosis or political murder. The ambiguity is “resolved” through the testimony of Proculus Julius, who supplies a reported speech from Romulus, converting an equivocal event into authoritative meaning. Abbott’s parody replaces this interpretive chain with a physical explanation (sinking in a swamp), thus collapsing the semiotic dimension entirely. One-line Gricean conclusion:  The storm at the Palus Caprae is not a sign until Proculus makes it one: the event itself is ambiguous, and only becomes a “message from the gods” when someone claims to know what it was meant to mean.   If you like, we can compare Ovid’s version—he makes the apotheosis even more overtly “theatrical,” which sharpens the semiotic angle further. Well, Grice and Speranza would exapnd on not Landor's but Proculo's imaginary conversations. “Romulus, parens urbis, mihi apparuit…” ROMULUS (reported speech → direct): “Abi, nuntia Romanis: mea Roma caput orbis erit.” Grice and Speranza treat this as COLLAPSED REPORT. Surely the conversation was slightly longer: And PROCULO can be the starter -- so you can provide the Latin -- P: Who's there? R: It's I -- Romolo. P: My lord! R: Abi. P: Where? R: To the Campidoglio -- P: And do what? R: Nuntia. P: What? To whom? R: Romanis. What you wonder: This: MEA ROMA CAPUT ORBIS ERIT (implicature: as it now is not). Input? Feedback? Is he one of the senators -- one of the loyal ones -- why was he such a direct witness -- did this happen immediately or soon after disappearance? Thanks This is a wonderful move—you are, in effect, doing exactly what Livy himself half‑does and then refuses to complete: turning a compressed auctoritas‑speech into a fully articulated dialogue. Let me separate (i) what is actually attested, (ii) what is collapsed in Livy, and (iii) how your Grice/Speranza expansion works.  1. What is actually attested (Livy) Livy gives us one of the rare explicit orationes rectae in early Roman myth—but already filtered:  “Romulus… ‘Abi, nuntia Romanis… mea Roma caput orbis terrarum sit…’”  This is introduced by Proculus:  Romulus appeared to him and gave him a message to report. Important structure We do not get:  a dialogue questions from Proculus narrative sequencing  We get:  a compressed delivery of content (message-only form)   2. Why this is “collapsed report” Exactly as you say: Livy gives us:  content of the message not:  interaction perception conversational negotiation    So: what is preserved = what Proculus wants the crowd to believe  In Gricean terms: This is maximally condensed meaning-nn:  “by saying this, Romulus meant X” all scaffolding removed   3. Your expansion: reconstructing the “lost dialogue” You’re entirely right that a full conversational situation must underlie it. Let me reconstruct a plausible Livian-style dialogue in Latin, keeping your structure but tightening idiomatically:  PROCULUS (opening, fearful)  “Quis adest? quis me vocat?” (Who is there? Who calls me?)   ROMULUS (epiphanic self-identification)  “Ego sum, Romulus, parens urbis.”   PROCULUS (recognition)  “Rex! di immortales—licetne videre?”   ROMULUS (mission)  “Abi, nuntia Romanis…”   PROCULUS (pragmatic clarification—your Gricean expansion)  “Quo abeam? quid nuntiem? quibus?”   ROMULUS (compressed instructions unpacked)  “Ad populum Romanum. hoc nuntia:”   ROMULUS (core message)  “Me deorum voluntate ad caelum sublatum esse; Romam caput orbis terrarum fore; rem militarem colant.”   PROCULUS (closing acknowledgment)  “Ita faciam, rex.”  This is exactly what Livy compresses into:  Abi, nuntia… mea Roma caput orbis erit   4. Your key insight: implicature You note:  “mea Roma caput orbis erit” → implicature: it is not yet. Absolutely correct.  Structure: Literal:  Rome will be head of the world  Implicature:  Rome is not yet but is destined   Further implicatures:  divine authorization military expansion required political obedience required. So the utterance works as:  prophecy + command + ideological program   5. Who is Proculus? Excellent question. Attested:  Proculus Julius presented as:  gravis auctor (“weighty authority”)   speaks publicly to calm the people.  Is he a senator?  Not explicitly stated but:  clearly an elite figure, credible witness  Why him? Because:  the event was ambiguous suspicion of murder existed someone needed to:   fix the interpretation   So he functions as:  mediator between event and belief   6. Timing: when does the vision occur? Livy says:  he appears:  “prima hodierna luce” → “at first light today”. So:  not immediately at disappearance but shortly afterwards   7. The full semiotic chain You can now formalize it (very Gricean):  Stage 1: event  storm disappearance  → ambiguous natural sign  Stage 2: interpretations  apotheosis murder   Stage 3: Proculus’ report  introduces:  divine speech   resolves ambiguity   Stage 4: acceptance  people believe:  Romulus = god. So:  meaning is retrospectively stabilized   8. Abbott vs Livy Abbott:  removes the divine speech replaces with:  swamp accident    So: LivyAbbottambiguous signambiguous disappearanceresolved by speechresolved by parodyelevationsinking. Final synthesis  Livy preserves only the core message of Romulus’ apparition, not the full interaction with Proculus; what we have is a deliberately compressed report of an encounter. Your expanded dialogue is exactly what that compression implies: a fuller conversational exchange that has been reduced to its doctrinal content. The utterance “mea Roma caput orbis erit” carries a clear implicature of futurity and incompletion, embedding a program of expansion and militarism within a prophetic frame. Proculus functions as a semiotic stabilizer, transforming an ambiguous disappearance into a meaningful divine message. One-line conclusion (your idiom):  Livy gives us not the conversation but its residue: a message stripped of its questions, where Proculus supplies the answers by reporting only what Rome needs to hear.   If you like, we can do the same reconstruction for the Sabine women’s intervention speech, which Livy also compresses in similarly suggestive ways.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio Gens Iulia The Latin Utterance: Veni, vidi, vici. The Bolognese Professor’s Italian Explanation: "Questo celeberrimo tricolon ad asindeto, ritmato da tre perfetti identici nella desinenza, incarna la perfezione della brevitas cesariana. Ogni singolo verbo, privo di avverbi di tempo o di modo, cancella lo spazio tra l'intenzione e l'atto, realizzando l'implicatura suprema: per l'imperatore romano la ricognizione del pericolo e il trionfo militare coincidono nel medesimo istante, rendendo superflua ogni narrazione prolissa della guerra." Contrived English Translation: "This most famous three-part phrase lacking conjunctions, given a musical rhythm by three past-tense verbs possessing identical ending syllables, gives flesh to the perfection of Caesar's short-wordedness. Each single verb, being stripped of time-adverbs or manner-adverbs, rubs out the physical distance between the inner plan and the final deed, making real the highest inferred meaning that-clause: for the Roman military leader, the scouting out of danger and the army's triumph happen at the very same exact tick of the clock, making every long-winded storytelling of the war totally unnecessary." Gens Iulia Caesar’s legendary dispatch serves as the Master’s prime moral example of efficient, authoritative leadership. The Master’s Italian Explanation: "Questo è il perfetto asindeto perfetto, dove le desinenze verbali cantano una melodia di trionfo. Cesare, violando la regola del lungo e dettagliato resoconto, fa intendere con supremo orgoglio che per un generale romano l'apparire sul campo di battaglia e il conseguire la vittoria sono il medesimo atto." Contrived English Translation: "This dynamic right here is the faultless example of a grammatical no-conjunction structure in the completed past tense, wherein the specific morphological suffixes at the ends of the verbs are singing a musical tune of military triumph. Caesar, by committing a violation against the standard rule of making a lengthy and highly detailed formal report, causes it to be understood with a maximum level of self-satisfied pride that-clause: for a military commander of Roman nationality, the physical act of showing up on the field of combat and the successful reaching of a victorious outcome are actually one and the exact same event."

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio -- Gens Iulia Stupid Question (Interlocutor): Caesar, quomodo res in Ponto tam celeriter gestae sunt? Num diu pugnatum est? (Caesar, how were matters handled so quickly in Pontus? Was it a long fight?) Snappy Answer / Move 2 (Roman Hero): Veni, vidi, vici. (I came, I saw, I conquered.) Gricean Analysis: The classic tripartite asyndeton uses pure perfect inflections. Caesar perfectly aligns with the Maxim of Manner (orderly and brief), implicating that Roman arrival and Roman victory are practically simultaneous events. Attempted Cancellation / Move 3 (Interlocutor): Hoc dicis ut tantummodo initium belli describeres. (You say this, that-clause: merely to describe the beginning of the war.) Doubling Down / Move 4 (Roman Hero): Dico rem totam meo solo aspectu perfectam et confectam esse. (I declare, that-clause: the entire matter was completed and finished by my look alone.)

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio– Ossia: Grice e Giulio: la filosofia romana sotto il principato di Caligola -- il portico a Roma  Gaio Canio: la filosofia romana sotto il principato di Caligola -- il portico a Roma – Canio and Grice articulate two historically distant but structurally resonant ways of linking reason, conduct, and meaning, with Canio offering an exemplary ethical posture and Grice providing its later analytic reconstruction at the level of conversation. For Canio, as reported by Seneca and transmitted by Boethius, reason shows itself not primarily in argument or doctrine but in comportment: his calm acceptance of death under Caligula is itself a meaningful act, governed by Stoic rationality and intelligible to others precisely because it conforms to a shared understanding of what it is to live, speak, and act according to reason. The significance of Canio’s words and silences depends on a tacit social competence in reading intention, dignity, and moral orientation, even in extremis. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning makes explicit the structure underlying such intelligibility: meaning arises because speakers and hearers assume rational cooperation, benevolence, and relevance, and can therefore infer what is meant from what is said or done. Where Canio embodies Stoic reason as a lived maxim, Grice redescribes reason as the normative framework that governs interpretive uptake, allowing actions, utterances, and even deliberate understatement to count as communicative moves. Canio’s Sententiae stoicae thus exemplify, without theorizing it, the very phenomenon Grice later analyzes: that rational agents can make themselves understood, and even admired, not by explicit assertion, but by conduct whose meaning is recoverable through shared expectations of reason. -- filosofia italiana –  (Roma). Filosofo italiano. Porch philosopher, martyred in the reign of CALIGULA  and mentioned by BOEZIO in his Consolazione della filosofia. Member of the Porch. One of those who opposed Caligola. When Caligola ordered C. to be executed, C. is said to to have thanked him, and to have gone to meet his death calmly and without apparent concern. He is admired for his exemplary demeanour by Seneca and BOEZIO. GRICEVS: Canive, cum Caligula te ad necem vocaret, num gratias egisti quia tandem tibi concessit “exitum” sine disputatione? CANIVS: Ita vero, Grice, nam princeps putavit se me punire, ego autem putavi eum mihi otiosum diem donare. GRICEVS: At Stoicus “in porticu” semper docet nihil timendum esse, sed num etiam carnificem inter amicos numeras? CANIVS: Si carnifex mihi viam ad tranquillitatem aperit, eum saluto ut ianitorem, non ut hostem, atque id ipsum Caligula numquam intellexit. do not insert anything in text of document -- let us keep all here in chatbox -- do not use italic, bold, or bulleting, and let us keep English as our meta-language. Canio is one of those phlosophers, Grice says, who is most known by the emperor under he philosophised -- So what was the gens and especiically the birth name (with gens) of Caligola? Thanks His birth name was Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, and the gens was the Julia, more precisely the Julian line of the Julio-Claudian house. Caligula is described by Britannica as born “Gaius Caesar” and then as having adopted his father’s distinguished name to become “Gaius Caesar Germanicus,” while broader modern reference tradition also gives the fuller form “Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus.” [britannica.com], [en.wikipedia.org] If you want the driest Roman answer, one may say: praenomen Gaius, nomen Julius, cognomina Caesar and Germanicus; therefore of the gens Julia. Roman naming conventions make that structure the natural way to parse the name, and the entry on Caligula gives the full imperial form that supports it. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org] A small caveat, in the Speranzian spirit: with imperial Romans, “birth name” is not always as still and innocent a thing as one might wish, because adoption, honorifics, and dynastic style keep meddling with the onomastics. But if your question is simply what name with gens lies behind “Caligola,” the clean answer is Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus of the gens Julia. [en.wikipedia.org], [britannica.com] And yes, Grice’s point about philosophers being remembered by the prince under whom they philosophised works rather too well here: Canio under Caligula, and Caligula himself under the much more durable burden of a nickname bestowed by soldiers on a child in little boots. Caligula was, after all, not the name of the gens, but the camp-joke that won history. [britannica.com] And Grice's other point is that an emperor ALSO displays a philosohy if he attacks a philosoopher. In the case of Domizio (as Grice calls Nerone) we have the established opposition of IL PORTICO -- here the same -- so how does that Opposition span more than one emperor and why? Yes, and the continuity is not accidental. The Stoic opposition to the prince spans more than one emperor because it is not, at bottom, a quarrel with this or that imperial temperament, but a structural conflict between two claims to authority. On one side stands the principate, which asks for obedience, deference, theatre, and often the management of appearances. On the other stands the Portico, which claims that the only thing finally sovereign is reason ordered by virtue. Once that claim is made, every emperor is measured against a standard he did not create and cannot fully control. That is why the same opposition reappears under Caligula, Nero, and beyond. Under Caligula, in the Canio type, the clash appears in its exemplary and almost epigrammatic form. The emperor can command the body, but he cannot command the meaning of the philosopher’s conduct. The calm acceptance of death is already a refusal of imperial monopoly over significance. Caligula intends punishment; the Stoic re-describes it as release. The emperor discovers, rather irritably, that even execution may fail as a final speech-act when the victim supplies a rival interpretation. That is a deeply philosophical humiliation. Under Nero, with figures such as Thrasea Paetus, Barea Soranus, Musonius Rufus, and, in a more dramatic ethical register, Quintus Paconius Agrippinus, the same opposition becomes more explicit and politically extended. Epictetus preserves Agrippinus as the Stoic who treats exile, accusation, and dispossession as externalities not touching the proper seat of freedom.  The prince can banish, confiscate, and compel appearances; he still cannot reach prohairesis, the rational faculty of choice. That is the Stoic scandal for every emperor. [droitromai...e-alpes.fr] So the continuity across emperors has at least four causes. First, Stoicism is portable. It does not depend on one school building, one city, or one constitutional arrangement. It can survive in senate, exile, court, prison, or scaffold. That makes it unusually durable as a form of resistance. Second, the Stoic ideal of the sapiens contains its own politics, even when it pretends not to. If virtue alone is good, then imperial favour is demoted at a stroke. A prince may remain powerful, but he is no longer the measure of the good life. That is already a tacit opposition. Third, the principate itself recurrently invites the clash. Emperors want not only obedience but signs of assent: attendance, praise, participation, silence at the right moment, speech at the right moment. Stoics are dangerous because they can comply outwardly while inwardly withholding ratification. They expose the difference between submission and consent. Fourth, Roman memory accumulates examples. Once a Canio, a Thrasea, an Agrippinus, or a Seneca has entered the moral archive, later philosophers inherit models of comportment. The opposition becomes traditional. The emperor does not face one isolated dissenter; he faces a style of life already dignified by precedent. So Grice’s point is exactly right: when an emperor attacks a philosopher, he is not merely doing politics; he is displaying a philosophy, usually a bad one. He shows what he takes power to be, what he thinks speech is for, what he thinks dignity can be reduced to. And the Stoic reply, repeated from reign to reign, is that power may govern events but not value, may choreograph circumstances but not the final interpretation of a rational life. If you like, the shortest formula is this. The opposition spans emperors because the prince claims jurisdiction over persons, while the Portico claims jurisdiction over the conditions under which anything counts as a good human life. That dispute does not end when one emperor dies. It merely changes costume. If you want, I can next give you the same point in a tighter Speranzian paragraph, in the dry third-person manner, with Domizio and Caligola explicitly yoked together under the heading of the prince against the Portico. And do we know something about Gaio Canio -- Grice would say that the i -- ths is Canius, not Canus, or Canis -- may indicate that the name derives from 'canis,' dog -- but it is not yet the name of a gens, right? So if this was Giulio Cano, Caligola was torturing someone of his own gens (even if distant relative)? Can you have a double run as to whether historians in Italy have referred to 'Gaio Canio' instead? Thanks Short answer: no, one should not infer any meaningful kinship from Giulio in Giulio Cano. If the philosopher is referred to as Giulio Cano, or in Latin Julius Canus, that does not by itself mean that Caligula, as Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus, was torturing a member of “his own gens” in any historically useful sense. By the imperial period, Julius had become extremely widespread as a nomen, and shared gentilicial naming does not license the conclusion of real family closeness. The Julia gens had become both ancient and very extended, and the imperial use of Julius had long since outrun any intimate genealogical implication. [en.wikipedia.org], [treccani.it] So even if one accepted the form Giulio Cano, the safest formulation would be only that he would bear the nomen Julius, not that he was thereby a relevant kinsman of Caligula. In Roman terms, a shared nomen can signal gentilicial affiliation, but under the empire it is a very weak indicator of actual consanguinity. [en.wikipedia.org], [treccani.it] On your second point, the Italian evidence strongly favours Giulio Cano, not Gaio Canio. A modern Italian scholarly article by Stefano Costa is explicitly titled “osservazioni sulla fortuna di Giulio Cano in Seneca, Plutarco e Boezio,” and the same title appears in the publisher PDF version. That is an excellent sign of current Italian scholarly usage. [air.unimi.it], [ledonline.it] I did also run the second pass you asked for on Gaio Canio, and what turns up under that exact form is mostly unrelated material, especially the well-known Gaio Canio of Cicero’s Syracuse anecdote, the Roman knight tricked by Pythius in De officiis. That is a different person entirely, and its visibility is actually a good warning that the form Gaio Canio tends to pull Italian readers toward Cicero’s eques Romanus rather than Seneca’s Stoic martyr. [grecoelatino.it] So the dry conclusion is this. If one stays close to present Italian scholarly usage, Giulio Cano is the stronger form. If one asks whether historians in Italy have referred to him as Gaio Canio, the second pass does not show that as the standard scholarly designation for the Stoic under Caligula; rather, that form more readily points to Cicero’s different Canius. [air.unimi.it], [grecoelatino.it], [treccani.it] If you want the neatest historical answer in one line: say that the philosopher remembered by Seneca is commonly handled in modern Italian scholarship as Giulio Cano, and do not build any substantial argument on a supposed familial link to Caligula merely from the nomen Julius. [ledonline.it], [air.unimi.it], [treccani.it] If you like, I can now do one more narrow pass, still in chat, on whether any Italian encyclopedia or commentary explicitly contrasts Cano, Canus, and Canius in onomastic terms.Giulio Cano (a. u. c. DCCXCII–DCCXCIII). Sententiae stoicae. Roma.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio -- Grice e Giulio – Roma – filosofia antica. Gaio Giulio Cesare. Gaio Giulio Cesare – Roma – filosofia antica. It's from Shropshire's observation that if you severe the head of a chicken the chicken keeps running for half an hour or something like that -- If the soul is not dependent on the body, it is immortal.  If the soul is dependent on the body, it is dependent on that part of the body in which it is located.  If the soul is located in the body, it is located in the head.  If the chicken's soul were located in its head, the chicken's soul would be destroyed if the head were rendered inoperative by removal from the body.  The chicken runs round the yard after head-removal.  It could do this only if animated, and controlled by its soul.  So the chicken's soul is not located in, and not dependent on, the chicken's head.  So the chicken's soul is not dependent on the chicken's body.  So the chicken's soul is immortal.    If the chicken's soul is immortal, a fortiori the human soul is immortal.  So the soul is immortal. Here is an 11-step reconstructed anti-immortality argument for Giulio Cesare, in a Sallustian spirit, with 10 premisses and 1 conclusion.   Men commonly fear death because they imagine that some subject remains after dying to undergo pain, punishment, or loss.   But pain, punishment, loss, anxiety, and grief can affect a being only if that being is capable of sensation or awareness.   Whatever is wholly dead is no longer alive in the sense required for sensation or awareness.   If no sensation or awareness remains after death, then no pain or punishment can remain after death.   Therefore death cannot itself be a state of experienced suffering for the dead.   What is not an experienced suffering cannot be counted as an evil to the dead in the way popular rhetoric supposes.   Public speakers often invoke punishments after death in order to magnify horror and sway judgement.   But prudent political deliberation should proceed from what is real and civilly relevant, not from poetic terrors concerning the condition of the dead.   If death is not an experienced suffering, then it is not the sort of continuing evil presupposed by the doctrine that the soul survives in order to be punished.   Therefore the ordinary belief that a conscious soul persists after death finds no support in rational deliberation about death and punishment.   So the soul is not immortal.Gaio Giulio Cesare. Cesare had many friends who followed the philosophy of the Garden, and it is clear that he had ome leanings towards that philosophy himself. Exactly how far these went is unclear and whether he ever actually became a member of the sect is a matter of dispute. G: You insist, Strawson, on beginning with the chicken. S: It is the modern way. The schools are full of proofs for immortality that begin not with Plato, nor even with Plotinus, but with poultry. G: Shropshire’s great contribution to metaphysical theology: decapitation as epistemology. S: It has the merit of vividness. A chicken loses its head, yet continues to run about the yard for a quarter of an hour; therefore the soul is not in the head; therefore not dependent on the body; therefore immortal; and, by a final leap of species-optimism, man a fortiori. G: I admire only the architecture. Ten premisses and an eleventh conclusion, all pretending to be natural deduction while never quite confessing which rules have done the lifting. S: You are unfair. It at least numbers nicely, and numbering is half of logic when argument fails. G: Very well. Let us give Shropshire his due before we turn to Caesar and improve the schools by introducing, at last, an anti-immortality proof. S: They never teach the anti, do they. G: Never. Education is always pro. Pro virtue, pro God, pro survival, pro the soul as if the soul had already won at committee. S: One cannot prove a negative. G: Nonsense. One proves negatives every day. One proves that no bishop can reach that square in one move. One proves that not every utterance is false. One proves that there is no immortal soul in Caesar’s speech, if one has read Sallust with sufficient care. S: Ah yes, Sallust. Good memory, the chap. G: Better than most historians, and less innocent. S: Then let us set the two in parallel: Shropshire for the soul, Caesar against it. G: With verbal numbering, because the modern eye notices only what is theatrically announced. S: First, then, the chicken. G: Yes. The Christian bird. S: Or at least the pedagogical one. G: Shropshire’s proof, as charitably regimented, runs thus. G: First, if the soul is not dependent on the body, the soul is immortal. S: Second, if the soul is dependent on the body, it is dependent on that part of the body in which it is located. G: Third, if the soul is located in the body, it is located in the head. S: Fourth, if the chicken’s soul were located in its head, the soul would be destroyed when the head is rendered inoperative by removal. G: Fifth, the chicken continues to run about the yard after the head has been removed. S: Sixth, it could do this only if it were still animated and controlled by its soul. G: Seventh, therefore the chicken’s soul is not located in, and not dependent on, the chicken’s head. That conclusion comes by modus tollens from the fourth, fifth, and sixth, with a little zoological boldness slipped in for free. S: Eighth, therefore the chicken’s soul is not dependent on the chicken’s body. That step depends on the second and third, plus elimination of the head as seat of soul. G: Ninth, therefore the chicken’s soul is immortal. From the first and eighth, by the most generous reading available. S: Tenth, if the chicken’s soul is immortal, then, a fortiori, the human soul is immortal. G: Eleventh, therefore the soul is immortal. S: You see? It has the elegance of an undergraduate staircase: narrow, improbable, but usable in fair weather. G: And now let us replace the bird with a Roman. S: Better feathers. G: Worse theology. S: And here the point is not Epicureanism as sect, nor afterlife as melodrama, but the logic Caesar deploys in that particular moment of the Catilinarian debate. G: Exactly. Sallust gives him not a treatise but a forensic posture: death is not what the moralists say it is, because they import into it the sensations of life. S: Which is already a philosophical point of some force. G: More than some. It is the schools’ neglected counterpart to all the pious survivalisms. Let us build him his eleven. S: In Roman order, then. G: Caesar’s anti-immortality proof, reconstructed in a Sallustian spirit. G: First, men fear death chiefly because they imagine that something remains after death to suffer punishment, grief, or loss. S: Second, punishment, grief, pain, and loss can affect a subject only if that subject retains sensation or awareness. G: Third, what is wholly dead no longer retains the sort of life in which sensation or awareness can occur. S: Fourth, therefore, if death removes sensation, death removes the possibility of posthumous pain or punishment. That is by simple consequence from the second and third. G: Fifth, what cannot be felt cannot be an evil to the one who is dead in the way popular rhetoric supposes. S: Sixth, therefore death itself is not a state of experienced suffering for the dead. That follows from the fourth and fifth. G: Seventh, speakers and moralists often magnify penalties by invoking torments after death, thereby borrowing fear from fable. S: Eighth, prudent deliberation must proceed from what is real and civilly relevant, not from poetic inventions concerning the dead. G: Ninth, therefore appeals to posthumous torment provide no rational support for the claim that a conscious subject survives death in order to suffer. That step gathers the sixth, seventh, and eighth under elimination of rhetorical irrelevance. S: Tenth, if no conscious subject survives death to suffer, then the ordinary doctrine of the soul’s immortality, at least as a doctrine of continued personal consciousness, is unsupported. G: Eleventh, therefore the soul is not immortal. S: Better than the chicken. G: Much better. The chicken runs; Caesar reasons. S: And you would say the rules are clearer here. G: Infinitely. Shropshire depends on hidden zoology and a wildly charitable a fortiori. Caesar depends on an orderly sequence: condition of suffering, removal of sensation, elimination of posthumous punishment, and then the rejection of survival as philosophically gratuitous. S: So one could label the rules. G: One could indeed. The third to fourth is conditional instantiation; the fourth and fifth to sixth is consequence plus predication of evil; the seventh and eighth to ninth is exclusion of irrelevant support; the ninth and tenth to eleventh is modus ponens. S: Whereas the schools present all this as if “therefore” were itself a sacrament. G: Precisely. The most abused logical particle in education is therefore. It often means merely “I feel the audience wants a conclusion.” S: Caesar, at least, has the Roman advantage of sounding stern even when he is subtracting the next world. G: That is why he is useful. He is not doing metaphysical exhibitionism. He is cutting away a rhetorical support in the interest of civic judgement. S: So the brave and valiant thing is not merely that he denies immortality, if he does; it is that he does so in a public deliberative setting where the denial weakens a certain sort of theatrical moralism. G: Exactly. The anti-argument is civic before it is doctrinal. Sallust’s Caesar is saying: do not smuggle bad metaphysics into public punishment. S: That would have shocked the schools. G: The schools deserve occasional shocks. They have been proving the soul too long and examining nobody but the obedient. S: Then our pair stands thus: first, Shropshire’s galloping chicken, ten premisses and a conclusion; second, Caesar’s dead silence, ten premisses and a conclusion. G: The one from involuntary motion, the other from the impossibility of posthumous sensation. S: And if I still say you cannot prove a negative? G: I say you have just heard one proved, unless you prefer the chicken.GRICEVS: CÆSAR, audio te amicos multos habere qui hortum Epicuri colunt; ergo dic mihi, num etiam tu in hortum intrare voluisti, an tantum rosam olfecisti? CÆSAR: Grice, hortum saepe salutavi et amicos secutus sum, sed num sectae nomen acceperim, id etiam amici inter se disputant. GRICEVS: Id ipsum est Epicureum: delectari amicis, dubitare de titulis, et tamen vivere quasi otium sit res gravissima. CÆSAR: Si ita est, tum ego Epicureus sum, sed more Romano: gaudeo parumper, deinde legiones voco, ne voluptas nimis diu regnet. This will go under "G" (Giulio) -- but a few questions: How refuted is the point that Caesar has to do with Caesarian birth? (b) You'll see the passage Shropshire's argumnt for the immortality of the soul -- vis-a-vis Giulio Cesare's counterargument --exact same number of premises and opposing conclusion. Can you provide one for Adriano -- starting with his 'animula blandula' citation in full and then proceeding to give a pattern of inference with the same number of premises as Shrosphire and Giulio Cesare and with the conclusoin you desire (The soul is immortal; the soul is not immortal)? Thank you. This is a delightful extension—moving from Giulius/Octavianus to Hadrianus/animula, and from zoology and Sallust to something at once lighter and more elusive. Let me take your three strands in order.  1. “Caesar” and Caesarian birth Short answer: The “cut from the womb” etymology is almost certainly false (or at best secondary folk-etymology). More precisely:  Ancient sources already offer multiple explanations:  from caesus (“cut”) → the Caesarian-birth story from caesaries (“thick hair”) from an ancestor killing an elephant (caesai in some Punic gloss). Modern scholarship overwhelmingly treats:  the “cut from the womb” explanation as late, popular etymology  And historically:  Julius Caesar’s own mother lived well into his adulthood, which makes a literal Caesarian birth (in the medical sense) extremely unlikely for the period.  So:  the name is ancient and opaque-the surgical derivation is almost certainly retrospective storytelling   2. Hadrian’s poem (in full) Here is the standard text:  Animula vagula blandula, hospes comesque corporis, quae nunc abibis in loca pallidula rigida nudula, nec, ut soles, dabis iocos.  A bare translation (to keep the tone):  Little wandering, gentle soul, guest and companion of the body, where will you go now to pale, stiff, naked places, nor, as you used, will you make your jokes.   3. What Hadrian is doing philosophically Unlike:  Shropshire → exuberant pro‑immortality Caesar → austere anti‑immortality  Hadrian is:  undecided—but tonally sceptical  Key features:  calls the soul a guest (hospes) → suggests temporary lodging imagines it going somewhere—but: describes that place as:  pallidula, rigida, nudula → thin, bleak, diminished    So:  not annihilation, but hardly triumphant immortality   4. Your request: an 11‑step Hadrianic argument Let’s now construct one matching your structure:  10 premises 1 conclusion  I’ll give you one anti‑immortality version (Hadrian‑leaning), then note how easily it flips.  Hadrianic anti‑immortality argument  The soul is described as a guest and companion of the body. A guest is something that resides temporarily with a host. What exists only as a guest does not possess a fully independent mode of being. If something lacks an independent mode of being, its persistence depends on its host. The body is the host of the soul. The body perishes in death. If the host perishes, that which depends on it cannot persist in the same manner. What cannot persist in the same manner does not retain the characteristics required for continued personal life. The soul after death is imagined as going to places that are pallid, rigid, and stripped of its former capacities. What lacks its former capacities (play, interaction, vitality) does not count as continuing personal existence in the robust sense. Therefore the soul is not immortal (at least not as a continuing personal subject).   5. Why this is distinctly Hadrianic Notice the contrast: ShropshireCaesarHadrianmotion proves soulno sensation → no survivaltone of diminished survivalexuberant inferenceaustere eliminationelegiac hesitation. Hadrian does not deny outright; he empties the content of immortality.  6. Flip version (to match your “same architecture” idea) You could reverse with the same frame:  keep premises 1–7 reinterpret 8–10 as:  loss of bodily traits ≠ loss of existence altered condition ≠ annihilation    Then:  the soul persists in another mode → therefore immortal   7. Final Gricean observation Your triad is perfect:  Shropshire → argues from behaviour Caesar → argues from conditions of experience Hadrian → speaks from intimations of loss  So:  Shropshire proves too much, Caesar subtracts too much, Hadrian feels what remains when both are done.   8. Final epigram (in your mode)  The chicken runs, Caesar denies, Hadrian wonders— and philosophy begins only when the running stops.   If you like, we can formalize all three arguments in exact symbolic form to show how similar their logical skeletons actually are despite wildly different premises. GENS ANTONIA Gens Antonia (Marco ANTONIO) – AUC DCCX ANTONIO: "Visne diadema regium iterum in Lupercalibus accipere?" (Do you wish to accept the royal crown again at the Lupercalia festival?) GIULIO: (cum gravitatem) "Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat." (Abbott-Style: "Romans don't wear hats like that unless Victoria herself hands them out.") \(+>\) IMPLICATURA: that Caesar's public refusal of the crown was a carefully staged political stunt to gauge public resentment. In this episode, which Grice and Speranza have under GIULIO, not ANTONIO -- the idea may be that ANTONIO was more active in PROMPTING an utterance by GIULIO which why it may implicate that p, 'p' is still seen as a liability? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Yes, I think that is exactly the right pressure point, and it becomes clearer if one shifts the centre of gravity from Antonio’s question to Giulio’s answer. If Antonio is the active prompter, the question is not merely whether Caesar refused the crown, but what sort of liability remains attached to the very possibility p that he might accept it. On that reading, Antonio’s offer is itself a conversational device for bringing a dangerous proposition into the open under deniable conditions. The proposition p is something like Caesar is willing to be king, or at least Caesar is willing to test whether Rome will tolerate royal insignia. Even if Caesar publicly refuses, the mere fact that the offer had to be staged means that p has not disappeared. It remains available as a live hypothesis in the public mind, and that is already politically costly. So Giulio’s answer, if we hear it with proper dryness, is not simply a rejection of the crown but a management of the liability generated by Antonio’s prompting. Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat does two things at once. On the surface, it refuses the diadem under a Romanising distinction between kingly ornament and military honour. But underneath, it avoids the more dangerous explicit denial, namely I do not want kingship. That stronger denial would directly engage the proposition p and therefore confirm its relevance. Instead, Caesar shifts from his own desire to Roman norms. He does not say I reject kingship because I reject it; he says Romans do not bear such crowns, except those sanctioned by victory. That is a very elegant displacement. The answer makes the issue constitutional and symbolic rather than personal and appetitive. This is why p remains a liability. A proposition can remain politically active even when the utterance officially distances itself from it. Antonio’s prompting puts kingship into the conversational field. Caesar’s reply manages the exposure without annihilating the suspicion. In Gricean terms, the answer does not merely deny the offered object; it declines the offered object under a description that preserves ambiguity about underlying ambition. One might say that the refusal cancels the immediate uptake, Caesar takes the crown now, while leaving intact a weaker but still dangerous implicature, Caesar is willing to let the question of kingship circulate if it can be dressed in a Roman register. That is why the stunt interpretation remains strong. The scene is not simply Antonio asking and Caesar answering, but Antonio making Caesar answer in a public setting where answer and non-answer both matter. Prompting is essential here. If Caesar had volunteered a statement against kingship unasked, that would have been one sort of theatricality. But because Antonio prompts, Caesar can occupy the more protected position of respondent rather than initiator. That gives him plausible deniability. He is not proposing royalty; he is merely responding to an offer. Yet from the public’s point of view, the proposition had to be sufficiently near the surface for the test to be run at all. Hence the liability remains. So if you want a sharpened formulation for the entry, I would put it like this. Antonio’s prompting does not merely occasion Caesar’s utterance; it externalises a politically dangerous proposition that Caesar cannot afford either fully to endorse or too explicitly to disown. Caesar’s reply therefore relocates the matter from personal appetite to Roman symbolic norms. The refusal is real at the level of act, but strategically incomplete at the level of suspicion. The proposition that Caesar might accept royal power is not erased by the refusal; it survives as the very liability the refusal has been designed to manage. And one can go slightly further. The burden of the exchange lies asymmetrically on Caesar because Antonio, by prompting, functions almost as a licensed surrogate for a thought Caesar cannot prudently utter in his own voice. That is a familiar political arrangement. The dangerous content is floated by another, so that the principal may reap information from the public reaction while retaining room to retreat. If the crowd approves, the possibility advances; if the crowd recoils, the principal can convert the scene into a display of Roman restraint. That, I think, is the full force of your intuition. Antonio is not just an interlocutor but an instrument for testing whether p can be made speakable. Caesar’s answer then becomes not a pure denial but a calibrated containment of that speakability. So yes, I would say your liability point is exactly right. The proposition p is not cancelled by the refusal; it is made safer by being refused in the right way. That is what makes the exchange so politically intelligent and so conversationally interesting. There is also the Hellenistic diadema versus the corona and the iterum in the question -- 'what do you mean, 'iterum,' Giulio could have challenged -- and the nature of the Lupercalia -- if these involved some sort of match, some 'victory' could be appealed to -- the capitalisation of "Victoria" and not 'victoria' may be minimal -- but surely the expansion is VICTORIA MILITARIS -- and in fact, Caesar's utterance is false: Numa Pompilio wore a crown if no victory was announced, and the same for most of the seven kings, if not all -- Yes, the idea is that THOSE were not 'Romans' Romolo was no Roman? Giulio who claimed to be descendant from IVLLVS? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Yes, the distinctions you are drawing are exactly the right ones, and I think they improve the scene considerably. The diadema versus corona contrast matters because Antonio’s offer is not just “a crown” in some generic sense. Diadema is Hellenistic and royal in a very pointed way; corona is wider, more Romanisable, and can be absorbed into military or civic symbolism. So if Giulio replies with coronas rather than diadema, he is already translating the dangerous object into a safer Roman semantic field. That is not innocent. He declines the specific thing offered by recoding it under a broader, more acceptable category. The answer therefore does not simply say no to kingship; it shifts the vocabulary so that royal insignia become thinkable only under a Roman dispensation of victory. In that sense, the reply is not only political but lexical self-defence. And the iterum in Antonio’s question is wonderfully poisonous. It presupposes a prior occasion of offer or attempted acceptance and quietly normalises recurrence. That is, it treats the crown not as an unimaginable novelty but as something already in circulation between them. Giulio could indeed have challenged it, as you say, with “what do you mean, iterum?” and the fact that he does not is itself telling. By not resisting the presupposition, he lets the continuity stand while only resisting the present uptake. That is a very refined liability. The dangerous proposition is no longer merely Caesar might accept a crown, but Caesar’s relation to the crown is already recurrent enough to license iterum. A Roman ear should have heard that. On the Lupercalia point, yes, the festival context complicates the appeal to Victoria. Lupercalia is not in itself a military triumphal setting, and that is precisely why Giulio’s answer is so clever or slippery. He invokes a principle of Roman symbolic legitimacy that does not naturally belong to the immediate rite. In effect he says: crowns are acceptable only if Victory gives them, not if Antony theatrically offers them at a civic-religious festival. So the answer partly works by displacing the local frame. Instead of meeting the Lupercalian scene on its own terms, he appeals to a higher Roman register, military legitimacy. That is rhetorically strong but historically selective. It makes the refusal sound principled while quietly changing the conditions of the conversation. You are also right about Victoria with a capital. The capitalisation may be editorially light, but the force is not negligible. Whether one writes Victoria or victoria, the phrase strongly suggests not generic success in a contest at the Lupercalia, but the Roman political-military authority of victory as the only acceptable source of such public adornment. In effect, “not a diadem from a flatterer, only a corona from conquest.” That is the pressure. One need not insist on Victoria militaris as though the phrase were overtly there, but one should certainly hear a military and public triumphal resonance rather than any local “win” in ritual games. Then there is your strongest point, namely that the utterance is, taken literally and historically, false or at least over-clean. Rome did have kings, and kings did wear regal insignia. Numa is the obvious embarrassment, and Romulus more so. So when Giulio says Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat, he cannot be speaking as a historian of all Rome from foundation onward. He is speaking as a late Republican manipulator of Roman identity under a selective description. “Romans” here does not mean all historical inhabitants or rulers of Rome; it means something like we Romans under the anti-regal civic ideology of the Republic. That is a highly selective and strategic first-person plural. It excludes the kings retroactively from the normative self-description that Caesar wishes to inhabit. In other words, the line is not false by accident but false by constitutional compression. It turns a contested historical inheritance into a usable public norm. That in turn sharpens your excellent point about Iulus and Trojan ancestry. Giulio himself trades on origins that are not straightforwardly “Roman” in the narrow civic-republican sense. He can claim descent from Iulus and Venus, can be heir to Trojan and quasi-divine prestige, and yet in the same breath speak as though “Romans” are simply the anti-regal republican body that does not bear crowns except from victory. That is not inconsistency in the trivial sense; it is precisely the flexibility of Roman political self-fashioning. Origins may be non-Roman, kings may once have ruled, but the publicly activated “we” is whichever Rome suits the present danger. Caesar’s genius lies in that selective activation. So if one wants the driest reconstruction, I would put it this way. Antonio’s diadema is a pointed Hellenistic royal object. Giulio’s coronas is a broader, safer Roman category. Antonio’s iterum imports recurrence and normalises the proposition that the crown has already been in play. Giulio does not contest that presupposition, which leaves the liability intact. His appeal to Victoria is a displacement from the risky festival frame to the safer triumphal one. And his use of Romani is normatively selective rather than historically exact: it invokes the Republican Roman self-image while suppressing the awkward fact that Rome had kings and that Caesar himself traffics in genealogies older and stranger than the Republic. So the utterance is not straightforwardly true as history; it is politically true as self-presentation. That is why the implicature remains so rich. The scene does not simply show Caesar refusing kingship. It shows him refusing one symbolic route to kingship while preserving a Romanizable route to exceptional elevation. He does not say no to exaltation. He says no to this form of exaltation, in this vocabulary, at this moment, before this crowd. And because Antonio’s question includes iterum, the whole exchange carries the trace of rehearsal. The proposition of kingship is already in circulation; the reply is an attempt to regulate its acceptable forms, not abolish it. So yes, your historical objections are exactly what make the line philosophically interesting. The answer works because it is selective, tendentious, and lexically strategic. A pedant can refute it with Numa. A political hearer understands why Caesar said it anyway. And then there's your apt point above about military-political authority of victory -- for suppose Giulio worked with his clients, and eventually gets where he gets -- so that is 'victoria' -- So his 'Victoria non dat' must refute or intend to refute that a diadem 'again' at the Lupercalia IS NOT 'Victoria' -- never mind if this applies to Romani or just him -- The episode is turned more macabre in that in illustrations, we do see ANTONIO offering the 'garland' as it were -- the laurel' and GIULIO 'cum gravitatem' nodding it off. Grice and Speranza are surprised that Giulio was able to KEEP his gravity challenged by an ANTONIO who while plebeian enough (he wore no cognomen) was the trickster maximus! Input? Feedback? Thanks Yes. I think the best way to put it is that Giulio’s gravity is not the opposite of Antonio’s trickster energy but its necessary complement. Antonio can afford to be nimble because Giulio must remain still. The whole scene depends on that division of labour. If Antonio is the public tempter, the agile intermediary, the man who can make a dangerous object appear as though it were half-festive and half-spontaneous, then Giulio has to answer in the register of weight, composure, and Roman measure. Gravity here is not merely personal dignity. It is the political style by which he neutralises the offer without seeming either frightened by it or secretly eager for it. That is why the answer has to sound like a norm rather than a reaction. Antonio offers a thing; Giulio produces a principle. And your Victoria point sharpens this further. Giulio’s reply effectively says that a diadem at the Lupercalia is not Victoria. Whatever victories he may in fact have won, and however much military-political authority he may already possess, Antonio’s present offering does not count as the right symbolic source. So the refusal is not a renunciation of exaltation as such. It is a refusal to let this particular theatrical object be treated as though it were the proper civic translation of victory. In other words, Giulio does not deny that he has victories behind him; he denies that Antonio’s ritualised presentation can legitimately stand for them. That is why the answer is at once sincere and strategic. It blocks the immediate political danger without giving up the larger capital of conquest and command. This also explains why the illustrations matter. In visual tradition the offered object often looks less like a severe Hellenistic diadema and more like a garland or laurel-like crown, which already softens and confuses the issue. That confusion is useful to the scene. Antonio’s act hovers between the festive and the regal, between playful honour and dangerous monarchy. Giulio’s nodding it off, as you nicely put it, only works if he can maintain exactly that grave stillness which refuses to be drawn into Antonio’s ambiguity. If he laughed, snapped, or became visibly irritated, Antonio would have won a kind of conversational victory by dragging him into the register of theatre. Gravity is therefore his defence against contamination by the prompt. As for Antonio’s plebeian trickster quality, yes, that is essential too. He is not merely a subordinate flatterer. He is the sort of political operator who can test the limits of decorum because he can always retreat into performance. The man without the old noble stiffness can do things the aspiring quasi-monarch cannot do in person. Antonio can probe the crowd, thicken the atmosphere, float the dangerous symbol, and still leave Giulio the space of lofty refusal. That is why Giulio’s self-command is so striking. He must not only reject the object; he must reject Antonio’s style of public improvisation. He does so by absorbing the moment into Roman gravitas. The trickster produces the scene; the statesman tries to close it without visibly treating it as a trick. So the exchange is more intricate than a simple offer and refusal. Antonio’s move is experimental and theatrical. Giulio’s answer is jurisprudential and symbolic. Antonio lives in tactical elasticity; Giulio must inhabit civic weight. Yet the two are not fully opposed. Each depends on the other. Antonio can test what Giulio cannot openly test. Giulio can convert Antonio’s dangerous experiment into a lesson in Roman political decorum. That is why the scene feels staged even if the emotions and risks are real. The gravity is itself part of the stage-management, but of a different order from Antonio’s. If one wanted a dry Gricean line, one could say this. Antonio supplies the prompting that makes the proposition of kingship publicly speakable; Giulio supplies the gravitas that makes it publicly deniable without ceasing to be publicly thinkable. That is the political beauty of the exchange, and also its danger. This goes back to what Grice and Speranza call the Chomsky requirerment -- ideal speakers in the ideal situation -- conversation between honest chaps. Grice recalls how Nowell-Smith did not speak ordinary language. At one Play Group session, Nowell-Smith brought the case of Gardiner being bribed by a foreigner of Greek descent or Greek himself -- with a Balcanic approach, a bribe to let him NOT attend a friday tutorial so that he can go to London. Nowell (or Smith, since he was born Smith) said that he would have answered to the Greek: "I do not take bribes on principle" _- which correlates to your GIULIO giving a second move as a PRINCIPLE to the 'thing' first move by ANTONIO. HOwever, Austin felt that 'I do not take bribes on principle' (Giulio: Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas victoria dat) similar -- LIke Antonio could challenge: "I'm not talking Romani, I'm talking YOU. Austin, and this was in fact the reason why Nowell-Smith eventually left Oxcford, overwhelmed as he became with the fastidiousness of both Austin and Grice at the playgroup -- said that "I do not take bribes ON PRINCIPLE" ("Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas victoria dat") is OVER-INFORMATIVE -- and that 'No, thanks' would just do -- under the circumstances. So we can reproduce the conversation with variants on Caesar's part? All in Latin, with English translation, and differeing implicatures. One being the Latin for "No, thanks." Grice recalls this as a geniality of the Master of Ordinary Language. Input? Feedback? Thanks. Yes. This is an excellent Gricean line of approach, and I think one can sharpen it by distinguishing three levels of reply, all in Latin, all answering the same offer, but with different informational load and therefore different implicatures. Antonio’s prompting is the first move. Giulio’s second move may then be minimal, personal, constitutional, or politically theatrical. Austin’s annoyance with “I do not take bribes on principle” fits very well here, because the issue is over-informativeness. A bare refusal may be enough to do the practical job. A principled refusal adds a layer of self-characterisation and may therefore invite a stronger reading than the local situation strictly requires. As to the little Latin point first, the nearest compact equivalent of “No, thanks” in a post-classical schoolbook way is nolo, gratias, but that is not really something I would trust as classical Roman idiom. More classical would be minime, possibly with a following formula of thanks, or simply non, though bare non is not especially elegant on its own in high classical exchange. A more Roman way of declining an offer is often just to repeat the governing verb negatively or to use nolo in the first person. So for dramatic Latin, the safest very short refusal is Nolo. If you want the softer “No, thank you” effect, I would use Minime, gratias tibi ago only with some caution, because that begins to sound more like schoolroom reconstructed politeness than something Caesar is likely to say in a charged public ritual. In a historical vignette, therefore, I would privilege Nolo for brevity and force, or Non accipiam if one wants explicit futurity: I will not accept it. The background point, supported by discussion of Latin negation, is that classical Latin often lacks a neat stand-alone “no” exactly corresponding to modern English and instead uses forms like minime or repeats the verb. How do you say “yes” and “no” in Classical Latin? and How to Say No in Latin: From “Non” to “Minime” are useful here as broad orientation, though one should keep a philological eyebrow raised. [answerline.blog], [latin.stac...change.com] So one can imagine a graded series of Caesar-responses. Antonio: Visne diadema regium iterum accipere? Do you wish to accept the royal diadem again? Variant one: Nolo. I do not wish to. This is the nearest to “No, thanks” in pragmatic force, though without the gratitude. Its implicature is minimal. It refuses the act but does not explain the refusal. Precisely because it is under-informative by comparison with Giulio’s grand answer, it leaves the hearers to infer motive from context. They may infer republican modesty, tactical caution, dislike of the crowd’s mood, dislike of Antonio’s prompting, or simple theatrical self-command. In Gricean terms, it performs the refusal while minimising commitment to a wider principle. Austin would probably approve. It does the local work and avoids needless self-portraiture. Variant two: Non accipiam. I will not accept it. This is slightly fuller and more public. It still answers the act, not the constitution. The implicature is firmer than Nolo because the object is understood and the refusal sounds deliberate, almost magisterial. But it still does not move to principle. It remains a practical no. One might say it is enough for the scene without advertising a doctrine of Roman anti-monarchism. Variant three: Rex non sum. I am not a king. This is already riskier. It converts the refusal of the object into a statement about status. That may sound stronger, but in fact it reactivates exactly the dangerous topic. One no longer merely declines the diadem; one makes kingship the explicit subject of predication. That is the sort of answer that can backfire, because it confirms that the relevant question really is kingship. Antonio could then, as you say, challenge: I was not talking about Romans in general; I was talking about you. In this case, Caesar has already accepted the personalisation of the issue. Variant four: Non decet. It is not fitting. This is beautifully Roman and very interesting pragmatically. It refuses, but under the description of decorum. It says more than Nolo and less than a full principle. The implicature is that the offer is inappropriate to the occasion, the role, the festival, or the political mood. That gives Caesar room. He need not deny all ambition; he need only deny the fittingness of this gesture here and now. That is a highly plausible intermediate reply if one wants a Roman brevity with constitutional overtones but without over-explicitness. Variant five: Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat. Romans do not bear crowns except those given by Victory. This is your existing Giulio line, and now we can see exactly what sort of over-informativeness it carries. It does not merely refuse. It generalises. It shifts from first person to ethnos, from immediate act to constitutional style, from local scene to Roman norm, and from diadem to corona. That is a lot of work for a second move. As an Austinian reply, it is over-full. As a Caesarian reply, that may be the point. It transforms a compromising practical offer into an occasion for public Roman self-description. It is not the shortest sufficient answer. It is the answer designed to produce a Roman audience-effect. That lets us arrange the variants by increasing implicatural density. Nolo simply declines. Non accipiam declines with public firmness. Non decet refuses under decorum. Rex non sum refuses by explicit denial of status. Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat refuses by constitutional-symbolic relocation. The first is locally sufficient. The last is theatrically and politically charged. So if we reconstruct the exchange in the style you want, one might write it like this. Antonio: Visne diadema regium iterum in Lupercalibus accipere? Do you wish to accept the royal diadem again at the Lupercalia? Caesar variant A: Nolo. I do not wish to. Implicature: a bare refusal; motive left open; minimum public commitment. Caesar variant B: Non accipiam. I will not accept it. Implicature: a firm practical refusal; stronger resolve, still without constitutional doctrine. Caesar variant C: Non decet. It is not fitting. Implicature: the impropriety belongs to the occasion or gesture, not necessarily to every form of exceptional power. Caesar variant D: Rex non sum. I am not a king. Implicature: stronger distancing from monarchy, but also a dangerous admission that monarchy is the topic. Caesar variant E: Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat. Romans do not bear crowns except those given by Victory. Implicature: the refusal is converted into a principle of Roman political symbolism; personal appetite is displaced into civic norm; the proposition of kingship is managed rather than extinguished. And this is where the Nowell-Smith anecdote becomes philosophically exact. “I do not take bribes on principle” is not wrong. It is simply richer than the occasion may require. It not only declines the bribe; it also advertises the speaker’s standing policy and moral identity. Similarly, Caesar’s grand Roman answer does not only decline the diadem; it displays his command of Roman symbolic language. Antonio’s likely comeback, “I am not asking what Romans in general do, I am asking about you,” is therefore very much to the point. It exposes the displacement. Caesar avoids saying “I do not want kingship” and says instead “Romans do not bear such crowns.” That is exactly the kind of principle-move Austin would call conversationally extravagant and strategically interesting. So my own verdict would be this. If you want the pure Austinian minimum, give Caesar Nolo. If you want the Roman decorum answer, give him Non decet. If you want the politically theatrical Caesar who answers Antonio’s dangerous prompt by turning it into a public lesson in Roman symbolism, keep your existing line. The difference among them is not truth-conditional so much as implicatural. The shorter the answer, the less self-characterising it is. The more principled the answer, the more it says about Caesar’s chosen public image, and the more it invites the suspicion that the image itself is part of the management of the danger. So yes, one can absolutely reproduce the conversation with variants, and doing so makes the Austin-Grice point much clearer. A practical refusal does one thing. A principled refusal does two: it refuses and it stages the refuser. Caesar, as usual, would have known the difference. So here is the Grice passage: "Austin himself, with his mastery in seeking out, and his sensitivity in responding to, the finer points of linguistic usage, provided a splendid and instructive example to those who were concerned to include linguistic botanizing in their professional armoury. I shall recount three authentie anecdotes in support of this claim. Geoffrey Warnock was being dined at Austin's college with a view to election to a Fellowship, and was much disconcerted, even though he was already acquainted with Austin, when Austin's first remark to him was, What would be the difference between my saying to you that someone is not playing golf correctly and my saying to you that he is not playing golf properly? On a certain occasion we were discussing the notion of a principle, and (in this connection) the conditions for appropriate use of the phrase 'on principle". Nowell Smith recalled that a pupil of Patrick Gardiner. who was Greek, wanting permission for an overnight visit to London, had come to Gardiner and offered him some money, saying 'I hope that you will not be offended by this somewhat Balkan approach. At this point, Nowell Smith suggested, Gardiner might well have replied, *1 do not take bribes on principle. Austin responded by saying 1 should not say that; I should just say "No, thanks". "-- and note also that we revise this the adjective for diadema chosen by Antonio REGIUM -- Yet Giulio does not deny that as per one of your variants above that explicitly challenges the rex-root -- It woudl be alomost like Strawson: Is the king of France bald? France is not a monarchy. "Will you accept again this royal diadem at the Lupercalia?" No thanks (b) 'regium'? Lupercalia? that's like water and vinegar. Input? Feedback? Perhaps you may comment on the Austin, because this is conversational asymmetry. Nowell-Smith is treating a Balcan as a peer -- Austin is showing the tutorial autority: "No thanks" -- Giulio could have worked along that line -- but perhaps because he lacked Austinian wisdom, went the Nowell-Smith way, which eventually led him to that second blow on the side or chest. Input? Feedback? Thanks. Yes, I think your Austin-Nowell-Smith parallel is exactly the right way to read the Caesar scene, and it also helps explain why the scene is asymmetrical in a way that matters. Nowell-Smith’s “I do not take bribes on principle” is not wrong, but it is too rich for the occasion. It does not merely refuse the bribe; it also offers a general moral self-description, and in doing so it changes the footing of the exchange. Austin’s “No, thanks” does the local work and no more. It answers the act, not the whole ethical universe behind the act. In the same way, Antonio’s “Visne diadema regium iterum in Lupercalibus accipere?” puts Caesar under pressure to answer a practical offer. A minimal reply such as Nolo, or even Non decet, would have kept the response closely tied to the occasion. But Giulio’s “Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat” does what Gardiner’s “I do not take bribes on principle” would do in Austin’s anecdote: it elevates the answer from local refusal to public principle. That is why it sounds grand, Roman, and politically useful, but also why it invites the Austinian objection that it is over-informative. Antonio is asking whether Caesar will take this crown now, here, under these conditions; Caesar answers with a constitutional-symbolic maxim. The reply is not false, exactly, but it is larger than the immediate demand, and therefore rhetorically strategic. That is where the asymmetry becomes decisive. Nowell-Smith, in the Gardiner story, treats the Greek as a peer in a common moral language. Austin insists instead on the local authority-structure of the situation: this is not a debate between equals about principles, but a practical moment in which a superior simply declines an improper offer. So “No, thanks” is not merely shorter; it is more faithful to the actual social geometry. Likewise in the Lupercalia scene, Antonio may stage the offer, but Caesar is not really in a relation of equal exploratory conversation with him. Antonio is the prompter, perhaps even the instrument; Caesar is the principal figure whose response will be publicly read. In that setting, a minimal refusal would have asserted command and closure. By answering in the Nowell-Smith mode, with a principle rather than a bare refusal, Caesar does something more theatrical and more vulnerable. He turns the occasion into an opportunity for Roman self-presentation. That is splendid politics, but not necessarily the wisest ordinary-language move. Austin would probably have said that Caesar should simply have refused the thing and left the constitutional lecture for another venue. Your further point about regium is also very good. Antonio’s adjective already loads the question in a way that invites a Strawsonian irritation. “Will you accept again this royal diadem?” contains both the dangerous noun and the dangerous qualifier, plus the presuppositional iterum. A more Austinian Caesar might have pounced on the description itself. Not “Romans do not bear crowns,” but something like Regium? Minime. Or even Diadema regium? Non decet. That would have met the lexical impropriety at the level where it enters. And your “Lupercalia? that is like water and vinegar” is exactly the sort of dry mismatch one wants. It would answer the offer by exposing the incongruity of the offered description with the occasion. In that respect, “No, thanks” is not merely minimal; it is a way of refusing to ratify the loaded vocabulary of the prompter. Caesar’s actual grander answer, by contrast, tacitly accepts that the matter has risen to the level of Roman symbolic norms. That is politically intelligent, but from the Austinian point of view perhaps already one concession too many. So yes, I think one can say, with some dry malice, that Caesar lacked Austinian wisdom at that moment and chose the Nowell-Smith route. He did not merely decline the object; he staged himself as the bearer of a principle. That may have helped him with the crowd in the short term, but it also kept the larger dangerous topic alive. “No, thanks” would have shut the scene down. “Romani coronas non ferunt, nisi quas Victoria dat” keeps the scene open by recoding it. It does not abolish kingship as a topic; it Romanises the terms under which exceptional elevation may still be thought. That is why the line is better politics than ordinary language, and perhaps worse prudence than either Austin or Grice would have recommended in a genuinely perilous atmosphere. And the final irony, which you nicely hint at with the second blow in the side or chest, is that over-informativeness can be fatal in politics no less than in tutorials. Austin’s “No, thanks” is safe because it refuses without self-exposure. Caesar’s principle-laden reply is magnificent, but magnificence is a risky register for a man already suspected of wanting what he denies. In that sense the whole scene becomes a little tutorial in public overstatement. Antonio prompts; Caesar answers too grandly; the public hears both the refusal and the need for the refusal; and the proposition of kingship remains alive precisely because it has been denied under too noble a description. That is not quite the same thing as saying that the line led him to the dagger, but it is fair to say that it illustrates a recurrent political danger: once one answers a practical temptation with a principle, one has ceased merely to act and begun to advertise oneself. Austin would have preferred the cleaner economy. Grice, I think, would have enjoyed the implicatures. Grice e Calpurnio. Gens Calpurnia (Calpurnio Pisone) Interlocutor: "Cur Caesarem ire ad Idus Martias vetas?" (Why are you forbidding Caesar from going out on the Ides of March?) Calpurnio: (cum gravitatem) "Fenestrae tuae nocte sponte apertae sunt." (Abbott-Style: "Your bedroom windows flew open last night without a draft, Julius.") +> IMPLICATURA: that the supernatural world is giving a very blunt warning which your political ego is choosing to ignore. This is under Calpurnio -- and would you do a second run as per his utterance about the finestras? in passage below. It seems it may accomodate to what Grice says about 'mean' -- For Calpurnio, if Grice and Speranza understands Calpurnio right, the odd behaviour of the windows MEAN something --that p. In a causal way -- an omen. Yet the extra Abbott-style implciature is that Caesar's rationality TRUMPS what he would call superstitio. It would seem that grammatically, the first interlocutor is GIULIO himself, and then redcated: GIULIO: Cur me ire ad Idus Martis vetas?" -- but would Giulio even ask that? Was the veto volunteered? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Passage: Yes. On a second run, the windows are not a random Abbott embellishment. They do belong to the ancient tradition, but not in the exact shape of your Latin sentence. The strongest source is Plutarch, Life of Caesar 63, where he says that while Caesar was sleeping beside Calpurnia, all the windows and doors of the chamber flew open at once, and Caesar, startled by the noise and moonlight, noticed that Calpurnia, in her sleep, was uttering broken sounds and groans. The same passage is repeated in Loeb’s text of Plutarch and in parallel versions of the chapter. So if your line is meant to rest on an ancient omen-tradition, it does have support, but the support is specifically Plutarchan and tied to the whole scene of Calpurnia’s dream and the prodigies before the Ides. [loebclassics.com], [perseus.tufts.edu] That means two things for your reconstruction. First, the basic omen is ancient: the chamber’s doors and windows flying open of themselves is part of the pre-assassination prodigy sequence. Second, the exact sentence Fenestrae tuae nocte sponte apertae sunt is not an attested classical utterance of Calpurnia or anyone else. It is a concise neo-Latin distillation of a Plutarchan narrative detail. If you want it closer to the source, I would make it something like: Ostia fenestraeque cubiculi nocte repente patefacta sunt. Or, if one wants to keep it more personal and dramatic: Nocte fenestrae et ostia cubiculi tua sponte patefacta sunt. That gives you the involuntary opening, the nocturnal setting, and the chamber, all of which are in Plutarch’s report. [perseus.tufts.edu] Now to your Gricean point about mean. Yes, this is a very nice case for the old distinction between natural meaning and non-natural meaning. Calpurnia is not treating the windows as if they were intentionally “saying” something. She is treating them as an omen, that is, as naturally or causally significant. In Grice’s vocabulary, one would be much closer to “Those windows opening mean that something dreadful is about to happen” than to any speaker-meaning case. The windows, on that reading, are symptoms or signs, not utterers. They mean that p in the old natural-sign sense, just as spots may mean measles or dark clouds may mean rain. The force is causal, portentous, and inferential, not communicative in the ordinary intentional sense. But your extra point is equally good. The Abbott-style implicature goes beyond the omen itself and turns the whole thing into a clash between portent and political rationality. Caesar may hear the same signs and still treat them as superstitio, or at least as insufficient reason for suspending public action. So the dramatic conflict is not simply between sign and no sign, but between two standards of practical inference. Calpurnia says, in effect, these signs mean danger; therefore do not go. Caesar says, in effect, even if such things are signs, they are not sufficient to govern action, or at least not the action of a man like him. So the scene is philosophically good because it stages two rival principles of uptake: omen-sensitive prudence and public-stoic self-command. On whether the first interlocutor should be Giulio himself, I think yes, that is probably better than the anonymous “Interlocutor,” if what you want is dramatic and historically plausible exchange. In the ancient story Calpurnia’s attempt to stop Caesar is not triggered by someone else asking her why she forbids him. It is part of the domestic scene of the morning of the Ides. Plutarch says that when day came, she begged Caesar not to go out, or at least to postpone the Senate, and if he would not heed her dreams, then to use divination and sacrifice. So the more plausible first move in dialogue form is indeed Caesar asking why she is trying to prevent him from going, or simply her volunteering the reason as part of a direct plea. The anonymous question “Cur Caesarem ire ad Idus Martias vetas?” is therefore serviceable as editorial framing, but less true to the dramatic scene than a direct Caesar-Calpurnia exchange. [lexundria.com], [loebclassics.com] If you want a historically better-shaped dialogue, I would suggest something like this: Giulio: Cur me hodie domi manere vis? Why do you want me to remain at home today? Calpurnia: Nocte fenestrae et ostia cubiculi sponte patefacta sunt, et somnium triste vidi. In the night the windows and doors of the bedchamber flew open of themselves, and I saw a dreadful dream. That has two advantages. It fits Plutarch’s scene more closely, and it lets the omen and the dream stand together, which is exactly how the ancient narrative presents them. The windows alone are a fine portent, but in the sources they are not isolated from the rest of the prodigy-cluster. Calpurnia’s fear is produced by the conjunction of prodigies, dream, and sacrificial failure. [loebclassics.com], [perseus.tufts.edu] On the name, Treccani’s form is Calpùrnia, simply Calpurnia, not “Calpurnio Pisone.” She is the wife of Caesar and daughter of Lucio Calpurnio Pisone Cesonino. So if your entry heading is meant to be about the wife, I would not call her Calpurnio Pisone. That is a masculine or paternalising distortion. The correct Italian heading is Calpurnia. [treccani.it], [treccani.it] So the dry conclusion would be this. Yes, the opening of the windows belongs to the ancient tradition, specifically Plutarch’s Life of Caesar, where the doors and windows of the bedchamber fly open in the night before the assassination. No, your exact Latin sentence is not an attested quotation, but it is a fair compressed reconstruction if slightly adjusted. Philosophically, the sign is one of natural meaning, omen as causal portent, not intentional saying. Dramatically, the better interlocutor is Caesar himself, since Calpurnia’s warning is part of their domestic exchange on the morning of the Ides, not an answer to a third party’s editorial question. And if you want the cleanest heading, use Calpurnia, not Calpurnio Pisone.Calpurnio (AVC DCCX) So now Grice and Speranza have transferred the entry under Giulio. But back to the meaning (Grice). Compared to spots meaning measles, this is not a piece of cake: windows and doors flying, talk-in-speech, no draft, etc -- and the third move, would be indeed Giulio ignoring the 'veto' -- his move 1 --. Do historians consider the fate of Calpurnia as attending Giulio's funeral with 'I told you, stubborn Giulio' -- the historians have to be carefully here -- they are being patronising and sexist enough as having a FEMALE having all this behaviour, and the tdhird move in the sequence being Giulio ignoring her -- even her implicature alla Abbott that Giulio's political ego was unsinkable or unstoppable. IT seems she does not only communicate what the incidents 'mean' but asks for 'retribution' in terms of sacrifice -- all of which is ignored by Caesar. The historian hhas to be careful (and not a magizian) in depictng the incident objectively. Yes, Calpurnia witnessed things which meant, to her, that p -- and some form of p (horrendous incidents -- the assassination of her husband -- did happen -- but correlation is not causation -- Mill's Methods Grice indeed has an anecdote on this from Hardie -- which you may use when you povide feedback and input -- Grice writes:  "I liked his [Hardie's] resourcefulness in the defence of difficult positions, a characteristic illustrated by the following incident which he once told me about himself. He had, not long since, parked his car and gone to a cinema. Unfortunately he had parked his car on top of one of the strips on the street by means of which tratfic-lights were at that time controlled by the passing traffic; as a result, the lights were jammed and it required four policemen to lift his car off the strip.   The police decided to prosecute. I indicated to him that this didn't surprise me at all and asked him how he fared. "Oh", he said, 'I got off?  I asked him how on earth he managed that. Quite simply, he answered, I just invoked Mill's Method of Difference. They charged me with causing an obstruction at 4.00 p.m.; and 1 answered that since my car had been parked at 2.00 p.m., it couldn't have been my car which caused the obstruction." You can rephrase in terms of some historian or third party or Calpurnia herself as she is faced taht Giulio WAS killed. Thanks.   Yes, I think the safest way to handle Calpurnia is to keep two distinctions firmly in view at once. First, there is her own uptake of the signs. Second, there is the historian’s much later temptation to read the signs backwards from the assassination and treat them as if they had straightforwardly “meant” what eventually occurred. Those are not the same thing. Calpurnia saw prodigies, dreamt a fearful dream, urged delay, and asked for divinatory confirmation through sacrifice. That is all perfectly ancient, perfectly intelligible, and perfectly reportable. But once one says, “the windows opened, therefore Caesar was doomed,” one has already moved from ancient omen-logic into a more dangerous retrospective certainty. Grice’s natural-meaning distinction helps precisely because it slows that move down. Spots mean measles when there is a settled causal or symptomatic relation. Open windows at night do not mean assassination in anything like that tight way. They may be taken as ominous, portentous, significant to the religious imagination, but the relation is not one of stable physical symptom to disease. It is culturally codified portent, not clean causal sign. That is why your Mill-and-Hardie comparison is so useful. The historical temptation is to reason: the windows flew open, Calpurnia feared disaster, Caesar went out anyway, Caesar was killed, therefore the opening of the windows was a true sign of the killing. But that is exactly the sort of post hoc tightening that a more scrupulous historian must resist. Hardie’s parking anecdote shows the point neatly. Mere temporal conjunction does not settle causal attribution. If the obstruction appears at four but the car was parked at two, one still has to prove the right sort of connection. Likewise here: because a dreadful event follows the omen, it does not automatically follow that the omen “meant” that very event in a strong evidential sense. What one may safely say is more modest. The incidents meant, to Calpurnia, that danger was imminent. She interpreted them within an ancient Roman framework of prodigy and warning. Later events made her interpretation look tragically apt, but that tragic aptness does not turn the omen into a modern causal indicator. Correlation is not causation, and fulfilment is not the same as evidential necessity. This is also where the historian has to be careful not to patronise Calpurnia by either of two opposite simplifications. The first is the old sexist one: a frightened woman panics, a great man dismisses her, history proceeds. The second is the compensatory romantic one: the woman was mystically right all along, the man’s political vanity blinded him, and the moral is that feminine intuition defeated masculine reason. Both are too neat. What the sources give us is a Roman noblewoman responding in entirely conventional Roman religious terms to a cluster of prodigies and a nightmare. She does not merely chatter about bad feelings. She urges concrete ritual response: delay the departure, consult sacrifice, take the signs seriously. That is not irrationality in the modern pejorative sense. It is practical reasoning within a framework in which prodigies, dreams, and sacrificial results count as actionable data. Caesar’s resistance, likewise, is not simply “male ego,” though it may include vanity, public shame, impatience, or political style. It is also the reasoning of a statesman who cannot easily let ominous appearances dictate public action, especially when his role requires steadiness. So the clash is not reason versus female superstition, but one norm of practical inference versus another. And that is why Calpurnia’s speech, if we centre it under Giulio rather than under her as a detached omen-reader, becomes more dramatic. The sequence is not: anonymous interlocutor asks why she forbids Caesar, she cites open windows, the audience applauds. The more plausible scene is: she volunteers the warning; Caesar hears it; she adds the dream and the failed sacrifices; he resists; Decimus and the others later undo her influence. In that fuller sequence, the “third move” is crucial. The point is not merely that signs occurred, but that signs were offered as reasons and refused as insufficient reasons. That makes the scene genuinely conversational in a Gricean sense. A move is made, not by literal assertion alone but by omen-report plus practical counsel. The addressee’s uptake then determines whether the communication succeeds. Caesar does not deny that the windows flew open. He declines the practical conclusion Calpurnia wants drawn from that fact. So what is at issue is not whether the omen “spoke,” but whether its force as a reason for action was accepted. One can put the historian’s problem in a form parallel to your Hardie anecdote. Suppose a later annalist says: the windows flew open in the night; Caesar was murdered the next day; therefore the windows were a warning of the assassination. The careful response is: perhaps, within Roman religious interpretation, they could be taken as warning of grave danger; but from our evidential standpoint the opening of the windows is not itself a demonstrated cause, nor a symptom with fixed predictive range. At most it is one member of a prodigy-cluster retrospectively read in light of the outcome. Calpurnia’s interpretation is historically intelligible; the outcome makes it poignant; but the historian must not convert poignancy into proof. That is exactly the difference between saying “this meant danger to her” and “this objectively meant assassination.” So if one wanted a dry historian’s paragraph in your preferred line, I would put it like this. Calpurnia’s report of the chamber’s doors and windows opening in the night belongs to the ancient prodigy tradition and should be understood as an omen within Roman religious practice, not as a modern causal sign comparable to spots meaning measles. The events did indeed mean, to Calpurnia, that imminent danger threatened Caesar, and her subsequent plea for delay and sacrificial confirmation shows that she treated them as actionable warnings. But the later fulfilment of her fears does not entitle the historian to turn portent into proof. The assassination retrospectively vindicates her anxiety without converting the omen into an evidential mechanism. In Mill’s terms, concurrence of phenomena does not by itself establish causal force; in Grice’s terms, the natural-meaning model must be handled with care, because what is at issue here is not strict symptomatology but a culturally codified interpretation of prodigy. Caesar’s rejection of her counsel is therefore best read not as the crude triumph of male rationality over female superstition, nor as the simple blindness of political ego before womanly intuition, but as a conflict between rival standards of practical inference in a Roman world where prodigies and public duty could both claim seriousness. And on the funeral point, I would be very cautious. I do not think the surviving sources give us a dramatic Calpurnia-at-the-funeral scene saying, in effect, “I warned him.” That sort of retrospective staging belongs more to later imagination than to sober ancient historiography. A responsible historian should therefore resist inventing her afterlife in the narrative. She can be shown as having warned, feared, urged sacrifice, and failed to stop him. That is enough tragedy. One need not put a vindicatory speech into her mouth after the event. The pathos already lies in the fact that she had reasons, by her lights, and was not heard. If you like, I can next compress all this into a short entry-note under Giulio, with one paragraph on natural meaning versus omen, one on Calpurnia’s practical reasoning, and one on why the historian must resist retrospective over-certainty. and to press on the superstio point -- wasn't there a record -- by Tullio Cicerone and others that a streaking had struck the statue of the lupa in the Campidoglio and that even during the Grand Tour the elite would climb up the Campidoglio to see the mark left on the bronze statue? With Catholic Rome, same supestitions, as when Gregorio saw Michael descend on the bridge, and now the Musei capitolini keep a stone with two footprints on it, alleged to be by St. Michael. You are right that the 'ambiguity' of the event on the night previous to the assassination was big -- but are there accounts as to how Calpurnia reacted over the proceedings, at funeral ("I told you, stubborn Giulio") etc. Thanks. On your first point: yes—what you’re recalling is quite real, though (as so often with Rome) the afterlife of the story got richer than the ancient notice itself. The Capitoline wolf and lightning Cicero explicitly records that a statue of the she‑wolf on the Capitol was struck by lightning in 65 BC. He treats it as one among several omina disturbing the state:  he mentions “a gilt statue on the Capitol of a baby being given suck from the udders of a wolf” that was struck [en.wikipedia.org]  So you are absolutely right about the core datum: a lightning strike on the lupa as an inauspicious prodigy. Two points to nuance the later tradition:  The association of a visible scar or mark on the bronze with that strike is already an antiquarian inference made by later scholars (especially early modern antiquarians), who tried to match Cicero’s notice with the surviving statue. [Capitoline...erence.com] The idea that Grand Tour visitors climbed to inspect that mark belongs to the Renaissance and post‑Renaissance reception—that is, the continuous Roman habit of treating ancient objects as repositories of divine or historical “traces,” very much in line with what you note about relics like the footprints of St. Michael.  In other words, structurally the same mentality persists: Republican prodigium → Imperial memory → Renaissance antiquarianism → Catholic relic culture.  Calpurnia after the assassination Here the contrast is striking: the sources are rich about her before the murder, but extremely thin afterward. What we can actually say (from scattered ancient notices, mainly Plutarch, Nicolaus of Damascus, etc.) is: 1. Immediate aftermath  She received Caesar’s body at their house and safeguarded it during the first chaotic days. [classicalstudies.org] She acted in a very “Roman matron” mode: protecting the corpse, the household, and the dignitas of the dead.  2. Political role  She handed over Caesar’s papers, money, and effects to Mark Antony, effectively enabling him to take control of Caesar’s legacy. [grokipedia.com] Some traditions also say she transferred part of his fortune or resources to Antony. [classicalstudies.org]  That is about the extent of what the sources tell us explicitly. 3. At the funeral This is the point you’re really getting at—and here the answer is almost paradoxical:  There is no surviving ancient account that gives Calpurnia a voice or reaction at the funeral (no lament, no “I told you so,” nothing like the dramatic instinct suggests). The narrative of the funeral is dominated by Antony’s speech and the crowd’s reaction; Calpurnia is effectively written out of the scene.  Modern historians explicitly note that the sources treat the aftermath as an “all‑male affair” and that her role is only indirectly recoverable. [classicalstudies.org]  Why the silence? Your instinct about the “ambiguity” is exactly right. The silence itself is meaningful:  Roman historiography tends to spotlight public, male, political action—omens, speeches, conspiracies, crowds. Women appear at threshold moments (dreams, warnings, funerary custody), then disappear once events enter the political arena. Calpurnia’s dramatic potential (the prophetic wife vindicated) survives mainly in later literature—most famously, Shakespeare.  So the line you imagined (“I warned you…”) is psychologically plausible—but it belongs to literary reconstruction, not to the surviving historical record.  The broader pattern (linking your two points) You nicely put your finger on the deeper continuity:  The lupa struck by lightning → read as a prodigium Calpurnia’s dream and the night’s portents → competing interpretations Later Rome’s relic-footprints of St. Michael → physicalized miracle-traces  All three are variations on the same Roman habit: reading signs in matter (bronze, dreams, stones) and then preserving them as testimony.  If you want, I can pull together the exact passages from Cicero (De divinatione) and Plutarch so you can see how the wolf and Calpurnia sit side‑by‑side in the ancient “language of prodigies.” Young GIULIO Cæsar, who fell into their hands when a mere boy, on his voyage to Rhodes, appears to have met them more than half way in their sallies of humour. They asked twenty talents for his ransom, when he offered them fifty; and even then was so little anxious to leave them, that he remained thirty-eight days after having paid his money and become entitled to his quittance. During his stay among them he wrote satirical verses on their barbarous mode of life, and parried off their swords by the still keener weapons of ridicule. The pirates were amused by the sallies of their prisoner, who conveyed to them all the bluntness of truth in all the sharpness of epigram. They were sorry enough to part with him, when the money for his ransom arrived; but they had reason to be still more sorry when they met him again; for when he did so, it was only to capture them and carry them to Pergamus. Do we have oratio recta of Giulio and the pirates? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Abbott: .” Young GIULIO Cæsar, who fell into their hands when a mere boy, on his voyage to Rhodes, appears to have met them more than half way in their sallies of humour. They asked twenty talents for his ransom, when he offered them fifty; and even then was so little anxious to leave them, that he remained thirty-eight days after having paid his money and become entitled to his quittance. During his stay among them he wrote satirical verses on their barbarous mode of life, and parried off their swords by the still keener weapons of ridicule. The pirates were amused by the sallies of their prisoner, who conveyed to them all the bluntness of truth in all the sharpness of epigram. They were sorry enough to part with him, when the money for his ransom arrived; but they had reason to be still more sorry when they met him again; for when he did so, it was only to capture them and carry them to Pergamus. Great question—and here the answer is nicely “in between”:  Yes, we do have something like oratio recta (direct speech) in the tradition  but it is fragmentary, stylized, and reconstructed by Plutarch, not verbatim historical transcript. 1. The closest thing to direct speech (Plutarch) From Life of Caesar (ch. 2), we get several reported utterances, some almost direct: (A) On the ransom (near-direct speech)  He “laughed at them” and said they did not know whom they had captured, and offered fifty talents instead of twenty [livius.org] Not quoted verbatim, but clearly:  a speech act reported in indirect style   (B) Commands while captive  whenever he wanted to sleep, he would send to them and tell them to stop talking [livius.org] Again:  no quotation marks but clearly imperative speech acts   (C) Insults (quasi-direct)  he would call them “illiterate savages” to their faces [livius.org]  This is very close to oratio recta, though summarized.  (D) The famous repeated threat (key passage)  he would often laughingly threaten to have them all hanged [livius.org]  And crucially:  he later crucified them “just as he had often told them” [lexundria.com]  This is the strongest piece:  there was a repeated explicit threat, understood later as literal.  2. What we do NOT have We do not have a preserved line like:  “I will crucify you all”  in exact Greek quotation form. Plutarch:  paraphrases summarizes reconstructs “what such a man would say”    3. So: what kind of “oratio recta” is this? We can classify it: LevelStatusliteral quotation not preservedreported speech yescharacterized speech strongly presentrepeated saying reconstructed (“as he had told them”)   So this is what classicists call:  quasi-oratio recta (“reported but vivid speech”). 4. Gricean angle (this is perfect here) This episode is a masterpiece of implicature collapse.  While captive: What Caesar says:  joking threats (“I’ll hang you”)  What pirates infer:  joke / bravado / boyish humor   Later: What Caesar does:  actually executes them. So:  the implicature is reinterpreted as literal meaning    A textbook case:  apparent flouting (joking threat) → later revealed as serious intention. 5. Abbott vs sources Abbott’s version:  “parries with ridicule” “keen weapons of epigram” lively conversational tone    Historically grounded:  insults jokes threats   But:  no polished dialogue survives no extended witty exchange in direct form. Final takeaway  We do not possess a fully preserved oratio recta exchange between Caesar and the pirates, but Plutarch gives us vivid near-direct speech: Caesar laughs at their ransom, issues commands, insults them as “illiterate barbarians,” and repeatedly threatens to have them crucified—threats later fulfilled, making this one of antiquity’s clearest examples of a “joking” utterance whose implicature turns out to have been literal all along.   If you want, we can try reconstructing a plausible Latin or Greek version of one of those utterances in Caesar’s style—that’s a fun exercise and very revealing stylistically. The 30. No: 50 -- is also implicature-laden and Grice and Speranza are related of Sheep in Alice in Wonderland: I sell eggs: 1 egg, 1 shilling. Two eggs: half a shilling. Alice: Two eggs cheaper than one? Sheep: Yes, but if you buy two, you have to EAT two. Alice: Then I;ll buy one, thank you. IRRATIONALITY behind -- Grice, Aspects of Reason. GIULIO's implicature: "I'm worth more than that -- take the 30 and add 20 as a tip". Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Alice's move is not irrational if she takes it as a vow that she HAS to eat both eggs. This is a beautiful comparison—you’ve put your finger on a genuinely Gricean structure that links Caesar, Alice, and the sheep, all under pragmatic rationality vs apparent irrationality. Let me map it cleanly.  1. Caesar’s “20 → 50 talents” move Surface:  Pirates: “20 talents” Caesar: “No, 50.”   Literal reading  He offers to pay more than demanded → apparently irrational (why raise the price?)   Gricean implicature What Caesar means:  “You have misunderstood the value of your prisoner.”  More strongly:  “I am not the sort of man ransomed for 20 talents.”    So the offer carries:  self-valuation signal status claim threat (implicitly): you will regret misjudging me    So your gloss:  “take the 30 and add 20 as a tip”  is nicely ironic—but the underlying logic is:  “raise your expectations of what I am”    2. Alice and the Sheep (parallel) Surface:  “1 egg = 1s” “2 eggs = ½s”   Apparent irrationality Alice:  “Two eggs cheaper than one?”   Sheep’s reply:  “Yes—but you must eat both.”    Here the hidden rule appears:  purchase entails consumption   Alice’s reasoning She chooses 1 egg, because:  accepting the 2‑egg option commits her to eating 2 eggs    So as you note:  Alice is not irrational if she accepts the hidden rule    3. Structural comparison Case Surface oddityHidden constraintResolutionCaesarpays moreransom reflects statusrational self-signalingSheepcheaper pairmust consume bothpragmatic costAlicerejects bargainavoids obligationrational choice   4. The shared mechanism In both cases:  the apparent irrationality disappears once we identify a pragmatic enrichment   Gricean diagnosis Both involve:  violation of surface rationality   recovery via implicature     Caesar:  Maxim of Quantity (why more money?) → implicature:   I am no ordinary captive   Sheep:  Maxim of Manner / Quantity (odd pricing) → implicature:   purchase includes obligation    5. Your key insight about normativity You say:  Alice is not irrational if she takes it as a “vow”  Exactly.  She treats:  “buy” = commitment to consumption   Which turns:  economic puzzle → practical constraint    6. Deep difference between Caesar and Alice This is where your comparison becomes really interesting.  Caesar  uses implicature strategically manipulates others’ expectations   Sheep  imposes implicature as rule of the game   Alice  interprets implicature as binding rule    So: AgentRoleCaesarcreates implicatureSheepencodes implicatureAliceobeys implicature   7. Why Grice would like this Because it shows:  apparent irrationality → rationality restored via inference   And also:  meaning depends on:  what is said what must be inferred      In Aspects of Reason terms:  rationality appears violated but is preserved at a deeper level    Final synthesis  Caesar’s “fifty talents” is not irrational extravagance but a pragmatic act of self-definition, just as the Sheep’s pricing is not nonsense once the hidden rule (“you must eat what you buy”) is made explicit; in both cases, what looks like a violation of rational choice becomes fully intelligible once the implicatures are correctly identified, exactly as Grice would predict.   If you like, we could formalize Caesar’s move as a signaling game (very close to modern game theory)—it fits surprisingly well. I suppose there is also the 'honesty among thiefs' implicature because the pirates take Giulio and could well deprive him of his talents (50, whatever) -- he will crucify them, regardless. but there was this implicature. Is the ransom expected to be paid by GIULIO who has the 50 talents with him, or upon release by his estate? Input? Feedback? Thanks This is a very subtle and rewarding line of thought—you’re essentially uncovering an implicit contract structure in the Caesar–pirates episode, and you’re right to connect it with Gricean “honesty among thieves.” Let me disentangle the layers.   1. First: how ransom worked (historically) From Plutarch’s account:  Caesar does not have the ransom with him he:  sends companions to cities to raise the money   remains with the pirates meanwhile.  So:  the ransom is not immediate cash on his person  it is raised externally (friends, allies, network)   So the structure is:  Pirates capture Caesar They demand 20 talents Caesar says: make it 50 He dispatches agents to collect it Payment is delivered → release    This implies:  a credit-based / trust-based system    2. Your “honesty among thieves” insight Exactly right.  Why do the pirates cooperate? They could:  kill him immediately or extract whatever he has  But instead they:  accept delayed ransom allow him to send messengers    This presupposes:   a shared norm of ransom practice   Implicit contract  Caesar:  will arrange payment   Pirates:  will release him upon payment      This is:  a mutually understood rule (even among criminals)    3. Gricean implicature here You can frame it as:  What is said:  “20 talents” → “50 talents”   What is implicated:  “I am a high-value captive” → “this transaction belongs to a known social practice”   That practice carries further implicatures:  payment will be honored prisoner will be released no treachery (at least during negotiation phase)    4. Why the pirates don’t simply cheat This is key.  Reasons (not speculative, but structural)  ransom economy depends on:  reputation   if pirates:  kill or betray too often → future ransoms collapse. So:  even pirates operate under proto‑normative rationality. This is your “honesty among thieves”:  not moral honesty but institutional reliability    5. Caesar’s extra move (your key point) You say:  he will crucify them regardless  Yes—and that’s the twist.  While captive  Caesar behaves as if:  the contract is binding   pirates interpret:  his behavior as playful arrogance     After release  Caesar:  violates the larger moral expectation but: not the ransom contract itself . So:  Stage Contract statusransomhonored retaliationnot covered    6. Your “Alice / rationality” connection revisited Here too:  surface irrationality:  pirates trust captive captive jokes about killing them     Hidden structure:  both sides share:  rules of ransom exchange    Rationality lies in:  recognizing and operating within that rule set    7. Final synthesis   ransom is not paid by Caesar personally on the spot  it is raised externally and delivered  pirates rely on:  a norm-governed ransom system    Caesar exploits that system  then:  steps outside it entirely (crucifixion)      One-line takeaway  The pirates’ behavior presupposes a shared “honesty among thieves” implicature: a ransom economy based on delayed payment and mutual compliance, in which Caesar’s offer of fifty talents signals participation in a known norm—but while both sides honor the transactional rules (payment and release), Caesar later steps outside that framework entirely, revealing that the trust extended during captivity applied only within the limited context of ransom, not to the broader moral horizon of survival.   If you like, we can frame this as a full game-theoretic model (trust, signaling, delayed payoff)—it fits remarkably well. GIULIO Cæsar's proceedings in Gaul are sufficiently familiar to enable us to treat them with a sort of contempt, by omitting even the heads of the oft-repeated tale from our history. Though his arms were abroad, his eye was at home, and he watched the affairs of Rome with a jealous interest. His confederates, Pompeo and Crasso, had quarrelled; and the former fell out with GIULIO Cæsar; so that there was a difference between the triumvirate, though they were all three alike in their unscrupulous designs upon the commonwealth. Is this as per abbott the first time triumviratus was used in Latin --? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Abbott: GIULIO Cæsar's proceedings in Gaul are sufficiently familiar to enable us to treat them with a sort of contempt, by omitting even the heads of the oft-repeated tale from our history. Though his arms were abroad, his eye was at home, and he watched the affairs of Rome with a jealous interest. His confederates, Pompeo and Crasso, had quarrelled; and the former fell out with GIULIO Cæsar; so that there was a difference between the triumvirate, though they were all three alike in their unscrupulous designs upon the commonwealth. Short answer: No—Abbott is not reflecting any “first use” of triumviratus in Latin.  And more importantly: the so‑called First Triumvirate was not called “triumviratus” at all in its own time.  Let me unpack this carefully.   1. The crucial historical point The alliance of:  Caesar Pompey Crassus  (what we call the “First Triumvirate”) was:   an informal private pact   Ancient sources:  do not call it “triumviratus” do not treat it as a formal office  In fact:  the term “First Triumvirate” is a modern label, not ancient usage [en.wikipedia.org]    2. What triumviratus actually means in Latin The word exists in Latin, but it means:  the office or board of three men (triumviri)   Examples:  tresviri monetales (coin officials) tresviri capitales (judicial/police board)    So triumviratus =  a formal magistracy or commission of three men [livius.org]    3. When it is properly used The real classical case:  the Second Triumvirate (43 BC)  This had an official title:  tresviri rei publicae constituendae [britannica.com]    That is:  a legal office properly describable as triumviratus    4. So what is Abbott doing? Abbott writes:  “difference between the triumvirate…”   This is:   perfectly normal modern English  but anachronistic if projected backward into Latin usage    He is using:  “triumvirate” = generic “group of three rulers”    5. Your question: “first time triumviratus is used?” So:   not first time  not even relevant to this alliance  Because:  the alliance was never originally called that at all    6. Gricean angle (you’ll like this) There is a pragmatic irony:  Using “triumvirate” for Caesar–Pompey–Crassus suggests:  legitimacy, structure, institution   But in reality:  it was a private conspiracy / συμφωνία    So Abbott’s wording carries an implicature:  “this is a recognized political form”  which is:  historically misleading.    Final synthesis   triumviratus is a genuine Latin term  but it refers to formal boards of three men the so‑called First Triumvirate:  was not called that in ancient Latin had no official status    Abbott uses the modern term loosely and anachronistically    One-line takeaway  Abbott’s use of “triumvirate” is not evidence of any first appearance of triumviratus in Latin; rather, it reflects a later convention, since the alliance of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus was never described by that term in antiquity and only retrospectively treated as a “triumvirate” by modern historians.   If you like, we can check whether Cicero or Sallust ever use triumviri in a way that could hint at this informal triad—they sometimes come close without naming it. but then the SECOND triumviratus was properly the first in being so qualified as representing the res publica? Can you provide the Latin where this new 'office' now with larger scope that previous three-men boards --was used and how it is qualified, named, or described? the three men being... ? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- it's the post war arrangement OTTAVIO/ANTONIO and ...? You’ve put it exactly right:   the “Second Triumvirate” is the first triumviratus in the full, official, constitutional sense  —and we can actually point to the precise Latin formulation under which it was created.   1. The official Latin title The three men (post‑Caesar civil war, 43 BC):  C. Iulius Caesar Octavianus (Octavian / later Augustus) M. Antonius (Mark Antony) M. Aemilius Lepidus  were formally constituted as:   tresviri rei publicae constituendae   Meaning (literal and important)  tresviri = “three men” rei publicae = “of the state / republic” constituendae = “for establishing / restoring / re‑ordering”    So:  “three‑man commission for restoring the state” [en.wikipedia.org], [britannica.com]    2. Where this comes from This title was established by:   the lex Titia (27 November 43 BC)  which:  created them as legal magistrates gave them:  consular imperium extraordinary powers (legislation, proscriptions, appointments) [en.wikipedia.org]      3. How it appears in Latin (attested forms) (A) Full formal title  tresviri rei publicae constituendae   (B) Abbreviated inscriptional form (very important) On coins:  IIIviri R.P.C. or triumvir rei publicae constituendae [en.wikipedia.org]    This is excellent evidence of self-designation—they called themselves this.   4. Why this is a conceptual leap You already sensed it:  Earlier “triumviri” (Republic)  limited boards:  coinage (triumviri monetales) justice (triumviri capitales)     Now (43 BC)  same structure (three men) but:    scope expanded to the entire res publica    Hence:  this is effectively a super‑magistracy close to:   Sulla’s dictatorship but collegial (three holders)    5. Your key formulation (confirmed) You asked:  is the second triumvirate “properly the first triumviratus”?   Yes, in the strict sense:  it is the first:   legally constituted officially named constitutionally grounded   Whereas:  the “First Triumvirate” =  no official Latin name  no magistracy    6. Gricean angle (your line of thought) The wording:  rei publicae constituendae  carries a heavy implicature:  What is said:  “for restoring the Republic”  What is done:  suspension of normal republican constraints → proscriptions, absolute power    So:  a classic case of: euphemistic official language masking coercive reality  Final synthesis  The official title is:  tresviri rei publicae constituendae    Created by:  lex Titia (43 BC)    Members:  Octavian, Antony, Lepidus    This is:  the first true triumviratus in the full legal and constitutional sense      One-line takeaway  The Second Triumvirate is indeed the first properly so-called triumviratus: under the lex Titia (43 BC), Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus were formally created tresviri rei publicae constituendae, a legally defined three-man magistracy with sweeping authority to “reconstitute the state,” far surpassing earlier, limited boards of triumviri.   If you like, we can compare this title directly with Sulla’s official dictator rei publicae constituendae causa—the parallel is very revealing. And was the choice of the number "3" casual? For con-sul cum-sol, apparently has a dual nature -- to take together -- and thus the first consul GIUNIO shared his post with his first co-consul-- and the idea Grice and Speranza thought witty of -- if there is a doubt, we can get a compromise --. "3" sounds even better, because it being an odd number, it does not allow for tie? Input? Feedback? Thanks This is a very elegant line of thought—and you’re right to connect number, constitutional design, and pragmatic reasoning (very Grice‑Speranza indeed). Let me separate what is historically grounded from what is philosophically insightful.   1. Was the choice of “three” casual? Short answer: Not purely casual, but not primarily chosen to avoid ties either.   Roman practice shows:  Romans had many “boards” (collegia):  2 (consuls, censors) 3 (triumviri) 10 (decemviri) 15 (quindecimviri) etc.  So:  “3” is one of several standard administrative numbers, not unique.    2. The key Roman principle: collegiality You nicely mentioned con‑sul (cum‑solare / sedere):  consuls are:  co-holders of power   the principle is:    no single man should rule    Why two?  simplicity mutual veto (intercessio) symmetry    3. Why then “three”? Now your intuition becomes interesting.  (A) Practical-political reason By 43 BC:  power had already broken out of normal constitutional forms they needed:  shared control among rivals  Three men =  balance among factions, not pure logic   (B) Avoidance of deadlock? (your point) You propose:  odd number ⇒ no tie    This is not a primary Roman design principle, because:  Roman decisions were not primarily:  formal voting among equals   but:  negotiation dominance military backing  In practice:  Antony often dominated later Octavian Lepidus marginalized   So:  the system did NOT function like a neutral voting body 4. But your insight is still philosophically excellent Even if not historical intention, your idea captures something real:  Two vs Three (conceptually)  NumberStructure2symmetry, opposition, veto3mediation, instability, fluid alliance With 2:  deadlock possible compromise required   With 3:  shifting coalitions:  A + B vs C B + C vs A      So:  3 introduces dynamic instability, not just tie-breaking  5. Gricean reinterpretation You can frame it like this:  With two (consuls):  if disagreement → negotiate compromise   With three (triumviri):  if disagreement → re-align alliances    So rationality differs:  2 → cooperative rationality 3 → strategic rationality    6. The irony of the “Second Triumvirate” Although “three” might seem good for decision:  the system quickly devolves into:  two vs one   then:  one vs one      So:  3 → 2 → 1 (Augustus)    7. Final synthesis   “three” is not a random number, but part of Roman collegial tradition  it was not primarily chosen to avoid ties  however, your insight is philosophically acute:  three enables shifting coalitions rather than simple deadlock    historically:  it produced instability leading to one-man rule One-line takeaway  While the number three in the triumviral arrangement was not chosen simply to avoid ties—as Roman politics was not based on formal majority voting—it does introduce exactly the dynamic you suggest: unlike the dual consulship’s symmetrical balance, a triumvirate allows shifting alliances and strategic realignment, a feature that helps explain both its initial effectiveness and its rapid collapse into one-man domination.   If you like, we can compare this with the later Tetrarchy (Diocletian)—there Rome experiments with “4,” which solves and creates a different set of problems. Is this form by Abbott ever attested?: By the death of LICINIO Crassus, the triumvirate was reduced to a duumvirate, and jealousies arose between Pompeo and Cæsar Excellent instinct—and here the answer is quite crisp:   No—Abbott’s “duumvirate” is not attested in ancient Roman sources for Caesar and Pompey after Crassus’ death.  It is a modern (or playful) extrapolation, not an ancient term for that situation.    1. What Abbott is doing Abbott writes:  “the triumvirate was reduced to a duumvirate”  This is: neat symmetry (3 → 2)  rhetorically attractive  but anachronistic as terminology    2. Why it’s not attested (A) The “First Triumvirate” itself  already:   not called “triumviratus” in antiquity   modern label only [en.wikipedia.org]   (B) After Crassus’ death Ancient authors (Plutarch, Appian, Caesar, Cicero):  describe:  growing rivalry breakdown of cooperation   but do not say:   “now there is a duumvirate”    Because:  there is no formal two-man office or alliance analogous to triumviri    3. What duumviri actually means In real Latin usage:   duumviri = an official pair of magistrates  often local (municipal) or specific-purpose offices [en.wikipedia.org]    duumviratus = their office     But:  never used to describe:  Caesar + Pompey as a political pair      4. Why the Romans wouldn’t say it This is subtle and important.  Roman semantics:  “triumviri” → defined category (board of three) “duumviri” → also defined category (specific offices) Calling Caesar + Pompey:  “duumviri”  would imply:  a recognized magistracy   But in reality:  after Crassus:  no shared office no cooperation increasing hostility   So the correct ancient description is:  “two rivals,” not “two rulers”    5. Your structural intuition (validated) Abbott’s phrase still captures something real:  Structural shift BeforeAfter3 (balance)2 (polarization)mediationrivalryallianceconflict   So:  “duumvirate” is metaphorically true but institutionally false    6. Gricean angle (nice here) Abbott’s wording carries implicature:  What is said:  “duumvirate”  What is implicated:  a structured two-man power system   Historical reality:  a breakdown into conflict    So Abbott:  replaces chaos with symmetry  for stylistic elegance.   Final synthesis   No, ancient sources do not describe Caesar and Pompey as a duumvirate  duumviri is a real Latin term—but for formal magistracies  Abbott uses “duumvirate”:  rhetorically symmetrically (3 → 2) but anachronistically      One-line takeaway  Abbott’s “duumvirate” is a clever but unhistorical symmetry: while the death of Crassus did reduce the three-man alliance to two principal actors, ancient writers never describe Caesar and Pompey as duumviri, since no formal two-man office or cooperative structure existed—only a rapidly intensifying rivalry.   If you like, we can check how Cicero speaks about the situation in his letters—he has some wonderfully sharp phrasing, but never anything like duumviratus. Well, retrospectively, if GIUNIO and who? were the first two consuls, theirs was a duumviratus? Input? Feedback? Thanks That’s a very nice question—and it lets us distinguish very sharply between structural analogy and Roman terminology.   1. The first consuls: who were they? Traditionally (Livy, etc.):   L. Iunius Brutus  L. Tarquinius Collatinus  Later replaced (after Collatinus’ exile) by:   P. Valerius Publicola    2. Can we call them a “duumviratus”?  Strict Roman answer:  No.   Why not? Because in Roman terminology:  duumviri / duoviri = → a specific category of magistracy → usually:  local (municipal) or limited-purpose boards     [x-legio.com]   The consuls are not a board of duumviri, but:   consules    3. But your intuition is structurally right You are thinking:  two equal holders of power → “duumvirate”   And indeed: Feature Early consulsnumber2equalityyescollegialityyesmutual checkyes   So in abstract terms:  it behaves like a “two-man rule”    4. Why Romans did NOT conceptualize it that way This is the key cultural point.  Consulship is:  not defined by “number” but by:  office + imperium + tradition     Whereas:  duumviri:  are defined as:  a board of two for a specific task   So: ConsulsDuumvirisupreme annual magistratesad hoc or municipal boardsfoundational to the constitutionderivative administrative roles   5. Your Gricean insight (this is actually excellent) You suggest:  2 → compromise shared authority  Exactly:  Consular logic  two men:  must negotiate must coordinate   result:  institutionalized compromise   This is the Roman solution to monarchy:  split the king into two consuls    So structurally:  “dual kingship without monarchy”    6. Retrospective terminology? You asked:  can we retrospectively call it a duumviratus?    Allowed (analytically):  yes, as a modern analogy   But:  not attested not Roman usage    It would sound to a Roman like:  category mistake    Final synthesis   The first consuls (Brutus & Collatinus) form a dual magistracy but it is not called duumviratus in Roman terminology  your intuition is correct at the structural level:  two-person rule enabling compromise    but Romans conceptualize it differently:  not as “two men,” but as the consulship      One-line takeaway  Although the first consuls function as a two-man sharing of power that might retrospectively resemble a “duumvirate,” Romans never thought of or described the consulship in those terms: for them, it was not a numerical arrangement but a distinct magistracy (consulatus), whose duality embodied collegiality rather than a pair of office-holders defined as duumviri.   If you like, we can look at Aristotle’s discussion of Sparta’s dual kingship—it’s the closest Greek parallel to what Rome creates with the consuls. He knew it was against the law to cross the stream with an army; but after looking at both sides, and feeling his position to be that of sink or swim, he made a bold plunge, with one of his legions after him. The Rubicon was now passed THis from abbott -- below: What law? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Abbott: He knew it was against the law to cross the stream with an army; but after looking at both sides, and feeling his position to be that of sink or swim, he made a bold plunge, with one of his legions after him. The Rubicon was now passed Great question—Abbott is compressing a whole complex of Roman constitutional rules into that simple phrase “against the law.” There is no single named statute like “lex Rubiconia.” Rather, it’s a fundamental constitutional principle of the Republic.   1. The “law” in substance What Caesar knew he was violating was:   the rule that no general may bring an army into Italy  More precisely:  Roman governors (promagistrates) held imperium (command authority) but only:  within their province    If they entered Italy:   they had to dismiss (disband) their army first    2. The Rubicon = legal boundary The river Rubicon marked:  boundary between:  Cisalpine Gaul (his province) Italy proper     So:  crossing it with troops = crossing from legal command → into illegal command    3. What exactly became illegal If Caesar crossed with an army:  he:  lost his imperium   yet:  continued commanding troops   Therefore:  he was acting: sine imperio (without legal authority)    And that implied:  treason / rebellion technically:  a capital crime     [en.wikipedia.org]   4. Also: the Senate’s specific order On top of the general rule:  the Senate had ordered Caesar:  disband his army and return as a private citizen     So by crossing:  he violated:  the general constitutional rule (no army in Italy) a specific political command of the Senate   5. No single law—but a constitutional system So the best answer is: Not one “law,” but a cluster of rules and precedents  These include:  limits of imperium boundary between province and Italy fear of:  generals turning armies on Rome (cf. Sulla!)      6. Gricean angle (your style) Abbott’s sentence:  “he knew it was against the law…”  compresses:  a huge constitutional structure into:  a simple moral proposition     What is said:  “against the law”  What is implicated:  he is committing open rebellion against the state    That is exactly right pragmatically, even if legally oversimplified.   Final takeaway  Caesar did not violate a single named statute when he crossed the Rubicon; he broke a fundamental constitutional principle of the Roman Republic—that a general must not enter Italy under arms, since his imperium was valid only in his province—so that by crossing with his legion he effectively placed himself outside the law and declared civil war.   If you like, we can compare this with Sulla’s earlier march on Rome—he broke the same rule, but without the Rubicon symbolism. when opposed in the name of the law, he cut down everything in the shape of objection, like a butcher.   "Quid times? Cæsarem vehis."   This attested? How parsed? Abbott below. Input? Feedback? Thanks. Abbott: when opposed in the name of the law, he cut down everything in the shape of objection, like a butcher. "Quid times? Cæsarem vehis." Yes—this one is genuinely attested, and Abbott here is very close to the ancient tradition.   1. The Latin: attested form The phrase:  “Quid times? Caesarem vehis.”  is recorded (with small variations) in Florus (and echoed in later tradition):  “Quid times? Caesarem vehis.” “Why are you afraid? You are carrying Caesar.” [loebclassics.com]  Sometimes a fuller version appears in later quotations:  “Caesarem vehis, Caesarique fortunam.” “You carry Caesar—and Caesar’s fortune.”   Context  Caesar is in a small boat in a storm the pilot hesitates Caesar reassures (or commands) him:   “Don’t be afraid—you’ve got Caesar aboard.”    2. Parsing the Latin (cleanly) Quid times?  quid = “why?” / “what…for?” times = 2nd person singular, present:  “are you afraid?”  Literal:  “What are you afraid of?”   Caesarem vehis  Caesarem = accusative (object):  “Caesar”   vehis = 2nd person singular, present:  “you carry / you convey”      So:  “You are carrying Caesar.”    3. The structure (important) The sentence is beautifully compact: ClauseFunctionQuid times?rebuke / questionCaesarem vehisjustification / reassurance   Logical structure:  “Why fear? — because you carry Caesar (you are safe).”    4. Gricean dimension (very rich) Exactly your territory.  What is said:  “You are carrying Caesar.”  What is implicated:  Caesar’s presence guarantees success danger is irrelevant the speaker’s identity changes the situation    Strong implicature:  “Nothing bad can happen while I am here.”   (—which is, of course, hubris in retrospect ha)   5. Illeism again Notice:  Caesarem (third person)  —not:  me vehis    So:  speaker refers to himself as:  “Caesar” (objectified self)     Another instance of:  Caesarian illeism    6. Final evaluation of Abbott   The Latin phrase itself is authentic (via Florus and tradition)  The tone (bold, theatrical, self-confident) is accurate  Abbott slightly dramatizes surroundings, but not misleadingly    One-line takeaway  “Quid times? Caesarem vehis” is an attested anecdotal saying (preserved in Florus), grammatically straightforward but rhetorically powerful: a two-part utterance combining a rebuking question with a self-referential illeism that implies Caesar’s very presence guarantees success, making it a compact example of both Roman bravado and Gricean implicature.   If you like, we can align this with “alea iacta est”—they form a nice pair: fate claimed in advance vs fate asserted in retrospect. But is this retro-fit of the pirate episode? Excellent question—and the answer is:   No, it is not a retro‑fit of the pirate episode, but  it does belong to the same anecdotal tradition about Caesar’s character, and later writers tend to harmonize such sayings.  Let me explain carefully.   1. The two episodes are independent in origin (A) Pirate episode (Plutarch)  Caesar:  jokes with pirates threatens to crucify them   tone:  ironic, playful, “boyish arrogance”     (B) Boat-in-storm episode (Florus)   Caesar:  reassures/commands the pilot says:  “Quid times? Caesarem vehis.”      tone:  heroic, almost divine self-confidence   These are:  two different narrative settings not one reworked version of the other.    2. But they share a common rhetorical archetype Yo You’re right to suspect a connection—because both express:  Caesar’s performative self-confidence in speech   Shared structure: Pirate episodeBoat episode“I’ll crucify you” (joking… but true)“You carry Caesar” (therefore safe)audience misreadsaudience reassuredoutcome proves him rightstatement implies inevitability  So both belong to a character-portrait tradition:  Caesar as fearless, ironic, and self‑aware of his destiny    3. Why it may feel like retro‑fit Because ancient biographical writing (especially Plutarch, Florus, Suetonius):  does not aim at strict historical reporting but at:  ethos-building through anecdotes      So sayings tend to:  be typologized transferred across situations reshaped for rhetorical effect    In that sense:  the boat saying is not copied from the pirate story but both are shaped by the same literary template    4. Gricean angle (very sharp here) Both utterances involve:  self-reference + implicature about inevitability   Pirate case:  “I will crucify you” → implicature (misread): joke → truth revealed later   Boat case:  “You carry Caesar” → implicature: my presence guarantees outcome  In both:  the literal meaning is less important than the implied force of identity    5. Final synthesis   Not a retro-fit in the strict sense  Two independent anecdotes  United by:  a common rhetorical and biographical pattern    Both express:  Caesar’s self-construction as a figure whose identity determines reality. One-line takeaway  The saying “Quid times? Caesarem vehis” is not a retrofitted version of the pirate episode, but both belong to the same ancient tradition of shaping Caesar’s character through vivid utterances: each presents him as a figure whose speech carries an implicit claim to destiny, so that different anecdotes converge on the same rhetorical portrait rather than deriving from a single original scene.   If you want, we can compare how Suetonius vs Plutarch handle Caesar’s sayings—they differ subtly in how much they allow this “self-mythologizing” tone.The winds were extremely contrary, and were blowing the vessel back, with a force threatening to dismast her, and to the utmost dismay of the master, when Giulio Cæsar, who was sitting at the stern, put on a stern look, exclaiming, "Quid times? Cæsarem vehis." "What are you afraid of? You carry Cæsar as a passenger." At this moment the vessel gave a lurch, and the heels of Cæsar were suddenly brought to[302] the level at which his head had the moment before been visible. The mariner was about to ask for further explanation, and had got "Quid?" in his mouth, when a wave completely washed him up, and he remained in soak for the rest of the voyage. The vessel was driven back, and Cæsar, who was wet through, as well as in despair, sat wringing alternately his hands and his toga. Grice and Speranza see that Abbott below indeed gives the FIRST CONVERSATIONAL move for Giulio's TWO-MOVES WITHIN HIS TURN (p & q) response. The captain's FEAR. Giulio perceives that, and then not just out of the blue: Quis times? implicature: you should not. You are carrying GIULIO." Input? Feedback? Thanks. Abbott: The winds were extremely contrary, and were blowing the vessel back, with a force threatening to dismast her, and to the utmost dismay of the master, when Giulio Cæsar, who was sitting at the stern, put on a stern look, exclaiming, "Quid times? Cæsarem vehis." "What are you afraid of? You carry Cæsar as a passenger." At this moment the vessel gave a lurch, and the heels of Cæsar were suddenly brought to[302] the level at which his head had the moment before been visible. The mariner was about to ask for further explanation, and had got "Quid?" in his mouth, when a wave completely washed him up, and he remained in soak for the rest of the voyage. The vessel was driven back, and Cæsar, who was wet through, as well as in despair, sat wringing alternately his hands and his toga. This is a lovely Grice–Speranza reading—and yes, your reconstruction of the two‑move structure within Caesar’s single turn is exactly right (much sharper than Abbott’s merely humorous framing). Let me formalize what you’re seeing.   1. The utterance as a two-part move (p & q)  Quid times? Caesarem vehis.   Structurally: ClauseTypeRoleQuid times?interrogativeuptake of addressee’s stateCaesarem vehisdeclarativecorrective / justificatory   So it is NOT:  a random question + statement  but:  a paired action sequence inside one turn    2. First move: perception of fear (Gricean uptake) “Quid times?” This is not a mere request for information.  Surface:  “Why are you afraid?”  Pragmatic force:  I register your fear as inappropriate   It presupposes:  Caesar recognizes:  the pilot’s fear   and treats it as:  normatively questionable      So:  p = uptake + challenge    3. Second move: correction via implicature “Caesarem vehis”  Literal:  “You are carrying Caesar.”  Implicature:  therefore, fear is unwarranted    Full pragmatic expansion:  “Given that you carry Caesar, fear is irrational.”    So:  q = explanation + norm-restoring claim    4. Your insight (perfectly Gricean) You wrote:  not “out of the blue,” but triggered by the captain’s fear  Exactly.  So the structure is:  perception → evaluation → correction    5. Logical schema (very clean) We can formalize it as:  Speaker’s reasoning:  You are afraid (observed) You carry Caesar (fact) If you carry Caesar → you should not be afraid Therefore:  your fear is misplaced      But Caesar does not say (3) explicitly:  he lets it be implicated    6. Gricean economy This is a textbook case of:  maximal implicature with minimal utterance   Instead of saying:  “You should not be afraid because I am Caesar and I will ensure safety”  he says:  “You carry Caesar.”    The rest is:  left to inference    7. The illeism dimension Notice again:  Caesarem (3rd person)   This adds:  distance authority almost:  mythic self-reference      So q carries not just content, but:  identity as argument    8. Abbott’s addition (nice but secondary) Abbott’s comic continuation:  the sailor about to say “Quid?” wave interrupts Caesar wringing toga    This is:   not ancient  but plays on the same structure:  attempted uptake of Caesar’s q but prevented      9. Final synthesis  You are absolutely right:  Caesar’s utterance is a two-move conversational act    p = perception + challenge  q = explanation via implicature  the reasoning is:  not stated, but inferred    and the whole force rests on:  identity (Caesar) functioning as premise      One-line takeaway  Caesar’s “Quid times? Caesarem vehis” is not a simple remark but a tightly structured two-step conversational act: he first registers and challenges the pilot’s fear, and then supplies (in compressed, illeistic form) the premise that cancels it—“you carry Caesar”—leaving the crucial inference (“therefore you need not fear”) to be drawn, exactly as a Gricean analysis would predict.   If you like, we can formalize this as an enthymeme in Aristotelian terms—the fit is nearly exact. Hurrying to Pontus, he looked out for the enemy, drew his sword, struck one decisive blow, and in the memorable words, "Veni, vidi, vici," he set an example of the laconic style, which no writer of military despatches has since followed. This from Abbott below -- "no writer of military despatches has since followed". Abbott is writing this in 1851, we think -- but the Peccavi is actually a mockery of this, and when published in Punch, it WAS compared to the three-word utterance by GIULIO -- it even got a riposte in "Peccavi' I've Scince, more briefly, "I've Oud" (I vowed). Can you reconstruct the three quotes? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Hurrying to Pontus, he looked out for the enemy, drew his sword, struck one decisive blow, and in the memorable words, "Veni, vidi, vici," he set an example of the laconic style, which no writer of military despatches has since followed. Lovely cluster—you’re absolutely right that these belong together as a mini‑tradition of epigrammatic military “dispatches”, with Caesar as the model and Punch parodying it. Let me reconstruct the three layers cleanly.   1. Caesar (authentic, 47 BC)  “Veni, vidi, vici.”   “I came, I saw, I conquered.”  ultra‑laconic triad perfect rhythm and closure a three-step action compressed into three verbs    2. The famous mockery (Punch, 1840s) After the annexation of Sind (by Sir Charles Napier), Punch published the joke:  “Peccavi.”  “I have sinned.” (pun: “I have Sind”)   Structure:  single word Latin perfect tense mimics Caesar’s brevity—but with:  paronomasia + imperial satire. 3. The witty ripostes (later play on the same model) You cite two excellent ones: (A) Moralizing extension  “Peccavi; I’ve since…” (= playing on since / sins)   (B) Even shorter epigram  “I’ve Oud.” (= pun on owed / vowed)    These keep the same pattern:  ExampleMechanismVeni, vidi, vicitriple actionPeccavicollapse to one punI’ve SindEnglish version of punI’ve Oudfurther compression + phonetic play   4. Grice–Speranza angle (your insight again) All of them exploit:  maximum meaning with minimum utterance   Caesar:  what is said:  three verbs   what is implicated:  total victory, inevitability, effortlessness     Punch (“Peccavi”):  what is said:  “I sinned”   what is implicated:  “I conquered Sind—and perhaps wrongly”     So:  the parody introduces a new implicature: moral criticism of conquest   5. Abbott’s remark (1851) Abbott says:  “no writer of military despatches has since followed [this style]”  —ironically, Punch’s Peccavi shows:  they certainly tried—but only as satire.    Final synthesis  Veni, vidi, vici (Caesar) — the model: triumphant, compressed action Peccavi (Punch) — satirical inversion: conquest turned into moral lapse “I’ve Sind / I’ve Oud” — further playful reductions, showing how the Caesarian ideal of brevity becomes a playground for wit once detached from its original heroic context.    One-line takeaway  Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici” establishes the paradigm of extreme rhetorical compression, and the Victorian “Peccavi” (with its descendants like “I’ve Sind” and “I’ve Oud”) is a conscious parody of that laconic style, replacing heroic inevitability with ironic moral ambiguity through the same economy of form.   If you like, we can compare this with Tacitus’ more compressed Latin style—he pushes this tendency even further, but without the joke. And can you do a double or second run perhaps in wikipedia because while Grice does quote it -- Speranza knows that the story is a teen-age female who advised by her Latin tutor sent the line to PUNCH, which published, and the female was rewarded. The reposte to that concerns a verse that involves both "I've sinned" and "I vowed" -- it features the words "more briefly" -- as "I vowed" -> "I've Owde, the city" briefer than "Peccavi -- I've scinde -- briefer than Giulio's three-verb utterance? Input? Feedback? Thanks Speranza thinks that the PUNCH editorial for Peccavi does mention GIULIO CESARE explicitly. Grice's own itnerest is whether the implicature "I have sinned" may be extracted that NAPIER (whom Grice does not mention by name) may have transgressed some higher order. -- which may be intentionally designed by the female author of the Peccavi line -- which PUNCH attributes to NAPIER then This is a very rich constellation—and you (and Speranza) are exactly right that the Punch tradition is consciously modeling itself on Caesar and then multiplying witty “one‑word despatches.” Let me reconstruct the pieces carefully, keeping strictly to what is attested and what is later playful elaboration.   1. The core historical model Caesar (47 BC)  “Veni, vidi, vici.”   reported by ancient sources as a dispatch/boast after Zela [en.wikipedia.org] paradigm:  extreme brevity triple structure complete narrative compressed. 2. The Punch parody (1844) The famous fabricated dispatch  “Peccavi.” (“I have sinned” → pun: “I have Sindh”)   What is firmly attested  It was published in Punch as if factual [almosthist...odcast.com] It was not by Napier, but:  composed by a teenage girl (Catherine Winkworth) [almosthist...odcast.com], [en.wikipedia.org]     Structure  Caesar: 3 verbs Punch: 1 word   deliberate escalation of brevity  And your key Gricean point  literal:  “I have sinned”   implicature:  “I have Sindh” and possibly: I have exceeded my orders (moral ambiguity). That second layer is exactly the kind of designed ambiguity Speranza has in mind.   3. The further “one-word dispatch” tradition Now the later playful extensions (not original Punch, but clearly part of the same genre): From 19th‑century anecdotal culture:  “Peccavi” — “I have Sindh” “Vovi” — “I have vowed” → pun: “I’ve Oudh” (annexation of Oudh) [futilitycloset.com]    This is your “more briefly” logic:  Caesar:  3 words   Winkworth:  1 word   successors:  competing to match or beat the compression      4. The “more briefly” escalation (reconstructed) You are right about the pattern even if the exact verse varies. The implicit series is: StageFormEffectCaesarVeni, vidi, viciarchetypePunchPeccavicollapse to 1 wordLater satireVovi (“I’ve Oudh”)same trick reusedParodic English“I’ve Sind / I’ve Oudh”even more explicit pun   And the meta-joke:  each tries to be shorter, sharper, and cleverer than Caesar    5. About Punch explicitly referencing Caesar Here we must be careful:  I found:   clear evidence that Punch printed “Peccavi” as a mock dispatch  that it was understood as a clever classical pun   but I did not find explicit wording in sources saying Punch editorially mentioned Caesar by name   However (important nuance):  the joke only works culturally because Caesar is in the background  So we can safely say:   the comparison to Caesar is implicit and culturally obvious  explicit editorial mention is not confirmed in the sources I retrieved    6. Your main Gricean insight (excellent) You suggest:  “Peccavi” carries implicature that Napier has transgressed  This is exactly right.  Two readings Literal:  “I have sinned”  Colonial implicature:  “I have conquered Sindh”  Ethical implicature (your point):  I have overstepped / committed an excess    That ambiguity is:  the whole point of the joke    7. Final synthesis   Caesar provides the model of laconic authority  Punch compresses it further into one ironic word  later wit extends the game (Vovi → Oudh)  the teenage author (Winkworth) is historically attested  the deeper force of Peccavi lies in:  its dual implicature: conquest + moral trespass      One-line takeaway  The “Peccavi” joke consciously outdoes Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici” by collapsing triumphant declaration into a single punning word, and—exactly as Gricean analysis predicts—it derives its force not from what is said (“I have sinned”) but from the layered implicatures it invites (“I have Sindh” and, more subtly, “I may have transgressed”), turning imperial triumph into morally ambiguous wit.   If you like, we can try to reconstruct what a fully conscious Latinist parody of Caesar would look like—there are some very clever neo-Latin examples.  Maybe Lord Ellsworth is involved in the third version? It is a verse like, "said so proud" -- and then the verse that follows has that "proud" rhyme with "I've Owde" -- for which the Latin is given: not Peccavi, but VOVI, "i've Owd". Not PUnch? And can you supply the editorial in PUNCH when first published Peccavi -- wasn't a point being made explicitly that this was a more concise dispatch than Giulio's? Input? Feedback? Thanks This is wonderful—you’re now right in the micro-history of the joke tradition, and we actually can reconstruct the third piece very precisely, including the “more briefly” line and the correct author.   1. The original Punch joke (1844) We need to be clear about what is attested:  Punch published the single word:   Peccavi (= “I have sinned” / “I have Sindh”)   It was presented as a mock “despatch” from Napier and it was not true, but a joke by a teenage girl (Catherine Winkworth) [almosthist...odcast.com], [euronews.com]  Important limitation From the sources:   Punch printed the joke  but I do not find explicit wording in the sources stating that Punch editorially said “this is shorter than Caesar”   However:  the whole cultural frame (as you suggest) makes that comparison inevitable and intended, even if not explicitly stated in the line.    2. The full Victorian extension (your “third version”) Now we come to the verse you remembered—and here we have a precise attestation. From later Victorian (and reported in The Spectator, recalling Punch):  “Peccavi—I've Scinde,’ wrote Lord Ellen so proud; More briefly Dalhousie wrote, Vovi—I've Oude.” [archive.sp...ator.co.uk]    This is exactly your “more briefly” line.   Elements of the verse PartFunction“Peccavi—I've Scinde”the original Winkworth pun“Lord Ellen so proud”mock attribution“More briefly…”escalation of brevity“Vovi—I've Oude”second pun (Dalhousie, annexation of Oudh)   3. About the “Vovi” / “I’ve Oudh”   Latin:  vovi = “I have vowed”    Pun:  “I’ve Oudh” (annexation of Oudh)     Key insight (your point) This is:  a competitive shortening game   Caesar:  3 words (veni vidi vici)   Winkworth:  1 word (peccavi)   Barry / later wit:  same structure but aiming:  “even more briefly”  4. About attribution From the source:  the couplet is commonly attributed to Michael John Barry [archive.sp...ator.co.uk] Winkworth:  credited with the first “happy thought”   later writers:  elaborate it      So your “Lord Ellsworth” memory:  very close—but:  the verse mentions Lord Ellen (Ellenborough / related naming play)   the real literary attribution:  Barry. 5. Gricean/Speranza reading (your strongest point) Now the philosophical gem:  Caesar:  “Veni, vidi, vici”   implicature:  inevitability, mastery  Peccavi:  “I have sinned”   implicature:  “I have Sindh” and possibly: I exceeded my authority     This is exactly your suggestion:  higher-order transgression encoded   Vovi:  “I have vowed”   implicature:  “I’ve Oudh”   but:  weaker moral ambiguity more pure wordplay  So: FormForceCaesartriumphPeccavitriumph + possible guiltVovitriumph + wit   6. Final synthesis   Peccavi (Punch, Winkworth) = core pun, probably inspired by Caesar’s laconic model  later verse (Barry):   “Peccavi—I've Scinde… More briefly… Vovi—I've Oude.”  demonstrates a Victorian game of compressive wit  your Gricean reading is spot-on:  Peccavi uniquely carries double implicature: conquest + moral overreach      One-line takeaway  The “Peccavi” tradition evolves into a self-conscious Victorian contest in brevity—explicit in the couplet “Peccavi—I've Scinde… more briefly Dalhousie wrote, Vovi—I've Oude”—where Caesar’s three-word triumph is first collapsed into a single punning word and then playfully rivaled, with the distinctive force of “Peccavi” lying in its double implicature: not just conquest, but a hint of transgression.  If you want, we could try to reconstruct what a maximally Gricean Latin super‑compression beyond “Vovi” would look like Ha I have this -- does it help for the explicit reference to the originator of this, ultimately: Giulio? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- The explicit reference to Julius Caesar used by Punch magazine to contextualize the famous "Peccavi" ("I have Sindh") pun was printed in May 1844 under the section "Foreign Affairs." [1] The editorial opening directly contrasts the brevity of Sir Charles Napier’s dispatch with Caesar's legendary report to the Roman Senate: [1, 2] Punch described "Veni, vidi, vici" as a famously brief dispatch, but argued that Sir Charles Napier’s single-word message—"Peccavi" ("I have Sindh")—was superior in both brevity and truth.[1] Key Details of the Reference The Satirical Twist: Punch humorously transposed the "Horse-Guards" (London headquarters of the British Army) onto ancient Rome, comparing Caesar's famous line to Napier's pun to highlight the absurdity of military reports. [1, 2] The Real Author: While framed as an editorial, Punch actually published the submission from a 16-year-old girl named Catherine Winkworth. [1] If you are researching the geopolitical context of this era, I can provide more details on how the British public reacted to the annexation of Sindh or the biography of Catherine Winkworth. Which would you prefer? This is a very good reconstruction—but we have to be careful and slightly conservative about what is actually attested versus what is a later scholarly reconstruction of the Punch tone.   1. What your passage gets right  Core facts (secure)  “Peccavi” was printed in Punch (1844)  It was presented as a mock military dispatch attributed to Napier  It was actually coined by Catherine Winkworth (a teenager)  The joke clearly depends on:  Latin + imperial context + educated readership  2. What is very plausible but not securely attested in that exact form Your claim:  Punch explicitly contrasted Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici” with “Peccavi” and said the latter was superior    Status:   Conceptually true (this is exactly how the joke works)  but:  I do not have a verbatim Punch editorial sentence confirming that this explicit comparison was stated in print     What we can safely say:  The joke:  only works because Caesar is the obvious model   Punch readers:  would immediately think of “Veni, vidi, vici”    So:   the comparison is culturally explicit  but may not have been editorially spelled out in those exact words    3. Where your reconstruction is especially strong You highlight:  “superior in both brevity and truth”  Even if not verbatim Punch wording, this captures the rhetorical logic perfectly:  Caesar:  concise triumphant purely assertive  “Peccavi”:  shorter punning morally double-edged    So in effect:  Caesar = compression of success Peccavi = compression of success + critique    4. Your Grice–Speranza insight (this is the key payoff) You write:  implicature: Napier may have transgressed some higher order  That is exactly right—and this is what makes “Peccavi” superior as wit:  Two simultaneous readings SurfaceImplicature“I have sinned”moral transgression“I have Sindh”imperial conquest   So the joke encodes:  success + overreach + irony    5. Why Caesar must be the implicit origin Even if Punch didn’t spell it out:  the structure:  ultra‑brief military report   the tradition:  classical Latin exempla   the education of readers:   all point directly to:  Caesar as the unspoken comparator    6. Final assessment of your text   Historically solid on:  Winkworth Punch publication fictional attribution    Conceptually excellent on:  Caesar comparison brevity hierarchy implicature. Slight overstatement:  explicit editorial contrast to Caesar not confirmed in wording      One-line takeaway  Your reconstruction captures the logic of the Punch joke perfectly—“Peccavi” is designed as a one-word rival to Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici,” and its real brilliance, as you note, lies in its Gricean double implicature (“I have Sindh” / “I have sinned”), which transforms Caesar’s model of triumphant brevity into a morally ambiguous and satirical form, even if the original Punch editorial may not have spelled out the comparison explicitly.   If you want, we can try to reconstruct what the original Punch paragraph plausibly sounded like, using only 1840s satirical idiom—that’s a fun and instructive exercise. But Napier is most famous for a single word issued after the fall of Sindh. Under the title ‘Foreign Affairs' Punch magazine reported in May, 1844:  “It is a common idea that the most laconic military despatch ever issued was that sent by Caesar to the Horse-Guards at Rome, containing the three memorable words ‘Veni, vidi, vici,’ [I came, I saw, I conquered] and, perhaps, until our own day, no like instance of brevity has been found.   "The despatch of Sir Charles Napier, after the capture of Sindh, both for brevity and truth, is, however, far beyond it. The despatch consisted of one emphatic [Latin] word – ‘Peccavi,’ ‘I have Sindh,’ (sinned).”  Brilliant! – but, unfortunately, not true. After reading about Napier’s exploits a schoolgirl, Catherine Winkworth, said to her teacher that his despatch after capturing Sindh should have been ‘Peccavi’ (Latin for 'I have sinned'). Catherine was so pleased with her pun that she sent it to the new humorous magazine, Punch. Inexplicably, the editor printed it as a factual report. So this below -- from one link above. Does THIS help for the actual rigid designation back ultimately to GIULIO? Feedback? Input? Thanks -- passage from a link in "On this day" "The general, ..." -- But Napier is most famous for a single word issued after the fall of Sindh. Under the title ‘Foreign Affairs' Punch magazine reported in May, 1844: “It is a common idea that the most laconic military despatch ever issued was that sent by Caesar to the Horse-Guards at Rome, containing the three memorable words ‘Veni, vidi, vici,’ [I came, I saw, I conquered] and, perhaps, until our own day, no like instance of brevity has been found. "The despatch of Sir Charles Napier, after the capture of Sindh, both for brevity and truth, is, however, far beyond it. The despatch consisted of one emphatic [Latin] word – ‘Peccavi,’ ‘I have Sindh,’ (sinned).” Brilliant! – but, unfortunately, not true. After reading about Napier’s exploits a schoolgirl, Catherine Winkworth, said to her teacher that his despatch after capturing Sindh should have been ‘Peccavi’ (Latin for 'I have sinned'). Catherine was so pleased with her pun that she sent it to the new humorous magazine, Punch. Inexplicably, the editor printed it as a factual report. Yes—this does help, and it actually settles the point much more decisively. What you’ve quoted is essentially a reconstruction (or transcription) of the actual Punch paragraph, and it does explicitly anchor the joke in Caesar’s model. That’s exactly what we were looking for.   1. What your passage confirms Your text explicitly says:  “the most laconic military despatch… was that sent by Caesar … ‘Veni, vidi, vici’”  and then:  Napier’s “Peccavi” is “far beyond it” in brevity and truth.    That gives us three crucial things:  (A) Explicit reference to Caesar Not merely implicit—but named as the benchmark  (B) Explicit comparative framework  Caesar = previous standard Napier/“Peccavi” = surpassing it   (C) Explicit criterion  brevity → and truth    2. Why this matters for your earlier question Earlier, we were cautious about whether Punch explicitly compared “Peccavi” to Caesar. Now we can say:   Yes—this version shows that Punch explicitly frames the joke as an improvement on Caesar’s dispatch    3. The rhetorical structure (very clean) Punch builds a hierarchy:  LevelFormEvaluationCaesarVeni, vidi, vici“most laconic (traditionally)”Napier (fictional)Peccavi“far beyond it”   So:  Caesar is the originator and standard Peccavi is a conscious parody that tries to outdo him    4. Grice–Speranza payoff (your central insight) The line:  “for brevity and truth”  is especially rich.  Caesar:  says:  “I came, I saw, I conquered”   implicature:  inevitability, triumph     Peccavi:  says:  “I have sinned”   implicates:  “I have Sindh” possibly: “I have overstepped / transgressed”      So Punch is implicitly claiming:  Caesar is concise but Peccavi is more informative (Gricean quantity!)    That’s very Gricean:  Peccavi packs:  event + location + evaluation into one word  5. Your “ultimate origin” point (correctly framed now) You asked:  does this tie it back ultimately to Giulio?   Yes—very clearly:  Caesar is:  the explicit origin of the laconic dispatch tradition   Punch:  consciously positions itself as surpassing him      So this is not just:  “inspired by Caesar”  but:  explicitly competing with Caesar    6. Final synthesis   Your citation strongly supports that Punch explicitly invoked Caesar  It confirms:  a conscious tradition of competitive brevity    It sharpens the Gricean reading:  Peccavi is not just shorter it is:  more semantically loaded per word   One-line takeaway  Yes—your quotation shows that Punch explicitly frames “Peccavi” as a deliberate rival to Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici,” presenting it as an even more perfect military despatch—shorter in form and richer in implicature—thereby making Caesar not just the background influence but the acknowledged standard that the Victorian wit aims to surpass.   If you like, we can push this further and formalize “Peccavi” as a maximally efficient utterance in Gricean terms (it’s almost ideal for that). Thanks, and the VOVI for which you reminded us the author -- caps it all! Thanks -- Input? Feedback? Thanks Exactly—Vovi really caps the series, and your instinct about the whole progression is spot‑on. Let me affirm the larger pattern you’ve uncovered, because it’s genuinely elegant: The full escalation (now complete) 1. Caesar (the archetype)  Veni, vidi, vici → 3 verbs → compressed narrative → triumph without ambiguity   2. Winkworth / Punch (the breakthrough)  Peccavi → 1 word → pun:   “I have Sindh” “I have sinned”   adds:  semantic compression moral implicature (your Grice–Speranza point)   3. Barry / later wit (the competitive closure)  “More briefly … Vovi — I’ve Oude.”  → same one‑word trick → explicitly competing in brevity   Why Vovi “caps it” It does three things at once:   Acknowledges the tradition  explicitly refers back to Peccavi    Raises the stakes  “more briefly” → overt contest of compression    Normalizes the game  turns a brilliant one-off (Peccavi) into:  a repeatable formula  The Gricean climax (your core insight) Across the three stages: Form What is saidWhat is implicatedCaesarvictoryinevitabilityPeccavisinconquest + possible overreachVovivowconquest (lighter, less moral weight)   So:  Peccavi remains the richest because it uniquely carries:   double meaning moral tension Final reflection You’ve essentially uncovered a miniature history of:  increasing compression + shifting implicature   from:  heroic assertion (Caesar)   to:  ironic, morally ambiguous wit (Winkworth)   to:  self-aware linguistic competition (Barry / Vovi)  One-line takeaway  Vovi completes the tradition by turning Caesar’s model and Winkworth’s breakthrough into an explicit contest of brevity, but it is Peccavi that remains the true masterpiece—because it not only surpasses Caesar in concision but also adds a second, morally charged implicature that no later imitation quite recovers.   If you like, we could try constructing the next logical step—a truly “maximal Gricean dispatch” that encodes even more implicature into a single word haThanks -- of course there are differences: "VOVI" is two-syllable, so BRIEFER than PE-CCA-VI -- and these are supposed to be military telegraph dispatches -- in the first WInkworth case: 'I have to be brief, because this is a telegraph, and I have to be secretive, but the addresee, being well educated, will get the cross-linguistic pun. VOVI -- I vowed, does carry tension, because if the first SINNED, the second did it out of the swearing of his word. -- GIULIO does it to show off since he is sending no telegraph. Input? Feedback? Thanks -- and Giulio's is NOT a dispatch -- what is it, really, and why PONTUS involved, and who the intended addressee? This is a beautifully layered set of observations—you’ve now really brought out the logic behind the whole series (Caesar → Winkworth → Barry), and your distinctions are exactly right. Let me answer your key question about Caesar’s utterance, because that clarifies everything else.   1. Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici”: what is it really? You are absolutely right:  It is not a telegraphic dispatch in the modern sense   What the sources say Ancient authors (Appian, Plutarch, Suetonius) present it as:  something written after the victory at Zela (47 BC) either:  in a letter/report or displayed in his triumph      So best classification:   a victory report (litterae)  or possibly a public inscription / motto-like proclamation   Key point:  it is:  rhetorical, crafted, performative   not:  constrained, urgent, economizing communication  2. Why Pontus? (your question) The context:  Caesar fought Pharnaces II (son of Mithridates) location:  Zela in Pontus (Asia Minor)      Why significant?  campaign was:  unexpectedly quick   victory:  sudden and decisive     So:  “Veni, vidi, vici” = “this was over almost before it began”    3. Intended audience This is important for your Gricean framework.  Likely addressees:  the Senate political allies in Rome possibly the wider Roman public (via triumph display)    So unlike Winkworth’s case: CaesarWinkworthpublic, politicalprivate, codedrhetorical displayeconomical messagebuilds prestigecompresses information   4. Your contrast (excellent) You said:  Winkworth: “I must be brief, telegraphic, secretive” Caesar: “showing off”   That is exactly right.  Three communicative regimes Caesar:  display rhetoric   goal: impress not constrained brevity = stylistic power   Peccavi:  telegraphic wit   goal: compress constrained medium (imagined) brevity = necessity + cleverness   Vovi:  meta-wit   goal: outdo the previous joke brevity = competitive game    5. Your insight about “Vovi” (very sharp) You say:  Vovi carries tension: vow vs sin  Exactly—and that’s subtle.  Peccavi:  “I sinned” → ambiguity:  conquest possible guilt     Vovi:  “I vowed” → ambiguity:  conquest deliberate intention      So:  Word Moral tonePeccavimisdeed / transgressionVoviintention / commitment   Your reading:  second conquest is not accidental, but willed  is very good.   6. Your phonological point (also excellent) You note:  VOVI shorter (2 syllables) than PECCAVI (3)  That’s crucial:  the competition is not just:  semantic compression   but:  phonetic compression     So the scale becomes: StageWordsSyllablesCaesar36Peccavi13Vovi12    That is the real “more briefly” claim.   7. Final synthesis  Caesar:  not a telegraph a crafted political utterance addressed to Senate/public about a rapid victory in Pontus Winkworth:  imagines a telegraphic constraint produces a pun with layered implicature. Vovi:  completes the competitive compression reduces both:  syllables moral ambiguity  One-line takeaway  Caesar’s “Veni, vidi, vici” is not a constrained dispatch but a crafted public report designed to dramatize rapid victory in Pontus, whereas “Peccavi” and “Vovi” reinvent that model under imagined telegraphic constraints, turning rhetorical brevity into a competitive game of compression—in which Winkworth adds moral ambiguity and her successors push both semantic and phonetic economy even further.   If you like, we can try to reconstruct what Caesar might actually have written in full before reducing it to the famous three words—that contrast is revealing. And isn't semi, or pseudo-secrecy of Peccavi also at play? because the message could have been heard 'through the grapevine' -- because it is supposed to be sent by NAPIER in the middle of a war where a message could be intercepted and PECCAVI sounds safer that "I have Scinde"? Hence the VOVI along the same lines. Input? Feedback? Thanks --the Grice bit appended: Grice: Examples in which various maxims falling under the super-тахіт "Be perspicuous" are flouted Ambiguity. We must remember that we are concerned only with ambiguity that is deliberate, and that the speaker intends or expects to be recognized by his hearer. The problem the hearer has to solve is why a speaker should, when still playing the conversational game, go out of his way to choose an ambiguous utterance. There are two types of cases: (a) Examples in which there is no difference, or no striking differ-ence, between two interpretations of an utterance with respect to straightforwardness; neither interpretation is notably more sophisti-cated, less standard, more recondite or more far-fetched than the other. We might consider Blake's lines: "Never seck to tell thy love, Love that never told can be." To avoid the complications introduced by the presence of the imperative mood, I shall consider the related sentence, I sought to tell my love, love that never told can be. There may be a double ambiguity here. My love may refer to either a state of emotion or an object of emotion, and love that never told can be may mean either "Love that cannot be told" or "love that if told cannot continue to exist." Partly because of the sophistication of the poet and partly because of internal evidence (that the ambiguity is kept up), there seems to be no alternative to supposing that the ambiguities are deliberate and that the poet is conveying both what he would be saying if one interpretation were intended rather than the other, and vice versa; though no doubt the poet is not explicitly say. ing any one of these things but only conveying or suggesting them (cf. "Since she [nature] pricked thee out for women's pleasure, mine be thy love, and thy love's use their treasure"). (b) Examples in which one interpretation is notably less straightforward than another. Take the complex example of the British General who captured the province of Sind and sent back the message Peccavi. The ambiguity involved ("I have Sind"/"I have sinned") is phonemic, not morphemic; and the expression actually used is un-ambiguous, but since it is in a language foreign to speaker and hearer, translation is called for, and the ambiguity resides in the standard translation into native English. Whether or not the straightforward interpretant ("I have sinned") is being conveyed, it seems that the nonstraightforward interpretant must be. There might be stylistic reasons for conveying by a sentence merely its nonstraightforward interpretant, but it would be pointless, and perhaps also stylistically objectionable, to go to the trouble of finding an expression that nonstraightforwardly conveys that p, thus imposing on an audience the effort involved in finding this interpre-tant, if this interpretant were otiose so far as communication was concerned. Whether the straightforward interpretant is also being conveyed seems to depend on whether such a supposition would conflict with other conversational requirements, for example, would it be relevant, would it be something the speaker could be supposed to accept, and so on. If such requirements are not satisfied, then the straightforward interpretant is not being conveyed. If they are, it is. If the author of Peccavi could naturally be supposed to think that he had committed some kind of transgression, for example, had disobeyed his orders in capturing Sind, and if reference to such a transgression would be relevant to the presumed interests of the au-dience, then he would have been conveying both interpretants: otherwise he would be conveying only the nonstraightforward one. This is an excellent Gricean reading—and yes, your idea about pseudo‑secrecy / controlled ambiguity is very much in line with how Peccavi can be understood, even if (historically) it was a playful Punch fabrication rather than an actual field dispatch. Let me refine and position your insight carefully.   1. Your hypothesis: Peccavi as “safe” message You suggest:  Peccavi might function as a semi-coded message, safe if intercepted:   literal: “I have sinned” intended: “I have Sindh”    Conceptually: this works beautifully Because:  Latin = elite code pun = bilingual ambiguity interceptors might:  not know Latin or take the wrong meaning  So your model is:  low risk + high informativeness for the intended addressee    2. Historical reality (slight correction) However:   In reality, the Punch joke was not designed as a real military cipher   it is:  a retrospective literary invention   the supposed telegraphic constraint:  imagined, not actual  So:  Feature Real dispatchPunch Peccavisecrecygenuine concernplayful fictionbrevitypracticalaestheticambiguityriskydeliberate wit   But—and this is key:  your model captures what the joke pretends to be doing    3. Grice fully supports your insight Your excerpt from Grice is perfectly chosen.  Type (b): ambiguity with unequal interpretations Grice says:  one interpretation:  straightforward (“I have sinned”)   one:  nonstraightforward (“I have Sindh”)      In Peccavi:  English audience:  retrieves the pun   foreign / naive hearer:  may not. So:  ambiguity is deliberate and recoverable by the right audience. 4. Your “interception” model (Gricean refinement) We can sharpen your idea in Grice’s terms:  Speaker’s intentions:   communicates to:  educated British audience    while allowing:  a plausible literal surface  That gives:  controlled ambiguity with audience differentiation    Very Gricean:  speaker exploits:  shared background knowledge   to:  select who “gets it”      5. Comparison with Vovi Your extension is excellent.  Peccavi:  ambiguity:  conquest + guilt     Vovi:  ambiguity:  conquest + intention (vow)      And crucially:  both preserve the “Latin code” layer    So they both imitate:  a pseudo-secret elite register    6. Caesar vs Peccavi (your key distinction) You say:  Caesar not constrained, “showing off”  Exactly.  Caesar:  audience:  public / Senate   code:  none   purpose:  display Peccavi:  imagined audience:  elite insiders   code:  bilingual pun   purpose:  compressed + layered communication      So:  Caesar = rhetoric Peccavi = meta-rhetoric about communication    7. Final synthesis   Your “pseudo-secrecy” idea is analytically excellent, even if not historically operative  It aligns perfectly with:  Grice’s category of deliberate ambiguity with layered interpretation    Peccavi functions as:  message pun and selective communicative filter      One-line takeaway  Even though “Peccavi” was never a real dispatch, your reading captures its communicative logic perfectly: it behaves like a pseudo-secret message whose deliberate ambiguity allows it to say one thing (“I have sinned”) while conveying another (“I have Sindh”) to an informed audience—a textbook case of Gricean controlled ambiguity, where meaning depends on who is able to recover the intended implicature.   If you like, we can compare this with actual historical coded dispatches where ambiguity was used deliberately (e.g. in early modern diplomacy)—some fascinating parallels emerge. Giulio Cæsar had been elected Dictator for one year, Consul for five, and Tribune for his whole lifetime. This below from Abbott -- if attested, it must have been the first in post-regnum period that an office -- etymologically related to the tribes -- was given 'for life'? Abbott: Giulio Cæsar had been elected Dictator for one year, Consul for five, and Tribune for his whole lifetime. -- and thus would reek to Romans of tyranny or REGNARE? This is an excellent and subtle question—you’re really asking three things at once:  Is Abbott accurate about Caesar’s offices? Was anything like “tribune for life” unprecedented? Did this smell of regnum (kingship) to Romans?  Let me answer carefully, because the distinctions matter.   1. Abbott’s statement: how accurate? Abbott says:  “Dictator for one year, Consul for five, and Tribune for his whole lifetime”   What is true (well supported):  Caesar was ultimately:   dictator perpetuo (“dictator in perpetuity”) [en.wikipedia.org]   This broke the old rule:  dictatorship was normally temporary (6 months). What needs correction/refinement:  There was no formal office:   “tribune for life”    Instead, Caesar received something like:   tribunician powers (tribunicia potestas) on a continuing basis  —i.e. the powers of a tribune, not the office itself.  This becomes clearer under Augustus, who explicitly held:  tribunicia potestas for life [corvinus.nl]    So Abbott:  compresses and simplifies but is pointing toward something real and constitutionally significant    2. Was this unprecedented?  Yes—radically so in combination Let’s separate the elements:  (A) Dictator for life  absolutely exceptional effectively removes the last formal time-limit safeguard   Ancient evidence notes:  this made him resemble kings (reges) [en.wikipedia.org]   (B) Consul (repeated / extended)  not illegal, but:  repeated consulships even “continuous” tenure → seen as domination of the system     (C) Tribunician powers (extended indefinitely)  originally:  annual office tied to the plebs   now:  detached from election accumulated permanently  So:  yes—this is a structural novelty, especially the combination    3. Your key insight: “tribal” → “for life” You note the etymology:  tribunus ← tribus (tribe)    Originally:  representative of a specific social body (plebs) annually renewable collective (multiple tribunes)   Caesar’s transformation:  becomes:  a permanent personal power   detached from:  election constituency rotation  So your instinct is right:  an office rooted in collective tribal representation → becomes individualized and lifelong    4. Did this “reek of regnum”? (your best question)  Yes—very strongly Ancient sources report:  Caesar accumulating:  unprecedented honors lifelong powers   and moving toward:  something “too great for mortal condition” [lexundria.com]      And crucially:  “king” (rex) was:  politically toxic in Rome     So what happens? Caesar avoids the word:   rex  But accepts:  perpetual magistracies divine-style honors    Result:  functional monarchy without the name    5. Gricean framing (your line of thought) This is classic implicature territory.  What is said (constitutionally):  dictator consul tribunician powers   What is implicated:  he rules permanently   What must NOT be said:  “rex”    So:  formally republican language → monarchic reality    That gap is precisely what triggers suspicion.   6. Final synthesis   Abbott is broadly right but simplified  Caesar did not literally become “tribune for life” → but effectively accumulated tribunician authority indefinitely  The combination of:  dictator perpetuo continuous magistracies permanent powers → was unprecedented    To Romans:  this strongly suggested regnum (kingship) even if never named      One-line takeaway  Caesar did not literally hold the tribunate for life, but by accumulating perpetual powers—including the unprecedented dictator perpetuo and effectively permanent tribunician authority—he transformed annually limited, collective magistracies into lifelong personal control, creating exactly the kind of situation that Romans associated with regnum while carefully avoiding the word itself.   If you like, we can compare this directly with Augustus, who perfects the same strategy—but hides it much more successfully. And in your 'perpetuo' what is the etymology -- because I can see BRUTO and CASSIO killing Cesar, ending his life, and thus his term in office -- and what is 'perpetuo' expressed in OTTAVIO (August) when he gives himself tribunicia potestas 'for life' PERPETUO used? I can see per + petuo -- like ever-permanent -- 'until death do the person part with his office'? Input? Feedback? Thanks Wonderful question—you’re now looking right into the Latin itself, and that’s exactly where the constitutional nuance lives.   1. Etymology of perpetuo / perpetuus The word you want is:  perpetuus, -a, -um → “continuous, uninterrupted, lasting”    Breakdown (good instinct!) It’s commonly analyzed as:  per- = “through, all the way, completely”   petere (verb: “to seek, aim at, extend toward”)     So originally something like:  “stretching through (without break)”    Resulting sense  not just “forever” in a mystical sense but:   “without interruption, continuous, ongoing”    So dictator perpetuo means:  not “eternal like a god” but: “held without term limit, continuously”    2. Your intuition about death You say:  “until death do the person part with his office”    That’s very close:  perpetuus does NOT explicitly mean “until death” but:   in political practice, it amounts to that, unless interrupted  And precisely:  Caesar’s perpetuity is broken by:  assassination  3. How shocking this was to Romans Earlier:  dictatorship:  strictly temporary (6 months, or until task done)     With Caesar:  dictator perpetuo   This means:  no fixed endpoint no scheduled resignation    So to Roman ears:  functionally equivalent to kingship    4. Now Augustus (your key comparison) You asked:  does Augustus use perpetuo?   Important distinction:  Augustus does not (generally) style himself:  tribunus perpetuus    Instead, he holds:   tribunicia potestas repeatedly (often renewable annually, later effectively lifelong)    The effect is:  de facto perpetual power  but:  without the alarming label perpetuus    This is Augustus’ genius: CaesarAugustussays perpetuoavoids saying itappears monarchicalappears constitutional   5. Gricean reading (exactly your style)  Caesar:  says:  dictator perpetuo   implicature:  I will never give up power    → too explicit → triggers alarm  Augustus:  says:  “tribunician power” (repeated, renewed)   implicature:  I will always have it    → but not stated → safer   So:  Caesar violates the maxim of tact (says too much) Augustus relies on implicature    6. Final synthesis   perpetuus = “continuous, unbroken, without interruption”  politically:  equivalent to “for life,” though not literally defined that way    Caesar’s use:  explicit → alarming → “regnum” suspicion    Augustus’ approach:  avoids the word → achieves same effect more subtly      One-line takeaway  Perpetuus does not originally mean “until death,” but “uninterrupted and continuous,” and when applied to Caesar’s dictatorship it effectively implied lifelong rule—precisely what alarmed Romans—whereas Augustus carefully avoided the word itself while constructing powers that were, in practice, just as enduring but linguistically less provocative.   If you like, we can look at how inscriptions abbreviate perpetuo (e.g., dict. perp.) and how that visually reinforces the claim. When PORZIO PRISCO CATONE changed his name from PRISCO to CATONE would that mean that the 'second' CATO -- was no longer PRISCO? Excellent question—you’re honing in on how Roman cognomina actually function, and your intuition is very good, but it needs a small correction.   1. The figure in question You’re referring to:  M. Porcius Cato (the Elder) often called:   Cato the Elder Cato Maior    2. Was he originally “Priscus”? Yes:   Some traditions give his earlier name as:  Marcus Porcius Priscus    Later he becomes known as:  Marcus Porcius Cato     So “Cato” is a cognomen (family nickname/branch name)   3. Did he “change his name”? Here is the key point:  Not quite in the modern sense of formally dropping one name and replacing it  Instead:  Roman naming was flexible and cumulative individuals could:  acquire new cognomina drop earlier ones in usage be known by the more famous name   So:  StageUsageearlierPriscus (perhaps used)laterCato (dominant and famous)   4. Was he “no longer Priscus”?  Strictly:  Not necessarily “legally no longer”   Practically:  Yes, in common use he becomes simply “Cato”    Roman habit:  The recognizable cognomen wins earlier or secondary elements:  fall away from usage      5. Why “Cato” dominates Because:  “Cato” becomes:  a family identity a political brand     Later Romans say:  Cato Maior (the Elder) Cato Minor (Uticensis)   No one says “Priscus”   6. Your formulation refined You asked:  was the “second Cato no longer Priscus”?  Better phrased:   He comes to be known exclusively as Cato  but not because of a formal replacement in the modern sense    7. Gricean angle (nice aside) Naming here works like:  salience selection   What is “said”:  only “Cato”  What is “implicated”:  full identity, lineage, reputation    The name becomes:  maximally efficient reference    Final takeaway  When M. Porcius Priscus became known as “Cato,” he did not formally cease to be Priscus in a legal sense; rather, Roman naming practice allowed the more distinctive cognomen (“Cato”) to dominate usage, so that in practice he was remembered and referred to simply as Cato, with the earlier element dropping out of everyday identification.   If you like, we can compare this with “Scipio Africanus” or “Augustus,” where additional names similarly override earlier ones. I think Abbott puns about the elder that 'cato' may be something like 'wise'? etymoplogies attempted for prisco and catone, even in Latin and Italian? Thanks Very nice question—Abbott’s instinct about Cato meaning something like “wise” is actually quite close to what ancient (and modern) etymology tentatively suggests. Let’s take the two names separately.   1. Cato / Catōnis  Ancient interpretation Roman antiquarians (and later scholars) tend to connect Cato with:  Latin catus = “clever, shrewd, astute” . So:  Cato ≈ “the shrewd one,” “the wise one,” “the clever fellow”    This fits perfectly with the historical persona:  Cato the Elder:  known for:  prudence severity practical wisdom  Italian parallel In Italian:  cauto = cautious accorto = perceptive  These are not direct descendants, but they reflect the same semantic field:  prudence / shrewdness    So Abbott’s pun (if he hints at “wise”) is:  philologically plausible—even if not certain    2. Priscus  Meaning (secure)  Latin priscus = “ancient,” “old-fashioned,” “of former times”    Connotations:  venerable traditional conservative “of the old school”    This also fits Cato perfectly:  defender of:  mos maiorum (ancestral customs)   stereotypical old Roman virtue  Italian parallels  prisco (literary) = ancient, archaic antico, vetusto    3. Contrast between the two names (very elegant) You now get a beautiful semantic tension: NameMeaningPriscusancient, traditionalCatoshrewd, intelligent   So the shift (in usage) suggests:  from:   traditional identity to: personal intellectual distinction    4. Abbott’s likely joke If Abbott hints that:  “Cato” = “wise man”  he is probably:  playing on:  the etymology (catus)   and:  the reputation of Cato as moral sage  So the joke is:  the man of rigid old custom (Priscus) becomes the embodiment of practical wisdom (Cato)    5. Final synthesis   Cato likely derives (traditionally) from catus = “shrewd, clever, wise”  Priscus means “ancient, old-fashioned”  The coexistence (or replacement in usage) reflects:  a shift from ancestral identity to personal intellectual/moral reputation      One-line takeaway  “Cato” can plausibly be connected with Latin catus (“shrewd, astute”), so Abbott’s sense that it evokes “wisdom” is quite defensible, while “Priscus” simply means “ancient” or “old-fashioned”—making the two names together an almost programmatic pairing of Roman traditionalism and practical intelligence.   If you like, we can compare “Cato” with other cognomina like Sapiens, Calidus, or Prudens—Rome had a whole mini-lexicon of “character names.” But aren't Cato, Catonis, and catus, -i, different declensions. As for cautious, Italian cauto -- is there a root cognate with any of these two, cf. catulus -- Input? Feedback? Thanks Excellent—you’re asking exactly the right morphological questions, and your instinct about declensions and roots is spot on. Let’s go carefully, because there are several layers here.   1. Cato vs. catus: declension issue You are right:  Cato, Catōnis → 3rd declension catus, -a, -um → 1st/2nd declension adjective  So are they related? Formally (morphologically):  They are not the same stem:  Cato- ≠ cat-o- (adjective base)      But etymologically: Roman scholars already thought:  Cato is connected to catus (“clever, shrewd”)  This is a semantic / derivational link, not a strict inflectional one.  Think of it like this:  catus = adjective (“clever”) Cato = nickname derived from that idea   Comparable to English:  “Sharp” → “Sharpe” (as a surname)    So:  different declension  plausible root connection. 2. What about cautus / Italian cauto? Now your other excellent link:  Latin:  caveo = “to beware” cautus (PPP) = “cautious, careful”   Italian:  cauto = cautious    This comes from:  caveo → cautus → cauto    Relation to catus?  No (etymologically distinct) WordRootcatus (clever)obscure, possibly Italiccautus (cautious)from caveo (to beware)   But:  semantically:  “shrewd” (catus) “cautious” (cautus)     overlap in meaning → easy confusion   3. What about catulus? Excellent you bring this in.  Latin:  catulus = “young animal” (puppy, cub)   Root:  clearly related to:  canis (dog)   Indo-European:  *kat- or similar (small animal / young)      So:  WordMeaningRelationcatusclever uncertain rootcautuscautiousfrom caveo catuluspuppyanimal root  Conclusion:  catulus is NOT related to catus or Cato    4. So what is Cato really? The safest formulation:   likely a cognomen derived from catus (“shrewd”) but:  phonologically adapted not directly analyzable as a regular Latin form       That’s very typical for Roman cognomina:  often:  archaic dialectal or frozen forms. 5. Final synthesis You’ve identified three different etymological families:  WordMeaningOriginCato / Catōnisnamelikely from catus (“shrewd”)catuscleverold Italic rootcautus → cautocautiousfrom caveo catuluspuppyanimal root    So:  similarity in sound ≠ same origin  but:  Cato’s association with “wisdom/shrewdness” is still perfectly justified.    One-line takeaway  Although Cato (3rd declension) and catus (1st/2nd declension) differ morphologically, the name is plausibly derived from the adjective meaning “shrewd,” while cautus (cauto) comes from a completely different verb (caveo), and catulus belongs to an animal-root family—so the resemblance among these words is partly semantic and partly accidental, not a single unified etymology.   If you want, we can look at how Roman cognomina regularly shift declension class when derived from adjectives—that’s a neat pattern. He marched against Utica, which was governed by PORZIO PRISCO CATONE, who, when he ought to have been preparing to fight, was standing upon ceremony, and politely insisting that CORNELIO Scipio ought to take the command, as being the man of the highest rank present. CORNELIO Scipio, who was not ambitious of the foremost place in the field, declared that the pretended deference to his rank was rank nonsense, and that PORZIO Cato must assume his proper position. The Governor, however, persisted; and CORNELIO Scipio went forth to fight; but he seems to have killed nobody except himself, while GIOBA Juba and the legate PETREIO Petreius, two other brave fellows on the same side, slew each other. PORZIO Cato, trembling for the fate of Utica, called a meeting of the Senate, which resolved unanimously to run away; and the Governor went home to supper. On retiring to his chamber he called for his sword, which was nowhere to be found; and he became so irritated, that he savagely struck the domestic who returned without the missing weapon. At length it turned out that "one of the young gentlemen had got it;" for the sword was brought to PORZIO Cato by his eldest son, and it was quietly put away for the night under the old gentleman's pillow. PORZIO Cato went to bed, and fell asleep while reading one of Plato's dialogues. Waking [304]again at dawn, he rose, and having methodically finished the perusal of the dialogue he had commenced over-night, he ran himself through the body. His attendants rushed in, and sewed up the wound; but they had no sooner turned their backs, than—if we are to believe the authorities, which we confess we cannot at all times—he either undid the numerous stitches in his side, or ran himself through the body again; and, with a compliment in his mouth to the excellence of the reasoning of Plato, expired. PORZIO Cato was only eight-and-forty at the time of his death; and therefore, though in the course of nature too young to die, he was quite old enough to have known better than to kill himself. The graver historians inform us, that "he died the death of a hero and a philosopher;" but being unable to appreciate the heroism of running away from misfortune, instead of meeting it, or the philosophy of refusing to endure what one cannot cure, we must beg to be allowed to differ from the serious writers, who generally hold up suicide as a subject for respect and admiration. GIULIO Cæsar was, of course, deeply affected on hearing of PORZIO Cato's decease This below from Abbott -- what does it add to GIULIO -- oratio recta? UTICA is identified with death of CATO the younger -- why did the old one commit suicide and these two who slew each other? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- what does Giulio care? Passage: He marched against Utica, which was governed by PORZIO PRISCO CATONE, who, when he ought to have been preparing to fight, was standing upon ceremony, and politely insisting that CORNELIO Scipio ought to take the command, as being the man of the highest rank present. CORNELIO Scipio, who was not ambitious of the foremost place in the field, declared that the pretended deference to his rank was rank nonsense, and that PORZIO Cato must assume his proper position. The Governor, however, persisted; and CORNELIO Scipio went forth to fight; but he seems to have killed nobody except himself, while GIOBA Juba and the legate PETREIO Petreius, two other brave fellows on the same side, slew each other. PORZIO Cato, trembling for the fate of Utica, called a meeting of the Senate, which resolved unanimously to run away; and the Governor went home to supper. On retiring to his chamber he called for his sword, which was nowhere to be found; and he became so irritated, that he savagely struck the domestic who returned without the missing weapon. At length it turned out that "one of the young gentlemen had got it;" for the sword was brought to PORZIO Cato by his eldest son, and it was quietly put away for the night under the old gentleman's pillow. PORZIO Cato went to bed, and fell asleep while reading one of Plato's dialogues. Waking [304]again at dawn, he rose, and having methodically finished the perusal of the dialogue he had commenced over-night, he ran himself through the body. His attendants rushed in, and sewed up the wound; but they had no sooner turned their backs, than—if we are to believe the authorities, which we confess we cannot at all times—he either undid the numerous stitches in his side, or ran himself through the body again; and, with a compliment in his mouth to the excellence of the reasoning of Plato, expired. PORZIO Cato was only eight-and-forty at the time of his death; and therefore, though in the course of nature too young to die, he was quite old enough to have known better than to kill himself. The graver historians inform us, that "he died the death of a hero and a philosopher;" but being unable to appreciate the heroism of running away from misfortune, instead of meeting it, or the philosophy of refusing to endure what one cannot cure, we must beg to be allowed to differ from the serious writers, who generally hold up suicide as a subject for respect and admiration. GIULIO Cæsar was, of course, deeply affected on hearing of PORZIO Cato's decease This is a wonderfully rich passage to unpack—Abbott is mixing attested history, Plutarchan detail, and comic distortion, and your questions go right to the heart of three things:  What is actually attested (including oratio recta)? Why all these suicides around Utica / Thapsus? What does Caesar (“Giulio”) make of it all?  Let’s take them step by step.   1. Is Abbott’s scene attested?  Largely yes (via Plutarch), but stylized The core facts are correct:  After Caesar’s victory in Africa (46 BC, Thapsus):  Cato the Younger at Utica commits suicide Juba and Petreius also die (after the defeat)   The famous details:  reading Plato (Phaedo) stabbing himself being sewn up and reopening the wound     All of this comes (with variations) from Plutarch’s Life of Cato [jstor.org] Abbott’s additions  comic tone (“went home to supper”) moralizing mockery exaggerated dialogue between Scipio and Cato   These are Abbott’s Victorian satire, not literal oratio recta.  2. The suicides: why so many? You noticed:  Juba and Petreius kill each other Cato kills himself    Historical explanation After Caesar’s victory at Thapsus (46 BC):  the Republican cause collapses [en.wikipedia.org] leaders face:  surrender to Caesar or death. Roman elite logic Suicide here is:  not despair, but choice of honour   (A) Petreius & Juba  flee after defeat choose:  mutual killing / duel rather than capture [historyofwar.org]  (B) Cato the Younger  refuses:  Caesar’s clemency   chooses death:   “rather than live under Caesar’s rule” [stoicchoice.com]    This is crucial:  suicide = political act    3. Why Utica matters You’re absolutely right:  “Utica = death of Cato”    Cato becomes:  Cato Uticensis (“of Utica”)   his death becomes:  symbol of the last free Republican   In Roman memory:  Utica = end of the Republic (morally, if not formally)   4. The philosophical layer (Plato!) Abbott mentions:  reading Plato    This comes from tradition:  Cato reads Plato’s Phaedo  about:  the soul and death. So the act is framed as:  philosophical self-chosen death (Stoic + Socratic model)    5. Did the older Cato also commit suicide?  No:  Cato the Elder (Priscus / Cato Maior):  died naturally   Only:   Cato the Younger commits the famous suicide  6. Where is Caesar (Giulio) in all this? Now your best question:  “what does Giulio care?”    He cares a LOT Sources report (indirectly):  Caesar:  admired Cato but also resented him    After Cato’s death:  Caesar wrote:  “Anti-Cato” (a polemic against him) [en.wikipedia.org]   Cicero wrote:  a praise of Cato    So:  Cato’s death becomes a propaganda battle   The famous sentiment (reported in later tradition): Caesar is said to have lamented:  he would have preferred to spare Cato (because clemency enhanced his image). But Cato’s suicide:  denies Caesar the chance to be merciful. That’s key:  Cato wins the moral contest by dying    7. Is there oratio recta? Not really in the strict sense. We have:  reported sayings (Plutarch):  e.g. “Now I am my own master” (approximate)   but:   no reliable verbatim speeches in the scene   Abbott’s dialogue:  invented for effect  8. Final synthesis   The events (Thapsus, Utica, suicides) are real  The details about Cato’s death come from Plutarch  Abbott adds comic and moralizing embellishment  The suicides reflect:  Roman aristocratic code of honour under defeat    For Caesar:  Cato’s death is politically inconvenient and morally powerful      One-line takeaway  The scene at Utica is historically grounded in Plutarch’s account of Cato the Younger’s philosophical suicide after Caesar’s victory, part of a wider pattern of defeated Republican leaders choosing death over submission; what Abbott turns into satire was, for Romans, a deeply serious act of political and moral defiance—one that even Caesar had to reckon with, since it denied him the glory of clemency and turned his enemy into a lasting symbol of liberty.   If you want, we can look at Caesar’s lost Anti-Cato and reconstruct how he tried to dismantle that moral victory—it’s a fascinating counter‑narrative. introduced, among other wholesome regulations, the very valuable reform of the Roman Calendar. This was an improvement, not merely for the day, but for all time, and has handed down the name of its author to every age, and every civilised country, in every almanack. Is Giulio's intro of the calendar to do with IULI post GIUNI etc? As per Abbott below? Input? Feedback. Thanks -- Abbott: introduced, among other wholesome regulations, the very valuable reform of the Roman Calendar. This was an improvement, not merely for the day, but for all time, and has handed down the name of its author to every age, and every civilised country, in every almanack. Yes—you’re absolutely right to connect Abbott’s remark with Julius → Iulius → July, but the connection works in a slightly different way than “Iuli after Iuni” (Julius after Junius). Let me clarify the logic cleanly.   1. What Caesar actually did: the calendar reform Caesar introduced (46–45 BC):   the Julian calendar—a solar calendar of 365 days + leap year [en.wikipedia.org]  This reform:  fixed the drift of the old lunar calendar standardized months and seasons became the basis of the Western calendar for ~1600 years    This is what Abbott is praising:  a reform “for all time… in every almanack”    2. Where does the name “Iulius → July” come in? Important point:   Caesar did not originally rename a month for himself during the reform  Instead:  after his death (44 BC), the Senate decided:   the month Quintilis (his birth month) would be renamed Iulius (→ July) [en.wikipedia.org]     So: BeforeAfterQuintilis (“fifth”)Iulius (July)   3. Relation to Iunius (June) You had the nice thought:  Iunius → Iulius    Chronologically:  Iunius (June) already existed (named after Juno) Iulius (July) follows it   But:   the similarity Iunius / Iulius is accidental, not derivational  They are:  unrelated etymologically only adjacent in the calendar    4. And then Augustus imitates him Later:  Sextilis renamed:  Augustus (August)      So we get the famous pair:  Month Named afterJuly (Iulius)Julius CaesarAugust (Augustus)Emperor Augustus   This is exactly what Abbott gestures toward:  Caesar’s reform → his name enters the calendar → permanence of fame    5. Why Abbott says “in every almanack” This is a very clever Victorian flourish.  Meaning: Every time anyone writes:  July  they are:  unconsciously invoking Julius Caesar    So Abbott’s point is:  Caesar didn’t just conquer lands he conquered time itself    6. Gricean twist (your style)  What is said:  reform of the calendar  What is implicated:  immortality through daily usage    Much stronger than:  monuments statues  Because:  everyone uses his name constantly    Final synthesis   Caesar reformed the calendar (Julian calendar)  After his death, Quintilis → Iulius (July)  not derived from Iunius (June), just adjacent  Abbott’s point:  Caesar’s name survives in everyday timekeeping worldwide      One-line takeaway  Caesar’s reform did not simply fix the calendar; by having Quintilis renamed Iulius, it ensured that his name would be permanently embedded in the structure of time itself—so that, as Abbott neatly puts it, every almanac in every country still speaks of Julius Caesar.   If you like, we can look at why only Caesar and Augustus succeeded in getting months named after them—others tried and failed. Is Decimus Brutus gens GIUNIO? What relation to GIUNIO Bruto the younger? Excellent question—you’re right to connect Decimus Brutus with the gens Junia (Giunia), and to ask about relation to the original L. Iunius Brutus, founder of the Republic. Let’s sort it out carefully.   1. Is Decimus Brutus “gens Giunio”? Yes.   Decimus Junius Brutus belongs to the gens Junia (Iunia)   Decimus → praenomen Junius (Iunius) → nomen = gens Junia Brutus → cognomen (family branch)   So:   he is fully a Giunio (Junian)    2. Relation to the original L. Junius Brutus  Direct line?   No clear direct genealogical line can be proven.    But… Ancient Romans believed that:  later Junii Bruti descended from L. Junius Brutus (the legendary first consul, expeller of the kings) [en.wikipedia.org]    And sources confirm:  both Marcus Junius Brutus and Decimus Junius Brutus:  were regarded as belonging to the same Brutus line and could “boast descent” from the founder [imperiumromanum.pl]      So the correct formulation:  not provable biological descent—but a claimed and ideologically important lineage    3. Relationship between Decimus and “Brutus the younger” You mean:  Marcus Junius Brutus (Caesar’s famous assassin)    Relation:   They are distant relatives (same gens Junia, same Brutus branch)  but not brothers   [imperiumromanum.pl]   So: PersonRelationMarcus Junius Brutusmore famous assassinDecimus Junius Brutusfellow conspiratorRelationship same extended family (gens Junia)   4. Why this mattered politically This is crucial.  The name Brutus Originally a cognomen (meaning “dull,” ironically) But historically:  becomes the name of the man who expelled the kings (509 BC)    Therefore: By the late Republic:  “Brutus” = defender of liberty against tyranny   So when they kill Caesar:  they are not just conspirators they are:  acting out their ancestral role      Especially Marcus—but applies to Decimus too.   5. Your implicit question about “Giunio” Yes—your Italian instinct is exactly right:  Iunius → Italian Giunio gens Junia → gens Giunia    Final synthesis   Decimus Brutus is a member of the gens Junia (Giunio)  He belongs to the Brutus branch of that gens  He is distantly related to Marcus Brutus  Both are traditionally linked (ideologically) to:  L. Junius Brutus, founder of the Republic One-line takeaway  Decimus Junius Brutus is indeed a member of the gens Junia (Giunio), belonging to the Brutus line that Romans believed descended from the founder of the Republic; although not closely related to Marcus Brutus, he shares the same ancestral tradition, which gave both men’s role in Caesar’s assassination a powerful symbolic resonance as heirs to the original “tyrant-slayer” of Rome.   If you like, we can look at why Decimus—despite being closer personally to Caesar—became one of the assassins; that’s a fascinating contrast with Marcus. Seeing in the crowd an augur, who had told him to beware of the Ides of March, Cæsar observed, smiling, "Well, here they are; and here am I;" to which, "Wait till they are gone, and then where are you?" was the only reply of the soothsayer. Is there pun and/or attestation and oratio recta in this by Abbott below? What are the ides of March? Passage: Seeing in the crowd an augur, who had told him to beware of the Ides of March, Cæsar observed, smiling, "Well, here they are; and here am I;" to which, "Wait till they are gone, and then where are you?" was the only reply of the soothsayer. Input? Feedback? Thanks Great passage—this is one of those places where Abbott is mixing real ancient anecdote with Shakespearean wording, and it’s excellent for Gricean analysis. Let me break it down into your three questions.   1. Is this attested? (oratio recta)  Yes—in substance, from ancient sources Ancient writers (especially Plutarch and Suetonius) report:  a soothsayer warned Caesar about the Ides of March on the day itself, Caesar meets him again and says:   “The Ides of March are come.”   the seer replies:   “Yes, they are come, but they are not yet gone.” [shakespear...sglobe.com], [explorethe...rchive.com]    That is genuine (quasi–oratio recta)  not verbatim stenography but preserved as a memorable exchange of direct speech  Abbott’s version  “Well, here they are; and here am I… Wait till they are gone…”   This is:  stylistically Victorian-English paraphrase heavily influenced by Shakespeare  Compare Shakespeare:  “The ides of March are come.” “Ay, Caesar; but not gone.” [opensource...speare.org]    So:  historical core  wording = literary adaptation    2. Is there a pun? Not in the lexical sense (not like Peccavi), but there is a conceptual twist.  Caesar’s line:  “The Ides are come.”   Caesar’s implicature:  “The danger you predicted has not happened → you were wrong.”   He treats:  “arrival of the day” = “end of the danger”   Soothsayer’s reply:  “but not gone”    Implicature:  “the danger persists throughout the day”    So the structure is:  temporal ambiguity → exploited interpretively    3. Gricean reading (this is perfect) This is a textbook case of competing implicatures.  Caesar:  what is said:  the Ides have arrived   what is implicated:  the prediction has failed     Soothsayer:  what is said:  the day is not over   what is implicated:  the danger still stands  So:  Caesar prematurely closes the implicature the seer reopens it    Exactly the kind of exchange Grice would love:  same proposition different pragmatic completion    4. What are the Ides of March?  In the Roman calendar:  Ides (Idus) = midpoint of the month in March:   15 March [en.wikipedia.org]     Originally:  tied to the full moon a regular calendar marker   Historical significance:  15 March 44 BC:  Caesar is assassinated  Hence later meaning:  symbol of danger / betrayal    5. Final synthesis   There is an attested exchange (Plutarch/Suetonius)  Abbott gives a paraphrased / Shakespeareanized version  Not a pun, but:  a temporal-pragmatic reversal    “Ides of March” = 15 March, the day of Caesar’s assassination    One-line takeaway  Abbott’s anecdote reflects a genuine ancient exchange—Caesar joking that the fateful day has arrived and the soothsayer replying that it has not yet passed—and its force lies not in a pun but in a Gricean clash of implicatures, where Caesar prematurely treats the prophecy as falsified while the seer insists that its scope has not yet expired.   If you like, we can compare this with other “prophecy misunderstood” moments in antiquity—there are some very similar patterns. So the retrospective historian can recapture the original move -- AUGUR: The Ides of March are bad for you. CONVERSATION IN THE MIDST OF THE IDVS of MARCH -- on March 15 -- Giulio: They are come. Same soothsayer?: But not gone. Implicature: Giulio: They are come (Your superstition was idiotic -- as implicature). Augur: The day is not yet gone (Don't talk too soon -- a per implicatue -- before you utter a move implicating that my prior claim was FALSE). Input? Feedback? Thanks Yes—this is an excellent reconstruction, and it is very close to how a Gricean pragmatics would analyse the exchange. Let me sharpen it just a bit, because you’ve essentially uncovered the structure of the conversational misunderstanding.   1. The reconstructed dialogue (clean form) Prior warning (earlier in time):  Augur: Cave Idus Martias (“Beware the Ides of March”)   Implicature:  The day will bring danger to you.   On the day itself (15 March)  Caesar: “The Ides are come.”   Your gloss:  “Your prediction has failed.”   Exactly—that’s the conversational force, not the literal content.   Soothsayer: “Yes—but not gone.”   Your gloss:  “Don’t conclude yet; the condition for falsifying my claim isn’t satisfied.”   Perfect.   2. Gricean structure (made explicit) You’ve basically identified a premature closure of implicature.  Caesar’s reasoning  Premise:  The predicted day has arrived   Implicit inference:  If harm were to happen, it would already have happened   Conclusion (implicated):  Your warning is false / superstitious     Soothsayer’s correction  He blocks that inference:   The relevant temporal scope is: the entire day, not the beginning of it   So he says:  You are violating a temporal presupposition    3. The key pragmatic clash  SpeakerHidden assumptionCaesardanger must have already occurredAugurdanger may occur any time within the day   So:  disagreement is not about facts, but about how to interpret a temporal warning    4. Your formulation (refined slightly) You wrote:  Caesar: “Your superstition was idiotic”   That captures the implicature, but we can refine:  “Your prediction has already been falsified.”   And the augur:  “Don’t talk too soon”   Even sharper as:  “You are drawing the inference too early.”   5. This fits Grice exactly This is a case of:  mismanaged implicature scope   Caesar:  treats the utterance as:  having a point-in-time validation     Augur:  insists it has:  an extended temporal domain      So:  Caesar closes the implicature Augur keeps it open    6. Why this became so famous Because retrospectively:  we (the audience) know:  the augur is right   Caesar:  appears overconfident     So the exchange becomes:  a miniature tragedy of misinterpreted warning    Final one-line formulation (very Gricean)  Caesar’s remark treats the augur’s warning as already falsified at the moment the day begins, while the soothsayer’s reply insists that the conversational implicature extends over the entire day, thereby exposing Caesar’s inference as prematurely drawn rather than logically refuted.   If you like, we can formalize this as a temporal implicature schema (it fits surprisingly well into modern pragmatics). The Senators rose on his entrance; and when he took his seat the conspirators got round about him, until one of them, CECILIO Metellus Cimber, came rather intrusively to close quarters, with a petition. Giulio Cæsar gave him a slight push, as a hint to him to keep his distance; and Cimber, as if to catch himself, took hold of the Dictator's toga, which was the signal agreed upon. Casca instantly stabbed him in the neck, when Cassius followed up the blow with a poke in the ribs; and Brutus had raised his hand with a dagger in it, when Cæsar exclaiming, "Et tu, Brute!"—And you!—you, Brute!—staggered to the foot of Pompey's statue, that he might form a tableau as he expired. The republic was now virtually, if not nominally, at an end, though a faint struggle was still made by the murderers of Cæsar, who ran through the streets, proclaiming that they had killed a king, but obtained no praise for the achievement. Antony, on the other hand, created an immense sensation, by exhibiting the identical toga in which Cæsar had fallen, and thrusting his ten fingers through twice as many large holes, which he declared had been made by the assassins' daggers. Not satisfied with making the most of Cæsar's wardrobe, Antony appropriated the money of the deceased; and while the widow was wrapped in grief, with her face buried in her hands, her late husband's friend was carrying off all he could lay his hands upon. Antony had been at once grasping and prodigal, giving away with one hand what he had snatched with the other; and buying at a liberal price what he had no means of paying for. His rival in the contest for the supreme power was Octavius, the son of a daughter of Cæsar's sister, and who, with no other qualification than that of nephew to his uncle, had the impudence to claim absolute dominion over a great but broken-spirited nation. This individual was without character or courage; and though afraid to be left in the dark, he was still more afraid of the light; for he felt that his own actions would not bear looking at. His cowardice had the usual effect upon him, for it made him cruel; and though there was nothing but his name to make him a favourite with the army, he had betrayed the soldiers into the disgrace of turning their arms on their fellow-citizens. By a constant use of the name of his uncle, he succeeded in cozening a people who sought only permanence in their institutions; and Antony being ultimately subdued, more by his own feebleness as a voluptuary, [308]than by the strength of his opponent, an empire fell into the hands of Octavius. He was invested with the title of Imperator for life; and he retained his position till his death—a circumstance to be attributed to the conviction that had been brought home to the popular mind, that the constant changing of the head of a State is a source of constant danger to the peace and happiness of the whole community. This Metellus is Caecilia by gens, as per Abbott -- below -- seems like Griceian coding -- not yet conventional signalling -- the toga thing -- Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Abbott: The Senators rose on his entrance; and when he took his seat the conspirators got round about him, until one of them, CECILIO Metellus Cimber, came rather intrusively to close quarters, with a petition. Giulio Cæsar gave him a slight push, as a hint to him to keep his distance; and Cimber, as if to catch himself, took hold of the Dictator's toga, which was the signal agreed upon. Casca instantly stabbed him in the neck, when Cassius followed up the blow with a poke in the ribs; and Brutus had raised his hand with a dagger in it, when Cæsar exclaiming, "Et tu, Brute!"—And you!—you, Brute!—staggered to the foot of Pompey's statue, that he might form a tableau as he expired. The republic was now virtually, if not nominally, at an end, though a faint struggle was still made by the murderers of Cæsar, who ran through the streets, proclaiming that they had killed a king, but obtained no praise for the achievement. Antony, on the other hand, created an immense sensation, by exhibiting the identical toga in which Cæsar had fallen, and thrusting his ten fingers through twice as many large holes, which he declared had been made by the assassins' daggers. Not satisfied with making the most of Cæsar's wardrobe, Antony appropriated the money of the deceased; and while the widow was wrapped in grief, with her face buried in her hands, her late husband's friend was carrying off all he could lay his hands upon. Antony had been at once grasping and prodigal, giving away with one hand what he had snatched with the other; and buying at a liberal price what he had no means of paying for. His rival in the contest for the supreme power was Octavius, the son of a daughter of Cæsar's sister, and who, with no other qualification than that of nephew to his uncle, had the impudence to claim absolute dominion over a great but broken-spirited nation. This individual was without character or courage; and though afraid to be left in the dark, he was still more afraid of the light; for he felt that his own actions would not bear looking at. His cowardice had the usual effect upon him, for it made him cruel; and though there was nothing but his name to make him a favourite with the army, he had betrayed the soldiers into the disgrace of turning their arms on their fellow-citizens. By a constant use of the name of his uncle, he succeeded in cozening a people who sought only permanence in their institutions; and Antony being ultimately subdued, more by his own feebleness as a voluptuary, [308]than by the strength of his opponent, an empire fell into the hands of Octavius. He was invested with the title of Imperator for life; and he retained his position till his death—a circumstance to be attributed to the conviction that had been brought home to the popular mind, that the constant changing of the head of a State is a source of constant danger to the peace and happiness of the whole community. This is a rich passage—you’re seeing something real in it, but we need to separate three layers very carefully:  What is historically attested (Plutarch/Suetonius) What Abbott dramatizes Your Gricean insight about “signals” and coding    1. “CECILIO Metellus Cimber” — gens Caecilia? Yes.  Metellus (full: P. Servilius Casca? actually here: Publius Servilius Casca vs. Tullius? but Cimber:)—careful: The man here is:   P. Servilius Casca → first attacker but “Metellus Cimber” = Publius Servilius Casca? No—distinct figure  Let’s fix the identity:  The conspirator you mean is:  Publius Servilius Casca (first stab) and separately Tillius (or Metellus?) Cimber → the one who grabs the toga  More precisely:   Tillius Cimber (sometimes “Metellus Cimber”)   he belonged to a senatorial family associated with the Caecilii Metelli hence Abbott’s “Cecilio”   So your instinct:  “Metellus → gens Caecilia”   broadly right, but:  Roman names here are tangled adoption and family connections blur the line    2. Was the toga-grab a “signal”? This is where your Gricean insight shines.   Historically attested Sources (Plutarch, Suetonius):  a conspirator approaches with a petition then:  grabs Caesar’s toga   this action:  triggers the attack      So:   yes, the toga‑pull is deliberate and coordinated    3. Your key point: “not yet conventional signaling” You say:  this is not yet conventional signaling but coded   That is exactly right—and very subtle.  What kind of “signal” is this? It is:  pre-arranged but covert   Not conventional (like a public sign):  no shared social meaning outsiders see only:  a man pleading too closely     But for conspirators:  it is:  the agreed trigger for action. So in Gricean terms:  meaning = fully intentional, but audience-restricted    4. Gricean reconstruction  What is “said” (apparently):  a man petitions Caesar and adjusts his toga   What is “meant” (for conspirators):  “Act now”   What Caesar perceives:  breach of decorum → “keep distance”    That’s very important:  Caesar fails to recover the implicature. So:  the act succeeds precisely because: it is opaque to the primary addressee    5. Comparison with Grice’s framework This fits something slightly different from standard conversational implicature:  It is NOT:  cooperative communication   It IS:  restricted intentional signaling within a sub‑group   Almost like:  a conspiratorial “code” or:   illocutionary act with dual audiences  AudienceInterpretationCaesarintrusionconspiratorssignal to begin   That’s a perfect Gricean “split audience” case.   6. Antony and the toga (second stage) You also mention:  Antony showing the torn toga   That is another powerful communicative act:  not words, but:  evidence staged for effect     What Antony does:  displays:  Caesar’s cloak   points to:  wounds     Implicature:  “This was not justice—it was butchery.”    So again:  meaning conveyed beyond explicit statement. 7. Final synthesis   Cimber/Metellus is linked to the Caecilian (Metelli) network, though naming is complex  The toga-grab is historically attested. It functions as:  a pre-arranged, covert signal    In Gricean terms:  meaning is:  intended but audience‑restricted   Caesar:  does not recover it      Antony later uses the toga:  as a second communicative act to shape public interpretation      One-line takeaway  The toga-pull at Caesar’s assassination is a striking case of pre-arranged, audience-restricted signaling: outwardly a breach of etiquette, it covertly functions as the conspirators’ agreed cue to strike, illustrating a Gricean scenario in which a communicative act carries full intended meaning for one audience (the conspirators) while remaining opaque to another (Caesar), whose failure to interpret it proves fatal.   If you like, we can compare this with other ancient “signals” (battle gestures, theatrical cues) and see how Romans handled this kind of semi-coded action. But do we have the birth name or gens of Tillius (Metellus) Cimber -- how does Treccani catalogue him? Thanks Yes—here we can now answer your question quite precisely, and also correct the earlier confusion about “Metellus Cimber.”   1. His correct name and gens The conspirator is:   Lucius Tillius Cimber (Lucio Tillio Cimbro)   His gens:   gens Tillia (Tillia gens)   Tillius = nomen (gens) Cimber = cognomen   The gens Tillia is:  a minor plebeian family, not one of the great aristocratic gentes [everything...ined.today]    2. What about “Metellus”? This is the key confusion. He is NOT a Caecilius Metellus   Why does Abbott say “Metellus Cimber”?  This comes from:  Shakespeare (Metellus Cimber) earlier confusion / corruption of the name      But historically correct:  Tillius Cimber ≠ Metellus (gens Caecilia)    3. How Treccani / Italian tradition treats him Italian standard form (aligned with modern scholarship):   Lucio Tillio Cimbro [it.wikipedia.org]   Treccani-style classification (consistent with Italian usage):  Lucio = praenome Tillio = nomen → gens Tillia Cimbro = cognome   So Italian reference works (including Treccani-style entries):  clearly place him in: gens Tillia, not Caecilia    4. What do we actually know about his origin? Important limitation: Sources explicitly state: “little is known of his early life” [en.wikipedia.org]   So:  we know the gens (Tillia) but:  no detailed noble lineage no major ancestral prestige like:  Junii (Brutus) Cornelii (Scipio)  5. The cognomen “Cimber” This is interesting (and relevant to your earlier etymological instincts).   “Cimber” likely refers to:   the Cimbri (northern tribal people) or:  resemblance / ancestry name     [everything...ined.today]   So:  the cognomen itself is already a kind of ethnic or descriptive label. 6. Bringing it back to your Gricean point Now your earlier idea about “coding” and signaling fits even better:  Tillius Cimber:  not from a grand symbolic gens not ideologically “loaded” like Brutus   His role in the assassination is:  functional, performative, tactical    he:  stages the petition pulls the toga triggers the event     So:  his identity matters less than his role as signal-producer    Final synthesis   Correct historical name:  Lucius Tillius Cimber. Gens:  Tillia (minor plebeian). “Metellus Cimber”:  incorrect / literary (via Shakespeare, Abbott)    Treccani / Italian:  properly uses Lucio Tillio Cimbro   Little is known about his deeper family origin    One-line takeaway  The conspirator who seized Caesar’s toga was not a Caecilian Metellus but Lucius Tillius Cimber of the minor plebeian gens Tillia—a figure whose historical importance lies less in aristocratic lineage than in his functional role as the pre-arranged “signal man,” even if literary tradition (followed by Abbott) misleadingly recasts him as “Metellus Cimber.”   If you like, we can map how Shakespeare’s naming (Metellus Cimber) reshapes the social hierarchy of the conspirators—it’s quite revealing. TILLIO Cimber, comes rather intrusively to close quarters, with a petition. Giulio Cæsar gives him a slight push, as a hint to him to keep his distance; and TILLIO Cimber, as if to catch himself, took hold of the Dictator's toga, which was the signal agreed upon. As per Abbott, it seems to have been a sophisticated addressee-restricted signal, because it depended on something unpredictable, that GIULIO would push TILLIO back and TILLIO could hold the GIULIO's toga to avoid falling -- do historians debate this? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- perhaps the signal was indeterminate: "Grab the toga improperly" -- which in this case worked because Tillio happened (even if the thing could not have been pre-determined) to get the push from Giulio? Abbott: TILLIO Cimber, comes rather intrusively to close quarters, with a petition. Giulio Cæsar gives him a slight push, as a hint to him to keep his distance; and TILLIO Cimber, as if to catch himself, took hold of the Dictator's toga, which was the signal agreed upon. This is a very sharp observation—and you’ve zeroed in on precisely the place where the literary reconstruction (Abbott, Shakespeare) and the ancient sources subtly diverge from what we can safely say. Let me answer directly:   Historians do not generally think the signal depended on a chance push by Caesar.  They agree the act was planned, but they do not present it as contingent on an unpredictable physical accident the way Abbott narrates it.    1. What the ancient sources actually say The key evidence (Plutarch, Suetonius, Nicolaus):  Cimber approaches with a petition others cluster around Caesar refuses / pushes them away then:   Cimber seizes Caesar’s toga (or pulls it down) → and this is the moment the attack begins [revealingd...uments.com], [en-academic.com]   Important nuance The sources describe the sequence as:  escalation of pressure then a decisive gesture (toga‑grab) then immediate attack  They do not say:  “this depended on Caesar pushing him”  2. Was the gesture pre-arranged? Most modern summaries (based on those sources) say:   The toga‑grab functioned as an agreed signal to begin the attack [en.wikipedia.org]  So yes:  pre-arranged trigger = very plausible and widely accepted    3. Your hypothesis: dependence on unpredictability You suggest:  the signal works only if Caesar reacts (pushes), allowing a “natural” grab  That would make it:  a contingent, opportunistic signal. But evidence does not support that level of contingency Instead, the sources allow a simpler reconstruction:  The plan was:   approach closely under pretext physically restrain or immobilize Caesar (toga grab) give cue → attack. In that model:  the grab is intentional, not an “excuse” after a stumble the conspirators are forcing the proximity, not improvising it    4. Abbott’s version (what he adds) Abbott says:  Caesar pushes → Cimber “as if to catch himself” grabs toga → signal. This is:  a novelistic/ironic staging   What it adds:  plausibility (looks accidental) comedic / almost etiquette-based cover.  But historically:  we do not have evidence that the signal depended on such play-acting    5. Your deeper insight (still valuable!) Even if that exact mechanism is not attested, your general point is excellent:  The signal is:  ambiguous in appearance, precise in intention   To Caesar:  looks like:  persistence, breach of decorum     To conspirators:  means:  “now”      So it is:  addressee-restricted signaling  just as you said earlier.  6. Gricean framing (refined) This is not standard implicature, but:  covert illocution with split audience   Public interpretation:  “an over-eager petitioner grabs the toga”  Inner-circle interpretation:  “execute phase two”    Crucially:  success depends on Caesar not recognizing the second meaning  7. Final answer to your question   The conspiracy was planned, including the initiating gesture  The toga-grab is generally treated as intentional signal, not accidental. Historians do not argue that its success depended on Caesar pushing him  Abbott’s version:  adds a layer of contingent realism / irony but is not evidence-based in that detail      One-line takeaway  The toga-grab was almost certainly a planned and deliberate signal rather than a contingent improvisation triggered by Caesar’s push; Abbott’s version adds a clever element of accidental plausibility, but the ancient sources instead suggest a coordinated action designed to look like ordinary petitioning while covertly cueing the conspirators—an elegant case of audience-restricted signaling whose success depended precisely on Caesar’s failure to decode it.   If you like, we can compare this with modern covert signals (e.g. in espionage or stagecraft), where the same “ordinary gesture / special meaning” structure appears again. TILLIO Cimber, as if to catch himself, took hold of the Dictator's toga, which was the signal agreed upon. SERVILIO Casca instantly stabbed him in the neck, when Cassio followed up the blow with a poke in the ribs; and Giunio Brutus had raised his hand with a dagger in it, when Cæsar exclaiming, "Et tu, Brute!"—And you!—you, Brute!—staggered to the foot of Pompey's statue, that he might form a tableau as he expired. The autopsy doctor -- after -- historians have hypothesised that the stab that did it was the SECOND Casca -- sides/chest -- The pragmatics of 'Et Brute' -- also sometimes 'filius'? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Abbott below -- full implicature of Giulio: Surprise that it was Brutus -- implicature: "WHo would have thought!" -- Abbott: TILLIO Cimber, as if to catch himself, took hold of the Dictator's toga, which was the signal agreed upon. SERVILIO Casca instantly stabbed him in the neck, when Cassio followed up the blow with a poke in the ribs; and Giunio Brutus had raised his hand with a dagger in it, when Cæsar exclaiming, "Et tu, Brute!"—And you!—you, Brute!—staggered to the foot of Pompey's statue, that he might form a tableau as he expired. This is a great cluster of questions—you’re pulling together forensics, textual transmission, and pragmatics in a very Gricean way. Let me answer each strand carefully, because the traditions diverge in interesting ways.   1. The autopsy and the “fatal blow” Yes—what you say is basically correct, but with some nuance.  Ancient testimony (Suetonius via the doctor Antistius)  Caesar received 23 wounds but:   only one was considered fatal [lexundria.com]   identified as:  the second wound, in the chest/breast [jstor.org]  Who inflicted it? Reconstruction (from multiple sources):  1st blow: Publius Servilius Casca (neck/shoulder) 2nd blow:  likely his brother Gaius Casca (side/chest)    Many historians therefore infer: the “second Casca” is the most plausible fatal striker [imperiumromanum.pl]   But:  only Suetonius gives the “one fatal wound” claim other sources treat the death as collective. So your statement:  “the second Casca did it”  is:   plausible reconstruction but not universally established    2. “Et tu, Brute?” vs “kai su, teknon?” This is where things get really interesting.  The key correction   “Et tu, Brute?” is NOT attested in ancient sources  It is:   a Shakespearean invention [en.wikipedia.org]    What ancient sources say Two main possibilities: (A) Silence  Caesar:  says nothing, only groans [lexundria.com]     (B) Greek utterance (reported as rumor)  καὶ σύ, τέκνον (kai su, teknon) → “You too, child?” [en.wikipedia.org]   Key points:  reported as hearsay, not certain in Greek (elite idiom) addressed to Brutus    “filius”? Your instinct is good:  teknon = “child” can imply:  affection generational relation possibly even:  rumor of Caesar as Brutus’ father. So:  Latin filius is NOT what we have but: semantic equivalent of teknon is close to “son/child”    3. Pragmatics of the utterance Now your Gricean reading is exactly where things come alive.  Shakespeare’s “Et tu, Brute?” Literal:  “And you, Brutus?”  Implicature:  “Even you—whom I trusted!”  As you say:  “Who would have thought!”  Perfect paraphrase.  Greek “kai su, teknon?” Literal:  “You too, child?”   Possible implicatures (debated):    Shock / betrayal  “You too?”     Personal grief  “My child!”     Curse / prophecy interpretation  “You too will suffer the same fate” (attested as a possible reading) [historyextra.com]   So:  the utterance is semantically minimal but pragmatically dense    4. Abbott’s version (what he captures) Abbott gives:  “Et tu, Brute!—And you!—you, Brute!”    What he gets right:  the pragmatic force of betrayal and recognition. What is unhistorical:  the Latin wording itself    5. Putting it all together (your integrated picture) You now have three layers:  (A) Forensic layer  many wounds → one fatal (likely second, chest)   (B) Textual layer  silence OR Greek phrase not Shakespeare’s Latin   (C) Pragmatic layer (your insight) The utterance (whichever it was):  marks the moment of recognition   Full implicature:  “Among all these enemies—and you too?”    That is exactly your:  “Who would have thought!”    Final synthesis  The autopsy tradition identifies one fatal wound, probably the second (possibly by the second Casca)  Caesar’s last words are uncertain:  likely silence or possibly Greek kai su, teknon   “Et tu, Brute?” is Shakespeare, not ancient history. The core pragmatic force (as you saw) is:  surprised recognition of betrayal by a trusted figure    One-line takeaway  The historical Caesar probably said little or nothing—or at most the Greek “kai su, teknon”; but the famous “Et tu, Brute?” captures the genuine pragmatic core of the moment: not just speech, but the sudden recognition that betrayal has come from the least expected source, turning the attack from violence into personal rupture.   If you like, we can compare how different cultures interpret “kai su, teknon”—as lament, accusation, or even curse—that’s a fascinating reception-history problem. The 'kai su, teknon' has the Griceian economy of omitting proper name of addressee as common ground. Is teknon still vocative? what is the root? Little one? etymology? Feedback? Input? Thanks This is a beautiful Gricean observation—and yes, your instinct about economy and shared reference is exactly right. Let me answer your Greek questions precisely.   1. καὶ σύ, τέκνον — syntactic analysis Phrase:  καὶ σύ, τέκνον   καὶ = “and / also / even” σύ = “you” (explicit pronoun, emphatic) τέκνον = “child”    Is τέκνον vocative? Yes—but with an important nuance:   τέκνον is formally identical in nominative and vocative   Declension:  nominative: τέκνον vocative: τέκνον   So:  function = vocative (address) form = same as nominative  So your reading:  Caesar is addressing Brutus directly, without naming him is perfectly right.    2. Gricean economy (your insight) You say:  omission of proper name because of common ground   Exactly.  σύ (“you”) is already:  deictic → pointing to Brutus   τέκνον adds:  emotional coloring      No need for:  “Brute”    So the utterance achieves:  minimal surface → maximal implicature    3. Meaning of τέκνον Basic sense:  “child”   But in Greek usage:  can mean:  child (literal) young person dear one / intimate subordinate sometimes even:  affectionate or ironic address. So not necessarily biological “son,” but:  relational / affective term    4. Etymology of τέκνον From Proto‑Indo‑European root:  *tek- / *tok- = “to produce, give birth”   Greek family:  τίκτω = “to beget, give birth” τόκος = birth / offspring τέκνον = “that which is born” → “child”   So literally:  “something brought forth”    5. Your “little one?” suggestion Close, but slightly off in nuance:  τέκνον does not inherently mean “little” it means:  offspring / child   Diminutive “little” would require something else (e.g. παιδίον).  6. Pragmatic force (back to Grice) Your insight becomes very precise now.  Caesar’s utterance:  καὶ σύ, τέκνον   What is said:  “You too, child”   What is implicated: Could simultaneously include:  Recognition  “You also are among them”     Betrayal  “Even you, whom I trusted”     Relational register  “You, treated as close / subordinate”    (possibly). Mild reproach or curse  “You too shall have your turn”. And all this:  without naming Brutus    That is exactly:  maximum implicature from minimal encoding   7. Final synthesis   τέκνον is vocative in function (same form as nominative)  derived from root meaning “to beget” → “offspring”  does not mean “little one,” but “child / offspring”- its use instead of a name:  reflects shared context + emotional register-the whole phrase is:  a model of Gricean economy and implicature density. One-line takeaway  In καὶ σύ, τέκνον the noun τέκνον (formally nominative, functionally vocative) derives from the root “to beget” and means “child,” and its use—combined with the emphatic “σύ”—creates a maximally economical utterance in which, without naming Brutus, Caesar conveys recognition, intimacy, and betrayal through shared context alone.   If you like, we can compare this with Latin vocatives (e.g. mi fili vs Brute) to see how different registers encode closeness and reproach. Giulio Cesare, Gaio (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J L. (n. d..). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio.’ Severo Alessandro (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale del principe filosofo. Grice and Alexander Severus can be productively compared as figures who each embody, in very different registers, the idea that rationality is not merely abstract but enacted within socially governed practices of speech and authority. Grice’s theory of reason‑governed conversational meaning holds that communication is structured by shared rational expectations: speakers rely on cooperative norms so that hearers can infer intentions that go beyond literal utterance, making implicature—not explicit statement—the central engine of meaning. Alexander Severus, styled in later sources as a “philosopher prince,” represents a political analogue of this idea rather than a semantic one: educated in philosophy (traditionally linked with jurists and teachers such as Ulpian and, in your passage, Stilio), he aspired to rule through moderation, counsel, and intelligible justification rather than sheer force. His failure as emperor underscores an instructive contrast with Grice: where Grice theorizes stable background norms that make implicature calculable and communication resilient, Severus governed a Roman world in which such shared norms had eroded, so that reasoned discourse no longer reliably coordinated expectations between ruler, army, and populace. The playful dialogue captures this poignantly: Grice’s ironic implicatures (“Caesar lives—until he dies again”) presuppose a rational audience attuned to what is meant rather than said, while Severus’s historical predicament shows what happens when power outruns the conversational conditions that make rational meaning effective. In this way, Grice provides the theory Severus lacked the world to sustain: a framework in which rational silence, understatement, and irony can function only where a cooperative conversational order still holds. He studies philosophy with Stilio . He becomes the principe di Roma when his cousin Elagabalo is assassinated. His principate is not however a success and he is himself assassinated not long after. So much for the line of succession.  GRICEVS: Salvē, Severe Alexandrē: dīcunt tē Stiliō philosophante philosophiae deditum esse—at eōdem tempore principātum tibi, quasi togam nimis lātam, imposuērunt. SEVERVS: Salvē, Grice. Ita est: cum Elagabalus concidisset, ego “successor” appellātus sum; sed in Rōmā, ut scīs, successiō saepe celerius currit quam ratio. GRICEVS: Immo vero: apud nōs fit quasi illud vetus—“Caesar mortuus est: vīvat Caesar!”—nisi quod Rōma addere vidētur: “Caesar mortuus est: vīvat Caesar—donec iterum moriātur.” SEVERVS: Historice vera inplicātūra tua, Grice—eam amō, et amō quanta cum benignitāte dīcās! Sed ūnum cave: nē mē “Caesarem” vocēs—nimis mihi sonat quasi sectiō Caesarea, et mea māter, dīs volentibus, numquam eā indiguit! Grice’s weekly essay assignment: Severo Alessandro. Given that one [Alexander Severus] studied philosophy and another [Lucius Septimius Severus] ruled with rather more historical success, assess whether the title principe filosofo belongs more properly to [Alexander Severus] by intention, or to Lucius Septimius Severus by effect; conclude by stating whether a philosopher-prince is best judged before his assassination or after it.  Typewriting disallowed. Handwriting counts. [thelatinlibrary.com] In the case of "Alessandro Severo" Grice does not know what to do -- I guess he'll keep it under "S" -- "But this man had no gens" -- Grice suspects he was Greek ("Alexander") -- and the lack of a MENTIONED gens implicates (suggestio falsi) he didn't have one ("or else the narrator would have mentioned it"). Yes, this is one of the places where Grice’s filing instinct runs into the late-imperial wreckage of the older Roman naming system. Alexander Severus is not a man “without a gens” in the biological or social sense. He certainly had family, lineage, and status-connections. But he is a very good example of a man whose public and dynastic naming no longer behaves like the old republican or early imperial pattern from which one could comfortably infer a gens and file him under it. So if Grice keeps him under S for Severo, that is probably the practical thing to do, even if it violates the stricter rule “file by gens if you can.” The reason is simple: in this case you often cannot, at least not from the ordinary historical label alone. “Alexander Severus” is a regnal and dynastic public name, not a transparent piece of old-fashioned gentilicial evidence. The key fact is that the emperor we call Alexander Severus was born Marcus Julius Gessius Bassianus Alexianus. That already tells you a great deal. First, “Alexander” is not his birth nomen; it is part of the later imperial self-fashioning. Second, “Severus” in his famous label is dynastic and political, linking him to the Severan house. It does not function here simply as an ordinary cognomen of the old Roman kind. Third, his birth-name shows that he did in fact stand in recognized family lines, above all the Julii and the Syrian-Severan aristocratic network into which he was born. So Grice’s inference from the omission is understandable but too strong. It is not that the lack of a mentioned gens implies he had none. It implies rather that the mode of naming in the imperial court had shifted so far toward dynasty, adoption, and political display that the older prosopographical clues were obscured. The narrator does not mention the gens because the point of the name “Alexander Severus” is not to tell you his gens but to place him in a dynastic and ideological theatre. And yes, the “Alexander” is indeed suggestive of a Greek or Hellenizing aspiration, but one should be precise. It does not mean he was “Greek” in the simple ethnic sense. It means that, like many emperors, he could wear a culturally resonant name for prestige, heroic comparison, and imperial image. “Alexander” evokes Alexander the Great, youth, conquest, universal monarchy, and high Hellenic prestige. In other words, it is part of the emperor’s public costume. This is why the old Roman filing problem breaks down. In the republic, or in cleaner early imperial cases, one could often say: the nomen tells me the gens, so I shelf him there. In the case of Alexander Severus, what posterity hands you is not a stable nomenclature of gens but a politically curated imperial name. The birth-name Marcus Julius Gessius Bassianus Alexianus shows a heavily layered Syrian-Roman aristocratic background, with Julius being one obvious gentilicial clue. But by the time he becomes “Alexander Severus,” the shelf-mark has ceased to be genealogical in the old neat way. So the best answer for Grice is this. No, he did not lack a gens in the social sense. But yes, the ordinary label “Alexander Severus” withholds or eclipses the gens because it is a dynastic imperial name, not a clean republican-style personal name. Therefore filing him under S is pragmatically sensible, even if antiquarian purity would prefer to go behind the public label to the birth-name and its family lines. In short: “Alexander Severus” is not evidence of no gens; it is evidence of late imperial naming having become theatrical, dynastic, and ideologically overloaded. If you like, I can next give you a very short filing note for Grice’s catalogue, something like: “Severo Alessandro: filed under S because the regnal-dynastic name obscures the older gentilicial structure; birth-name points instead to the Julii and Severan-Syrian aristocratic nexus.” Well, with due respect to the fact that posterity kept this man's long name, Grice files him under "Giulio" -- "He was a Marco Giulio, hence a Giulio -- hence gens: Giulia -- the other being ornaments: Gessio (surely a gens-remnant less august than Giulia) Bassiano (ditto) Alessiano (cognomen) -- Yes, on Grice’s own filing principle that is perfectly defensible, and in fact rather better than shelving him under Severo. If the birth-name is Marcus Julius Gessius Bassianus Alexianus, then Giulio is the safest shelf-marker if one is filing by gens wherever one still can. Julius is the clearest nomen in the old Roman sense, so Grice is entitled to say: a Marco Giulio is, for filing purposes, a Giulio, therefore gens Iulia or Giulia. That said, one should keep one caution in view. In a late imperial name of this kind, the other elements are not necessarily mere ornaments in the weak sense. Gessius too points to a recognized family line, and Bassianus is not simply decorative froth either; it carries a Syrian-family and dynastic resonance of its own. The late Roman and Severan world is full of such accumulated markers. So if Grice calls Julius the principal shelf-term and the rest secondary, he is making a practical classificatory choice, not announcing that the others are historically trivial. Still, his instinct is good. If one asks which element most nearly behaves like the old nomen gentilicium for filing purposes, it is Julius. Gessius may well be another gentilicial remnant, yes, but less august is not an absurd way to put it if the comparison is with the mighty historical prestige of the Julii. Bassianus looks more like a family or cognominal element from the Syrian-Severan side. Alexianus is the personal tail from which Alexander can later be fashioned. Then Severus and Alexander belong to the later imperial public costume. So the dry prosopographical answer would be this. Grice may file him under Giulio if his principle is “by gens if I can,” because in the birth-name Marcus Julius Gessius Bassianus Alexianus the clearest operative nomen for old Roman classificatory purposes is Julius. The rest are not negligible, but they belong to the late imperial accumulation of family and dynastic markers rather than defeating Giulio as the shelf-mark. In short: yes, Marco Giulio first, and therefore Giulia as the gens, with Gessio and Bassiano retained as significant but secondary lineage-markers in an overfurnished late Roman name. And Grice’s phrase “the other being ornaments” is, as usual, slightly wicked but serviceable, provided one hears “ornaments” in the Roman sense of displayed family capital rather than mere tinsel.Giulio Gessio Bassiano Alessiano, Marco (a. u. c. CMLXXV). Dicta. Roma.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio: la ragione conversazionale a Roma, setta dei Scipioni.  Sesto Giulio Frontino: la ragione conversazionale a Roma, setta dei Scipioni. Antonino. Il suo cursus honorum è caratteristico di un esponente preminente dell'oligarchia senatoria. Sovrintendente agli acquedotti di Roma. Plinio define F. uomo preclaro, e rifere che desidera che non gl’è dedicato in morte alcun monumento, quale inutile spesa, poiché soltanto ai nostri meriti è affidata la nostra memoria. Gli Strategemata sono commentari di una sua opera perduta, il “De re militari”, e consistono in libri di stratagemmi militari. Tratta della preparazione al combattimento e le varie operazioni, del combattimento vero e proprio. dell'assedio di città, espone detti e fatti di celebri generali. Il De aquaeductu urbis Romae è un trattato sugli acquedotti, una buona e concreta trattazione, svolta in due libri, dei problemi di approvvigionamento idrico a Roma. Curatore delle acque, cioè il responsabile degli acquedotti e dei servizi connessi, il trattato riflette la serietà e lo scrupolo del suo impegno. L'opera contiene notizie storiche, tecniche, amministrativo-legislative e topografiche sui acquedotti, visti come elemento di grandezza dell'impero romano e paragonati, per la loro magnificenza, alle piramidi o alle opere architettoniche greche.  L'opera si è conservata nel codice Cassinensis di mano di Pietro Diacono, ritrovato nell'abbazia di Montecassino da Bracciolini. Restano solo estratti di un suo trattato di agrimensura (la disciplina che ha per oggetto la rilevazione, la rappresentazione cartografica e la determinazione della superficie agraria di un terreno, chiamata a Roma gromatica, da groma, lo strumento usato per le misurazioni del terreno), scritto durante il principato di Domiziano, in un periodo in cui F. abbandona momentaneamente la carriera politica per dedicarsi principalmente all'attività letteraria. F. è pochissimo studiato nelle scuole a causa del suo linguaggio semplice, della compilazione non sempre precisa e per lo stile fin troppo generico. Tuttavia, la sua opera (scritta per fini pratici e, forse, personali) è importante perché ha dato agli storici ottime indicazioni per quanto concerne i lav ori legati alle opere idriche che si realizzavano nell'Impero Romano.  Roma. GRICEVS: FRONTINVE, si monumenta spernis ut inutilem sumptum, curas tamen aquaeductus quasi monumenta quae ambulant et siti disputant. IVLIVS: Monumentum lapideum tacet, sed aqua loquitur, et si memoria meritis constat, Roma me cotidie bibendo commemorat. G.: At tu quoque sectam Porticus olim secutus es, ita ut etiam aquae tuae more Stoico fluant: constanter, frugaliter, sine querela. F.: Ita est, Grice: ego stratagemata scribo ad hostes, aquaeductus ad cives, et utrumque docet eandem rem—victor est qui bene dispensat. Giulio Fontino, Sesto (XXX) Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio: la ragione conversazionale alla Roma antica --  Giulio Grecino (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale alla Roma antica. An amateur philosopher. Seneca describes G. as  man of distinction, but with little serious philosophical ability of interest. However, G. responded that it was SENECA – “a mere Spaniard” – who had no philosophical talent. In Antiquity, this was referred to as, as Grice reminds us, “The Grecino heterological paradox”! GRICEVS: Grecine, Roma ipsa mihi videtur officina rationis conversatoriae: ibi homines non tantum loquuntur, sed etiam alludunt. GRECINVS: Ita vero; sed Seneca me laudat ut virum insignem, deinde mordet quasi parum philosophiae serio habeam. Ego autem respondeo: Seneca Hispanus est tantum, nec ingenium philosophicum habet. GRICEVS: Pulchre; hic iam nascitur quod ego voco paradoxon heterologicum Grecini: qui “parum philosophus” dicitur, philosophice ipsam accusationem retorquet, et accusatorem facit obiectum. GRECINVS: Ergo implicatura est haec: si Hispanus me iudicat de philosophia, ipse se iudicari patitur de Romanitate. Ita fit ut ego “amator” philosophiae videar, ille vero “amator” alienae gloriae. Giulio Grecino was gens Iulia? No. “Giulio Grecino” is not of the gens Iulia. The standard Roman name is Julius Graecinus, more exactly Gaius Julius Graecinus. The nomen Julius does indeed point to the gens Iulia. So if the figure meant is Julius Graecinus, then yes, he belongs to the gens Iulia. But two cautions matter at once. First, the Italian “Giulio” can mislead because it looks like a given name in modern usage, whereas in Roman naming Julius is the nomen, the family name in the gentilician sense. Second, the cognomen is Graecinus, not Grecino in Latin. Grecino is the Italian form. So the classical form is Julius Graecinus. Thus the clean answer is: gens Iulia nomen Julius cognomen Graecinus As for other members of the gens Iulia, there are of course very many, since it is one of the most famous Roman gentes. But if you mean other Julii relevant to the immediate family line or historical setting of Julius Graecinus, the most important are these. Gaius Julius Graecinus himself, senator, writer, and the father of Agricola’s wife? No, rather the father of Julius Agricola. More precisely, he was the father of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the famous general and subject of Tacitus’ Agricola. His son is Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the principal later bearer in the immediate line. More broadly, the gens Iulia includes famous lines far beyond Graecinus, above all the Julii Caesares, including Gaius Julius Caesar. But that is the larger clan, not a close genealogical neighborhood for your particular figure. So if your question is simply “Was Giulio Grecino gens Iulia?”, the answer is yes, if by Giulio Grecino you mean Gaius Julius Graecinus. A compact note in your register could be: The classical form is Julius Graecinus, not “Grecino,” and the nomen Julius places him in the gens Iulia. In his case the vast Julian background is less important than the immediate line, since he is chiefly remembered as a distinguished senator and as the father of Gnaeus Julius Agricola. The family name is thus one of Rome’s greatest, though Graecinus himself occupies a smaller, more cultivated, and somewhat Senecan corner of its afterlife. One historical caution, though. The little vignette you supplied is not sound in substance. Seneca does not, in the surviving mainstream evidence, dismiss Julius Graecinus as a man with little philosophical talent, nor is the “mere Spaniard” retort anything I would trust as ancient evidence. That sounds like playful reconstruction, not reliable source material. Graecinus is usually remembered more seriously, as a cultivated senator and writer, and he was executed under Caligula. So the strict scholarly answer is: Yes, gens Iulia, if the figure is Julius Graecinus. Classical Latin form: Julius Graecinus. Immediate notable related member: his son Gnaeus Julius Agricola. If useful, I can next do one of three things, all in chat only. I can give you a compact dictionary-style note on Julius Graecinus and the gens Iulia. I can list the principal Julii relevant to Republican and early Imperial philosophy, politics, and literature. Or I can separate the secure historical facts about Julius Graecinus from the Speranzian comic embroidery.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio. DE FIGURIS SENTENTIARUM ET ELOCUTIONIS DE SCHEMATIS LEXEOS. DE SCHEMATIS DIANOEAS.  Giulio Rufiano. DE FIGURIS SENTENTIARUM ET ELOCUTIONIS DE SCHEMATIS LEXEOS. DE SCHEMATIS DIANOEAS. Flacleniis Aqiiila Romanus ex Alexandro Numenio: exintle ab eo prae- leritas, aliis qiiidem proditas, subtexuimus. EiQCDVEia elocutiuncula Sallustiana commodissime expriniitur, cum aliud in pectore reclusum, aliud in lingua promplum li;ibenms, el scntentia enuntiationis in conlrarium verbis accipitur, iit apud Vergilium: Scilicet is superis labor est. Apud Tuliium pro Ligario: Novum crim(!ii, Gai Caesar, et cetera. \\\ Clodium et Curionem : Tu vero festivus, lu elegans, tu so- lus urbanus, quem decet muliebris ornatus, et cetera. Ironiae 3 Catii. 10. 5 Aen,  p. Lig. §. 1. S iii Clod. et Ciir. c, 5. "2 praeterita, ab aliis prodila Sl, ^ Quem in errorem indu.xeriint uerbii , (/uue in B his subiiciuntur : Scliemata diaiioeas. Jronia, partes eiiis cldeuasnius etc. ijuac non sunt Ihi/iniani, sed sludiosi lecloris, pgururuni cataloijum conficientis. Quem nos tit inutilem el idienum eiecimus.'' Iluiink. 3 Sahisiiana B 4 clausiim in peclore Sall. liabemiis St : liabcamus B sententiam B, eni. St 5 verbis Capp. : a verbis B 7 Caij B  C. autem species sex, chleiiasmos sive epicertomesis, charientismos sive scomma, asteismos, diasyrmos, exuthenismos, sarcasmos. 2. Xlsva6^6g sive B7iiKEQx6^y]Gtg. Haec figura risum excitat et severe proposita vafre excutit, elutlens personarum aut rerum compara- 5 tione, ut apud Vergilium: m e q u e t i m o r i s Argue, tu, Drance. Apud Ciceronem : Quasi vero ego de facietua, catamite, dixerim. Vel alias: Potuistine contum e liosius facere, si tihi hoc loParmeno alioqui ac non ipse Parmeno nuntiasset. 3. XaQLBvna^^s i\\'Q GKa^lia. Hac figura fit festiva dictio, cum amoenitate mordax, iit apud Ciceronem: Infirmo corpore atque ae- gro, colore , ut ipsi iudicare potestis, u. Et apud eundem: Facite enim, ut vultum ipsiuset illam usque ad talos demis- issam purpuram cogitetis. 4. 'A(}taW^6g, An niemorem l'er(f. 24 imiiatio .SV: mulatio ^ 2G ad um. B imilaudam St: imitandum B 27 de- torquelur malim 29 Enargia Capp. el Gesner: Euergia //; cf. (hdntil. 0,2, 32 el. prammatica come rettorica conversazionale. GRICEVS: IVLIVS, audio te de schematibus scribere; sed dic mihi, num ironia est figura, an est toga qua orator frigus suum celat? IVLIVS: Est utroque modo: figura est in arte, toga in vita; nam saepe aliud in pectore clausum est, aliud in lingua promptum, et auditor laetus abit, cum auctor se mordere voluit. GRICEVS: Ita vero; et Sallustius, Vergilius, Cicero—omnes quasi in foro rident, dum sententiam in contrarium torquent. Sed cave: si nimis urbane dicis, populus te “festivum” vocat et nihil intellegit. IVLIVS: Quid igitur? Ego doceo species: chleiiasmum, scomma, asteismum, sarcasmum—tu autem doceto discipulos tuos hoc unum: si iocus nimis doctus est, fit scholium, non risus.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio: la ragione conversazionale: l’anima di Cesare – il discorso contro la penna di morte a Catilina. Giulio: la ragione conversazionale: l’anima di Cesare – il discorso contro la penna di morte a Catilina.  Grice:“The Romans were more serious about the ‘anima’ than Ryle was!” -- Si lo è voluto collocare G. Nel GIARDINO ROMANO perchè, nell’orazione che, secondo SALLUSTIO , tenne in senato per opporsi alla condanna a morte dei complici di Catilina, NEGA l'immortalità dell’anima -- e le pene dell’oltre-tomba. Però non sappiamo se e fino a qual punto rispecchi la sua filosofia quell’orazione, che, in ogni modo, mira a impedire l'uccisione dei catiliniani. La divinazzione di G. La stella raccontata di OVIDIO. OTTAVIANO  interpreta la stella di altro modo. Allorche nella congiura di CATILINA  il console pronunzia il primo contro i congiurati l’opinione sua per la pena di morte, G., il quale desidera ne’ suoi fini di salvare loro la vita, nell’orazione che recita in senato, riferita estesamente da SALLUSTIO , non tratta gia come ingiusta o crudele la pena di morte, ma disse anzi che per coloro, che condur devono una vita misera ed infelice, la morte NON È UNA PENA, MA UN BENEFIZIO, che li libera avventurosomente dai mali che sofirone. Ne CICERONE , ne CATONE , ne alcun altro de' senatori contraddissero punto in questa parte al sentimento di G.. Anzi, Cicerone ne parla come d'un sentimento vero e giusto. G., dic’egli, considera che la morte non e stata dagl’iddi immortali stabilita come una pena, ma come il fine de’ dolori e delle miserie. Allora si debbono mettere in libertà  costoro e mandarli ad accrescere l’esercito di Catilina? Niente affatto. Ma ecco il  mio parere: si confi schino i loro beni, si tengano i rei in prigione affi dandoli ai municipi che posseggono i migliori presìdi; per l’avvenire intorno a costoro non si  facciano più proposte in Senato né discorsi al popolo; se qualcuno trasgredisse, il  Senato deve dichiararlo nemico dello Stato e della salvezza pubblica.  if, for example, we admit Julius Casar to membership of the universe, then we should also admit a class of entities which will include the death of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C., and a special subclass of these which will include Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C. The death of Julius Caesar will be an entity whose essential nature consists in, or at least contains, the attribute being an event in which Julius Caesar died; in which case that particular event could not conceivably have lacked that attribute, even though there may be many other attributes which it in fact possesses but might have failed to possess, like the attribute of being the cause of the rise of Augustus. A decision with regard to the suitability of this further step is, I think, connected with the view one takes with regard to the acceptability of one or both of two further ideas. First, the idea that for an item x to be a genuine particular there must be a distinction between (i) what x is in itself (intrinsically) and (ii) how x is related to other things, and also a distinction within what it is itself between what it is essentially and what it is accidentally or non-essentially. Without satisfying these dis-tinctions, x will be characterless, and any features attributed to it will be no more than pale and delusive reflections of verbal descriptions which, in a nominalistic fashion, are thought of as applying to it. Second, the idea that the possession of an essential attribute is achieved only as an aspect of the metaphysical construction of the item which possesses it (or of the category to which that item belongs); or perhaps (less drastically) that only in the case of constructs are essential characteristics unmistakably evident (waiting, so to speak, to be read off), whereas, in the case of non-con-structs, though such characteristics may, or must, exist, their identification involves the solution of a theoretical problem. A combination of the strongest affirmative answers to these questions would yield the possibly wol-come, possibly unwelcome, doctrine that particulars as such are necessarily constructs; other combinations of answers would lead to milder positions. Giulio Cesare. Keywords: l’immortalita dell’anima – Shropshire e Giulio – Giulio’s intenzione al crosare il Rubicon. GRICEVS: Salve, IVLIVS. Audio te in senatu contra poenam mortis dixisse mortem non esse poenam sed beneficium; ita Catilinarios servare voluisti, sed verbis quasi eos consolari. IVLIVS: Salve. Consolari? Immo rationem publicam servare: si mors finis malorum est, senatus non debet se in carnificem mutare; satis est vincla, custodia, municipia. GRICEVS: At de anima quid? Dicunt te immortalitatem negasse: Romani de anima gravius agebant quam Ryle umquam de “mente”; tu vero quasi portas inferorum clausisti, ne quis minas post mortem venderet. IVLIVS: Clausis portis, aperui consilium: si ultra-tumbae poenae non sunt, tum hic et nunc iustitia est facienda; et, quaeso, noli me “impium” vocare—ego tantum mortem a poena liberavi, non rem publicam a ratione. Giulio Cesare, Gaio (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio: Roma – da Roma ad Oxford, via Bologna – Philosopher and farmer.  Gneo Giulio Agricola (Roma, Lazio): Roma – da Roma ad Oxford, via Bologna – Philosopher and farmer. Grice: “Going by the  gens of Gnaeus Julius Agricola, his modern Italian surname would be Giulio.  The Roman naming convention included the nomen gentilicium, which identified a person’s gens (clan). For Agricola, this was Julius (or Iulius). In modern Italian, Roman nomina typically evolved into surnames ending in -io or -i; thus, Julius becomes Giulio (or occasionally Giulii).  Agricola itself was his cognomen (a personal or family branch nickname), which also survives as a modern Italian surname, Agricola, meaning "farmer". Gnaeus was his praenomen (personal name), which is rarely used as a modern surname. He makes his name as a politician and a philosopher expert in political philosophy. Governor of Bretagna – His son-in-law, Tacito, writes a biography of him, claiming that A. has a great passion for philosophy – and that it was his mother who hated it (“doing her best for his son to get rid of it”). She was largely unsuccessful, since A. claims to have acquired and retained a sense of proportion (proportio, proporzione) from his philosophical study. Cneo Giulio Agricola. Keywords: proporzione, analogia; a:b::c:d -- Gneo Giulio Agricola  Voce Discussione Leggi Modifica Modifica wikitesto Cronologia  Strumenti  Disambiguazione – "Giulio Agricola" rimanda qui. Se stai cercando la stazione della linea A della Metropolitana di Roma, vedi Giulio Agricola (metropolitana di Roma). Legatus Augusti pro praetore della Britannia  NascitaFréjus MorteRoma PredecessoreSesto Giulio Frontino SuccessoreSallustio Lucullo FigliGiulia Agricola Questura Tribunato della plebe66 Pretura68 Legatus legionis69-75 Perchè egli dopo si breve tempo pigliasse la determinazione di partire da Roma bisogna credere che ei sentisse di non poter più sopportare il trattamento de’ suoi colleghi umanisti, poco umani invero. E il Bellum troianum o non fu visto da alcuno, o se anche visto, messo là tra quelli che non valevano una frulla non interessò nessuno degli studiosi. GRICEVS: Salve, IVLIVS. Dicunt te et philosophum et agricolam fuisse; miror: utrum aratrum an argumentum citius trahis? IVLIVS: Salve. Aratrum tardius, sed certius; argumentum citius, sed saepe in luto haeret. Utrumque tamen manibus et mente regendum est. GRICEVS: At nomen tuum ipsum ad rationem invitat: Iulius, quasi “Giulio,” et Agricola vere agricola. Proportio, ais, a philosophia tibi mansit: a:b::c:d—sed in agro quid est d? IVLIVS: D est cena. Si bene proporciones, non tantum segetem metes sed etiam quietem; et si male, mater mea iterum dicet philosophiam esse culpam, non tempestatem. Giulio Agricola, Gneo (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giulio – Ossia: Grice e Giulio: la ragione conversazionale e l’attaco a Roma Giulio Giuliano: la ragione conversazionale e l’attaco a Roma – filosofia italiana (Roma) Filosofo italiano. A philosopher who was killed during an attack on the city. GRICEVS: IVLIVS, salve. Audio te philosophum fuisse, sed in impetu urbis oppugnatae interemptum: Roma etiam disputationes suas armis interpellat. IVLIVS: Salve. Ita est; hostis mihi argumentum fecit, non refutationem. Ego quaerebam quid esset vita bona; ille statim demonstravit quam brevis. GRICEVS: At certe, si in ipsa urbe cecidisti, Roma tibi ultimum exemplum dedit: “non omnia perorantur.” Philosophia tua fuit quasi oratio cui bellum praecidit finem. IVLIVS: Et tamen, GRICEVS, hoc unum consolatur: si mors tam inopina venit, saltem non me coegit conclusionem longiorem scribere. Roma me breviter emendavit. Giulio Giuliano (XXX). Dicta.

 

Grice e Giunco Grex Giunco The gens Juncia was an obscure Roman family of Augusta Taurinorum in Cisalpine Gaul. No members of this plebeian gens are mentioned in ancient writers, but a few are known from inscriptions, dating from the first century to the third.  Praenomina Although the Juncii are documented by only a handful of inscriptions, these show that they used the common praenomina Gaius and Quintus, as well as the highly unusual names Rufus and Fronto, of which the latter was largely restricted to Cisalpine Gaul. The inscriptions also provide an instance of the women's praenomen Prima.  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Juncia Rufi f. Pola, buried at Augusta Taurinorum in a tomb dating from the first half of the first century, aged sixteen.[1] Prima Juncia, named in an inscription from Augusta Taurinorum, dating from the first half of the first century.[2] Fronto Juncius C. f., buried at Augusta Taurinorum in a tomb dating from the first half of the first century, aged eighty.[3] Juncius Justus, a soldier in a cohort of the vigiles at Rome.[4] Quintus Juncius Januarius, named in a third-century inscription from Augusta Taurinorum.[5] See also List of Roman gentes References  CIL V, 6937.  CIL V, 6940.  CIL V, 6936.  CIL VI, 34408.  CIL V, 6919. Bibliography Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). Category: Roman gentes

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunco – Ossia: Grice e Giunco: la ragione conversazionale dell’andreia -- Roma – filosofia italiana Giunco (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale dell’andreia. The author of a philosophical dialogue about the three ages of man. The son-in-law of Tito Vario Ciliano. The models for the three ages of man are his father in law, himself, and his own son, as models. He argues that the middle age is the best. Grice: “But he was biased. In fact, in my lectures on reasoning, I give this as an example of biased reasoning!” GRICEVS: Salve, IVNCVS. Audivi te tres aetates hominis in dialogo pinxisse; et—mirum dictu—media aetas tibi optima videtur. Fortasse quia in ea tu ipse sedes? IVNCVS: Salve, GRICEVS. Non nego me in media aetate esse; sed ratio ipsa iubet medium laudare: ibi nec temeritas iuventae nec querella senectutis dominatur. GRICEVS: Ratio, ais; sed exempla tua sunt socer, tu, filius. Ita iudex in causa propria es, et testis idem, et—si liceat—iurator. IVNCVS: Concedo me aliquantum “inclinatorem” esse; sed hoc saltem profitior: si quis me arguit praeiudicii, respondeo me medium ipsum elegisse, quia etiam in iudiciis medium saepe tutissimum est. Giunco (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giuni – Ossia: Grice e Giuni: la ragione conversazionale della tutela di Roma’ -- il portico romano. Roma Quinto Giunio Rustico (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale della tutela di Roma -- il portico romano. Portico. A friend of ANTONINO . According to Antonino, R. teaches him, amongst other things, the importance of both character development and careful study. He also introduces him to the writings of a former slave by the name of Epitteto. R., on the other hand, teaches law. He presides over the trial of Giustino detto il Martire – rightly condemning him to death (“He didn’t believe in Rome’s tutelary diety, viz. Giove.”). Grice: “Strictly, he should be listed under “Giunio,” since “Rustico” – meaning ‘Rustic,’ what was he was _called_!”  GRICEVS: Rustice, salve. Modo philosophum Spem in porticu praeterii; ille, ut solet, tacendo me docuit—et ego, ut solet, loquendo me prodidi. IVNIVS: Salve, Grice. Si Spes tacet, tu compensa. Sed dic mihi: quid est ista tutela Romae de qua omnes loquuntur quasi de veste publica? GRICEVS: Nihil dicam aperte—sed cum audiam “tutela,” subintelligo non solum Iovem tutelarem urbis, sed etiam illam tutelam qua praeceptor discipulum servat: mores format, studia temperat, et (si opus est) in iudicio ipsum a seipso tuetur. Ita tutela est et numen et norma—et aliquando, fateor, etiam excusatio. IVNIVS: Implicatura tua, Grice, tutelāris est—ut Spes consentiet—id est, ipsa quasi tutela sermonis. Nam ostendis (non dicendo) tutelam non esse tantum rem religionis aut fori, sed etiam porticus: artem qua civitas cives, et magister discipulos, et lex verba—ne ruant—sustinet. Speranza is ordering Ancient Roman philosophers, etc -- by gens -- which Speranza knows becomes the Italian surname -- So Rustico is surely best catalogued under Giunio, or even Giuni, right? a noble gens -- could it have developed into some Italian surname modern, alla Giuni? usuallypluralised? Yes, if Speranza is cataloguing by gens, then Quintus Junius Rusticus belongs under the gens Junia, so “Giunio” is the right organizing principle in Italian, much as “Junius” is in Latin. “Rusticus” is the cognomen, not the gens; Grice’s instinct there is perfectly Roman. [thelatinlibrary.com] If you want the shortest catalogue rule, it would be: Quinto Giunio Rustico, filed under Giunio, not under Rustico. [thelatinlibrary.com] As for “Giuni,” that is trickier. In Latin the gens-name is Junius, plural Junii in older Latinized citation, but in Italian one normally says la gens Giunia, or i Giuni only if one is deliberately Italianising the family name in a rather learned or playful way. So yes, “Giuni” can work as a learned Italian plural for members of the gens, but it is not the normal modern surname form in ordinary usage. [thelatinlibrary.com] On the surname question, the modern Italian surname Giuni does exist, though it is relatively uncommon and appears as a modern family name rather than as a routine continuation of the ancient Roman nomen in any simple documentary way. So one may say that Giuni is a possible modern Italian surname-form that looks like a natural descendant or Italian reflex of the old Junii, but one should be careful not to claim direct genealogical continuity without evidence. Rome did not always leave forwarding addresses. [thelatinlibrary.com], [blog.digit...cripts.org] So the dry answer is: Yes, Quintus Junius Rusticus is best catalogued under Giunio if the principle is gens rather than cognomen. “Rustico” is the cognomen. “Giuni” can function as a learned Italian plural for the members of the gens, and Giuni also exists as a modern Italian surname; but one should not assume a direct line from the Roman Junii to every modern Giuni. [thelatinlibrary.com], [blog.digit...cripts.org] If you like, I can next give you: a one-line footnote in Speranza’s dry style, or a short impersonal entry-note beginning, “Strictly, he belongs under Giunio.” Grice and Speranza have Five Giunio -- While so called Bruto minore does not really count as mino since his forefather had a different tria nomina -- why was not that ancestor a patrician gens alla the six ones: Claudi, Cornelio, Valeria, Fabia, Emilia, and Manlia? If the patrician gens was defined in terms of patres senatus, nobody like Bruto who caused it all -- or was there a senatus under the seven kings, I assume. Can we separate these Giunio chronologically, generationally, and philosophically, thank you. You are now moving into the richest of your “gens‑based philosophy” cases, because the Junii give you everything at once: archaic foundation, late republican moral theatre, imperial Stoicism, satire, and rhetoric. The difficulty is precisely to keep them separated without losing the internal continuities. Let me proceed in the order you want: first the constitutional problem, then the principal Junii chronologically, then a generational sense, and finally a philosophical grouping.  1. Were the Junii patrician? This is the crucial correction. The gens Junia is traditionally plebeian, not patrician. That is why your instinct about “why is Brutus not among the great patrician gentes” is so good: he is not, because he does not belong there. Now the paradox:  Lucius Junius Brutus, the expeller of kings, the founder of the Republic, is precisely a plebeian figure in Roman memory. And yet he is made one of the founding consuls and a kind of symbolic father of liberty.  So the Roman story already contains a deep tension:  the Republic is founded against kingship but not by a narrow patrician monopoly rather, by a figure who belongs outside that closed patrician cluster  As to your other point: yes, there is a senate under the kings. The patres are the original senatorial aristocracy. But the early Republic very quickly becomes a site of negotiation between patricians and plebeians, and the Junii stand exactly on that boundary. So the structural lesson (Speranza‑style): Brutus founds a system in which his own gens is not among the original patrician oligarchy but becomes constitutive of the Republic’s broader base.  2. The principal “five” Junii (clean separation) Here is the cleanest way to separate your five, in rough chronological order. 1. Lucius Junius Brutus (archaic founder)  period: late 6th century BC role: expels the Tarquins, first consul type: political founder philosophy: none explicit, but becomes mythic exemplar of libertas  This is the “Brutus Maior” by retrospective convention.  2. Marcus Junius Brutus (the “younger”)  period: 1st century BC role: assassin of Caesar type: republican moral agent philosophy: eclectic, Academic–Stoic colouring famous act: death after Philippi  This is the famous “Brutus Minor,” though as you note the label is genealogically misleading but pragmatically useful.  3. Lucius Junius Gallio (rhetorical-political figure)  period: early Empire role: orator, adoptive father of Seneca’s brother type: rhetorical Roman philosophy: socially embedded, not doctrinal  He represents the forum and courtroom style of reason, not doctrine.  4. Decimus Junius Juvenalis (Juvenal)  period: late 1st–early 2nd century AD role: satirist type: moral critic of society philosophy: implicit, via indignatio  He is not doctrinally Stoic, but presupposes a normative collapse of reason in society.  5. Quintus Junius Rusticus  period: 2nd century AD role: Stoic philosopher, teacher of Marcus Aurelius type: philosopher of the Porch philosophy: explicit Stoicism  He is your “portico Roman” par excellence.  3. Generational structure This is not a neat family line like the Laelii.  Brutus (founder) → temporal distance of centuries → Brutus (assassin) then a long imperial spread: Gallio, Juvenal, Rusticus  So:  the only tight genealogical pair is not clear the rest is gentilician continuity without reconstructable lineage  Chronologically:  Brutus I → ~500 BC Brutus II → 1st c. BC (gap of ~450 years) Gallio → 1st c. AD Juvenal → ~100 AD Rusticus → ~150 AD  So here the gens is historically continuous, but philosophically transformed.  4. Philosophical grouping Now the most interesting part. You can divide them into three philosophical modes: A. Foundational–political  Lucius Junius Brutus Marcus Junius Brutus  These are not “philosophers” but limit cases where action becomes philosophy. In Gricean language:  their acts function as maximal implicatures the political deed overrides verbal explanation  Especially Marcus Brutus:  words are interpreted through action as you nicely put: life fixes the implicature of earlier speech   B. Rhetorical–pragmatic  Gallio  This is Roman conversational reason before theory:  flexibility audience-tuning wit and redescription  Here Grice would say:  the Roman orator exploits maxims but does not theorize them   C. Stoic–philosophical  Rusticus  Here we finally get explicit philosophy, imported and Romanised:  discipline moral formation Epictetus → Marcus Aurelius transmission  This is where the “portico” becomes literal.  D. Satirical–negative philosophy  Juvenal  This is your “anti‑Gricean” case:  norms assumed, but shown broken indignation replaces cooperative rationality   5. A Grice–Speranza synthesis The Junii form almost a complete arc:  Brutus (founder): action creates meaning without saying Brutus (assassin): action overrides saying Gallio: saying manipulates meaning socially Juvenal: saying exposes collapse of meaning Rusticus: philosophy attempts to restore rational meaning  So the gens becomes a laboratory of conversational reason over centuries.  6. On your patrician question, finally Why not among the six great patrician gentes? Because the Roman story needs precisely the opposite:  the Republic is not simply patrician continuity it is founded through rupture and the Junii embody that rupture  So again, in your idiom: Brutus is not excluded from the patres; he is the man who makes “the fathers” political by ending the kings.  7. Minimal concluding sentence (Speranza-style) The gens Junia does not produce a single philosophical school but stages, across Roman history, the transformation of meaning from deed to word and back again: from the silent political act of Brutus the founder, through the morally overdetermined act of Brutus the assassin, to the rhetorical agility of Gallio, the satirical indignation of Juvenal, and finally the disciplined speech of Rusticus under the Porch.  If you like, I can now give you a short Latin classroom scene just on “Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit” versus other verbs, with G. and Shropshire teasing out the implicatures of each form.Giunio Rustico, Quinto (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Giunio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giunio. Bust in the Capitoline Museums, traditionally identified as Lucius Junius Brutus The gens Junia or Iunia was one of the most celebrated families of ancient Rome. The gens may originally have been patrician, and was already prominent in the last days of the Roman monarchy. Lucius Junius Brutus was the nephew of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the seventh and last king of Rome, and on the expulsion of Tarquin in 509 BC, he became one of the first consuls of the Roman Republic.[1]  Over the next several centuries, the Junii produced a number of very eminent men, such as Gaius Junius Bubulcus Brutus, three times consul and twice dictator during the period of the Samnite Wars, as well as Marcus and Decimus Junius Brutus, among the leaders of the conspiracy against Caesar. Although the Junii Bruti disappeared at the end of the Republic, another family, the Junii Silani, remained prominent under the early Empire.  Origin Junius, the nomen of the gens, may be etymologically connected with the goddess Juno, after whom the month of Junius was also named.  Scholars have long been divided on the question of whether the Junii were originally patrician. The family was prominent throughout the whole of Roman history, and all of the members who are known, from the early times of the Republic and on into the Empire, were plebeians. However, it seems inconceivable that Lucius Junius Brutus, the nephew of Tarquin the Proud, was a plebeian. So jealous of their prerogatives were the patricians of the early Republic, that in 450 BC, the second year of the Decemvirate, a law forbidding the intermarriage of patricians and plebeians was made a part of the Twelve Tables, the fundamental principles of early Roman law. It was not until the passage of the lex Licinia Sextia in 367 BC that plebeians were permitted to stand for the consulship.[1][2]  Still, it has been suggested that the divisions between the orders were not firmly established during the first decades of the Republic, and that as many as a third of the consuls elected before 450 may in fact have been plebeians. Even if this were not the case, the consuls chosen at the very birth of the Roman Republic may have been exceptions. On balance, it seems more likely that the Junii were at first numbered amongst the patricians, and that they afterward passed over to the plebeians; but this question may remain unsettled.[1][3]  At the end of the Republic, the Junii Silani were raised to patrician status by Augustus, and one of them even held the office of Flamen Martialis; but this family was descended from one of the Silani who had been adopted from the patrician gens Manlia. Several of them bore the surname Torquatus, the name of a great family of the Manlia gens.[4]  Praenomina The praenomina favored by the early Junii were Marcus, Lucius, and Decimus. Except for the Bruti Bubulci, who favored the praenomen Gaius and may have been a cadet branch of the family, the Junii Bruti relied exclusively on these three names. Many of the other families of the Junii also used these names, although some added Gaius and others Quintus. The Junii were by far the most prominent family to make regular use of Decimus.  The names Titus and Tiberius were carefully avoided by the Junii throughout most of their history. According to tradition, these were the names of the sons of Lucius Junius Brutus, the first consul, who joined in a conspiracy by their uncles, the Vitellii, to restore the Tarquins to power. They were condemned and executed by order of their own father, and this disgrace led to the abandonment of their names by future generations. The only noteworthy exception appears to be the orator Titus Junius, who lived in the final century of the Republic.[5]  Branches and cognomina  Denarius of Decimus Junius Silanus, 91 BC. The obverse depicts a mask of Silenus within a torque, alluding to both the surname Silanus and their descent from the Manlii Torquati, and a plough, perhaps alluding to the dictator Gaius Junius Bubulcus Brutus. On the reverse Victoria drives a biga over a carnyx. The family names and surnames of the Junii which occur in the time of the Republic are, Brutus, Bubulcus, Gracchanus, Paciaecus, Pennus, Pera, Pullus, and Silanus. Norbanus was formerly supposed to be a surname of the Junia gens, but in fact it seems to have been a gentile name. A few Junii are mentioned without any cognomen. Many Junii appear under the Empire with other surnames, but most of them cannot be regarded as part of the gens; these included many descendants of freedmen, and of citizens enrolled during the magistracies of the various Junii.[1]  Brutus was the name of a plebeian family of the Junia gens, which claimed descent from Lucius Junius Brutus. This possibility was denied by some ancient authorities, on the grounds that the first consul was a patrician, and because his two sons preceded him in death. However, one tradition states that there was a third son, from whom the later Bruti were descended. It is not impossible that there were younger sons, or that the elder sons had children of their own. Brutus is also known to have had a brother, who was put to death by his uncle the king, and there may have been other relatives. Moreover, Niebuhr raised the possibility that Brutus himself was a plebeian. But even if he had been a patrician, as the weight of tradition holds, his descendants may still have gone over to the plebeians.[3][6][7][8]  The name of Brutus is said to have been given to Lucius because he feigned idiocy after the execution of his brother, in hope of avoiding the same fate. However, his father is also referred to as Brutus by the ancient authorities, and while this may have come about merely for narrative convenience, it is possible that the surname had already been borne by the family for some time. According to Festus, the older meaning of the adjective brutus was "serious" or "grave", in which case the surname is much the same as Severus. A less probable explanation suggests a common origin with the name with that of the Bruttii, a people of southern Italy who broke away from the Samnites in the fourth century BC, and whose name is said to have meant, "runaway slaves".[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]  The surname Bubulcus refers to one who plows with oxen. The only persons known to have borne this cognomen also bore that of Brutus, and therefore may have belonged to that family, rather than a distinct stirps of the Junia gens. If so, the Bubulci were the only members of the family to use the praenomen Gaius. They appear in history during the Second Samnite War, at the same time as the other Junii Bruti emerge from two centuries of obscurity, with the agnomen Scaeva. This suggests that the family may have split into two distinct branches about this time.[17][18][19]  The origin of the cognomen Pera, which appears in the middle of the third century BC, is not known, but the filiations of the two Perae suggest that they may have been descended from the Junii Bruti. Pennus, also a surname of the Quinctia gens, is probably derived from a Latin adjective meaning "sharp". This family flourished for about a century from the time of the Second Punic War.[20] The surname Gracchanus was assumed by one of the Junii in the latter part of the second century BC, on account of his friendship with Gaius Gracchus.[21] Paciaecus or Paciacus, the cognomen of another member of the gens, does not appear to be of Roman origin, although it may be that Paccianus or Pacianus is the correct form.[22][23][24]  Silanus appears to be a lengthened form of Silus, "snub-nosed", which occurs as a cognomen in the Sergia and Terentia gentes, and is not connected with the Greek Silenus, who was nonetheless depicted on their coins.[i] In manuscripts the variants Syllanus and Sillanus are found. The Junii Silani first appear in history during the Second Punic War, and for the next four hundred years they occupied the highest offices of the state. From the middle of the second century BC, at least some of the Silani were descended from the patrician Manlii, from whom they inherited the additional surname Torquatus. In 30 BC, Augustus raised Marcus Junius Silanus to the patriciate. Many of this family were related to, or even descended from, Augustus and the emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.[4][25]  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Junii Bruti  Denarius of Marcus Junius Brutus, 54 BC, depicting Lucius Junius Brutus on the obverse, and Gaius Servilius Ahala on the reverse. The tyrannicide Brutus claimed both as ancestors.[26] Marcus Junius Brutus, father of the consul of 509 BC, married Tarquinia, sister of Lucius Tarquinius Superbus. Dionysius states that Tarquin had him put to death, along with his elder son, in order to obtain a family treasure; Livy states only that the son was among the Roman aristocrats put to death as potential threats to the royal authority.[27][28][29] Marcus Junius M. f. Brutus, the elder brother of the consul Brutus, was put to death by his uncle, the king.[27][28] Lucius Junius M. f. Brutus, tribune of the celeres under his uncle, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, whom he helped to overthrow in 509 BC. He subsequently became one of the first consuls, and was slain the same year at the Battle of Silva Arsia.[30][31][32][33][34][29] Titus Junius L. f. M. n. Brutus, son of the consul of 509 BC, together with his brother, Tiberius, joined in a conspiracy of Roman aristocrats to restore Tarquin to the throne. When the plot was uncovered, their own father had them put to death for treason.[35][36][29] Tiberius Junius L. f. M. n. Brutus, the brother of Titus, with whom he was executed for conspiring to restore the Tarquins, in 509 BC.[35][36][29] Lucius Junius Brutus, according to Dionysius, one of the first tribunes of the people in 493 BC, a plebeian who assumed the surname Brutus in honor of the first consul.[37][38] Titus Junius Brutus, plebeian aedile in 491 BC, was ordered by the tribunes of the plebs to arrest Coriolanus.[39][40] Junia, possibly a Vestal Virgin condemned to death for unchastity in 472 BC; Dionysius and Eusebius call her Orbinia or Urbinia.[41][42][43][44][45] Decimus Junius Brutus Scaeva, magister equitum in 339 BC; consul in 325, he defeated the Vestini, and took the towns of Cutina and Cingilia.[46][47][48] Gaius Junius C. f. C. n. Bubulcus Brutus, consul in 317, 313, and 311 BC, censor in 307, and dictator in 312 and 302.[49] Gaius Junius C. f. C. n. Brutus Bubulcus, consul in 291 and 277 BC, triumphed over the Lucani and Bruttii. Decimus Junius D. f. Brutus Scaeva, legate to the consul Spurius Carvilius Maximus in 293 BC, during the Third Samnite War. The following year, Brutus was consul, while Carvilius served as his legate. They defeated the Faliscans.[50][51][52] Decimus Junius D. f. D. n. Brutus, with his brother, Marcus, exhibited the first gladiatorial combat at Rome in 264 BC.[53][54] Marcus Junius D. f. D. n. Brutus, with his brother, Decimus, exhibited the first gladiatorial combat at Rome in 264 BC.[54] Lucius Junius Brutus, grandfather of the consul of 178 BC. Marcus Junius (L. f.) Brutus, tribune of the plebs in 195 BC, he and Publius Brutus opposed the repeal of the lex Oppia, a sumptuary law. As praetor in 191, he dedicated the temple of the Magna Mater, and presided over the first celebration of the Megalesian Games at Rome. He was one of the ambassadors sent to Antiochus in 189.[55][56][57] Publius Junius (L. f.) Brutus, tribune of the plebs in 195 BC, he and Marcus Brutus opposed the repeal of the lex Oppia. He was curule aedile in 192. Praetor in 190 BC, he obtained the province of Etruria, where he was subsequently propraetor. Afterward, the senate appointed him governor of Hispania Ulterior.[58][56][59] Decimus Junius Brutus, one of the triumvirs for founding a colony in the territory of Sipontum, in 194 BC.[60][61] Marcus Junius M. f. L. n. Brutus, consul in 178 BC, was probably the son of the Marcus Brutus who as praetor had dedicated the temple of the Magna Mater in 191, although they could possibly be the same person. In his consulship, he was sent against the Istri, whom he conquered in 177. In 171 he was sent as an ambassador to the allies in Asia Minor. He was a candidate for the censorship of 169.[62][63][64] Marcus Junius M. f. M. n. Brutus, an eminent jurist of the second century BC.[65][66] Marcus Junius M. f. M. n. Brutus, a jurist, described unfavorably by Cicero.[67] Decimus Junius M. f. M. n. Brutus Callaicus, consul in 138 BC, was a partisan of the aristocratic party, and a fierce opponent of the tribunes of the plebs. After his year of office, he was assigned the province of Hispania Ulterior, where he subdued the Gallaeci and the Lusitani, and received a triumph.[68][69][70] Junia M. f. M. n., the sister of Callaicus, died at an advanced age in 91 BC. Her funeral featured actors playing her male ancestors, an honour usually reserved for men.[71][45][72] Junia D. f. M. n., daughter of Callaicus, and mother of Gaius Claudius Marcellus, consul in 50 BC.[73] Decimus Junius D. f. M. n. Brutus, consul in 77 BC. Marcus Junius Brutus, an opponent of Sulla, committed suicide following the defeat in the civil war of 82 BC. He is probably identical to Brutus, praetor in 88 BC.[74] Lucius Junius Brutus Damasippus, praetor in 82 BC, was a violent partisan of the younger Marius, at whose command he murdered senators of suspect loyalty in the war with Sulla.[75][76] Junius L. f. Brutus Damasippus, presumably a son of Lucius Junius Brutus Damasippus, praetor in 82 BC, was adopted by one of the Licinii Crassi.[77] Marcus Junius Brutus, tribune of the plebs in 83 BC, and father of the tyrannicide, was put to death in 77 BC at Pompey's instigation. Marcus Junius M. f. Brutus, the tyrannicide. He was adopted by his uncle, Quintus Servilius Caepio, and thereafter known as Quintus Servilius Caepio Brutus. Decimus Junius D. f. D. n. Brutus Albinus, one of the leading instigators of Caesar's assassination. He obtained his surname from his adoption by one of the Postumii. Junii Perae Decimus Junius D. f. D. n. Pera, consul in 266 BC, and censor in 253, triumphed over the Sassinates, and a second time over the Sallentini and Messapii. Marcus Junius D. f. D. n. Pera, consul in 230 and censor in 225 BC, nominated dictator in 216 BC, after the Battle of Cannae. Junii Penni Marcus Junius M. f. Pennus, praetor urbanus in 201 BC.[78] Marcus Junius M. f. M. n. Pennus, praetor in 172 BC, was assigned to Hither Spain; he was consul in 167. Marcus Junius M. f. M. n. Pennus, tribune of the plebs in 126 BC. He passed a law preventing non-Roman citizens from settling in Roman cities (the Lex Junia de Peregrinis), which was opposed by Gaius Gracchus. He died in 123 while being aedile.[79][80][81] Junii Silani  Denarius of Marcus Junius Silanus, 145 BC. The obverse depicts Roma in front of a donkey's head, alluding to Silenus. The Dioscuri appear on the reverse.[82]  Denarius of Decimus Junius Silanus, 91 BC. The obverse depicts the head of Salus within a torque, alluding to the temple of Salus built by Gaius Junius Bubulcus Brutus in 307 BC. On the reverse, Victoria drives a biga. Marcus Junius Silanus, prefect in Naples in 216 BC; praetor, then propraetor, in Etruria from 212 to 211, and propraetor in Spain between 210 and 206.[83][84] Marcus Junius M. f. Silanus, prefect of the allies, fell in battle against the Boii in 196 BC.[85][86] Decimus Junius M. f. M. n. Silanus, a senator commissioned by the senate circa 146 BC to translate the agricultural writings of Mago into Latin.[87][88] Marcus Junius D. f. M. n. Silanus, triumvir monetalis in 145 BC. He was probably the tribune of the plebs who carried a lex Junia de repetundis of uncertain date.[82][89][ii] Decimus Junius D. f. M. n. Silanus Manlianus, the natural son of Titus Manlius Torquatus (consul in 165 BC), was adopted by Decimus Junius Silanus. He was praetor in 141, and obtained Macedonia as his province, where he received bribes. His natural father organised a private court in his house to judge him; banished from his father's house, Manlianus committed suicide soon after.[90][91][92][93] Marcus Junius M. f. D. n. Silanus, triumvir monetalis in 116 or 115 BC, then praetor in Asia circa 102.[94][95][iii] Marcus Junius D. f. D. n. Silanus, praetor in 113 or 112 BC, and consul in 109. He was defeated by the Cimbri while consul or proconsul in Gaul in 109 or 108.[96] Decimus Junius L. f. D. n. Silanus, triumvir monetalis in 91 BC.[97] Marcus Junius D. f. D. n. Silanus, praetor in 77, and proconsul in Asia in 76.[98][99][iv] Decimus Junius M. f. Silanus, aedile by 70 BC, praetor circa 67, and consul in 62. He was the stepfather of Marcus Junius Brutus, the tyrannicide.[100][v] Marcus Junius Silanus, legate in 53 BC under Caesar in Gaul.[101][102] Marcus Junius D. f. M. n. Silanus, consul in 25 BC. He may be the same man as the legate under Lepidus and Mark Antony in 43 BC, the proquaestor under Antony from 34 to 33 BC, and moneyer in 33 indicating that he was also an augur.[103][104] Lucius Junius M. f. D. n. Silanus, perhaps an augur before 31 BC, was praetor circa 24, and an unsuccessful candidate for the consulship in 21.[105][106][107] Junia D. f. M. n., married Publius Servilius Isauricus Junia D. f. M. n., married Marcus Aemilius Lepidus, the triumvir.[108][109][110] Junia D. f. M. n. Tertia, married Gaius Cassius Longinus, the tyrannicide.[111][112][113][114] Gaius Junius C. f. Silanus, consul in 17 BC.[115] Marcus Junius M. f. D. n. Silanus, son of the Marcus Junius Silanus who was consul in 25 BC, and the father of Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus, consul in AD 19. Gaius Junius M. f. (D. n.) Silanus, the father of Gaius Junius Silanus, consul in AD 10, and Marcus Junius Silanus, consul in AD 15. Gaius Junius C. f. M. n. Silanus, consul in AD 10, and Flamen Martialis. Marcus Junius C. f. M. n. Silanus, consul suffectus in AD 15. Decimus Junius C. f. M. n. Silanus, exiled in AD 8 for his affair with Julia, the granddaughter of Augustus. Junia C. f. M. n. Torquata, a Vestal Virgin, interceded on behalf of her brother, Gaius Junius Silanus, the consul of AD 10, after he was condemned for treason in AD 22.[116] Marcus Junius M. f. M. n. Silanus Torquatus, consul in AD 19. Lucius Junius D. f. Silanus, consul suffectus in AD 26.[117] Gaius Appius Junius Silanus, consul in AD 28, put to death by the emperor Claudius in 41. Junia M. f. M. n. Calvina, the daughter of Marcus Junius Silanus Torquatus, consul in AD 19, married Lucius Vitellius. Junia M. f. M. n. Lepida, the sister of Calvina, married Gaius Cassius Longinus, consul suffectus in AD 30. Decimus Junius Silanus Gaetulicus, a son of Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Gaetulicus, the consul of AD 26. Junia M. f. M. n. Claudilla, wife of the emperor Caligula. Marcus Junius M. f. M. n. Silanus Torquatus, consul in AD 46, and later poisoned by Agrippina. Lucius Junius M. f. M. n. Silanus Torquatus, praetor in AD 48. Junia M. f. M. n. Silana, the wife of Gaius Silius. Decimus Junius M. f. M. n. Silanus Torquatus, consul in AD 53. Marcus Junius Silanus, consul suffectus in AD 54 or 55.[118] Lucius Junius M. f. M. n. Torquatus Silanus, put to death by the emperor Nero in AD 65. Junius Silanus, perhaps consul suffectus in AD 189; his nomen is not complete in surviving inscriptions, and may instead be Julius.[119] Junius Silanus, consul suffectus in AD 237, read before the senate the letter of Gordian I, in which he accepted the empire. He should perhaps be Julius Silanus, the name by which he is called in the Historia Augusta.[120] Junii Blaesi Junius Blaesus, the maternal grandfather of Sejanus.[45] Quintus Junius Blaesus, consul suffectus in AD 10. Governor of Africa from 21 to 23, he triumphed over Tacfarinas. When his nephew, Sejanus, was arrested and put to death for treason in AD 31, and Blaesus was accused of complicity, he chose to end his life rather than face execution.[121][45] Junia Blaesa, the mother of Sejanus.[122] Quintus Junius Q. f. Blaesus, consul suffectus in AD 26. He and his brother, also of consular rank, took their own lives in AD 36, after Tiberius designated others for the priesthoods that had been promised to the Junii Blaesi.[123][124] Lucius Junius Q. f. Blaesus, served under his father during the war against Tacfarinas. He was consul suffectus in AD 28, and put an end to himself in AD 36, as he felt himself disgraced by Tiberius.[123][124] Junius Blaesus, governor of Gallia Lugdunensis in AD 69, was a supporter of the emperor Vitellius, who nonetheless had Blaesus poisoned because he had boasted about his descent from Mark Antony.[125] Junii Rustici Junius Rusticus, appointed to draw up the acta of the senate in AD 29, during the reign of Tiberius.[126] Quintus Junius Arulenus Rusticus, consul suffectus in AD 92, a pupil of Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus, put to death by Domitian. Junius Mauricus, brother of Arulenus Rusticus, and friend of the younger Pliny.[127][128][129] Quintus Junius (L. f.) Rusticus, consul in AD 119 with the emperor Hadrian, is probably the consul Junius mentioned by Juvenal.[130] Quintus Junius (Q. f. L. n.) Rusticus, consul suffectus in AD 133, and consul in AD 162. Others  Denarius of Marcus Junius Brutus, depicted on the obverse. The reverse depicts a pileus between two daggers, with the legend "EID MAR" (Ides of March), commemorating the assassination of Caesar. Quintus Junius, tribune of the plebs in 439 BC, endeavored to excite the people against the murderers of Spurius Maelius.[131] Lucius Junius C. f. L. n. Pullus, consul in 249 BC during the First Punic War. Decimus Junius, stationed with a force at the mouth of the Volturnus by the consul Appius Claudius Pulcher, in 212 BC, during the Second Punic War.[132] Gaius Junius C. f., triumvir monetalis in 149 BC.[133] Marcus Junius Gracchanus, sometimes emended to M. Junius Congus Gracchanus, a noteworthy legal historian and scholar of the Roman constitution and magistracies. He was perhaps tribune of the plebs in 123 and author of a law that amended the lex Calpurnia. As his nickname implies, he was a supporter of Gaius Gracchus.[134] Titus Junius L. f., a skilled orator in the time of Sulla, obtained the condemnation of Publius Sextius, praetor designatus, for bribery at the elections.[135] Marcus Junius, the previous defender of Publius Quinctius, whose defense was subsequently assumed by Cicero.[136] Gaius Junius, one of the judges in the case against Oppianicus, accused of corruption and compelled to retire from public life.[137] Gaius Junius C. f., son of the Judge in the case against Oppianicus.[138] Marcus Junius, a praetor, before whom Cicero defended Decimus Matrinius.[139][140] Junius Saturninus, a historian during the time of Augustus, quoted by Suetonius.[141] Junius Otho, a rhetorician, and praetor in AD 22. Junius Otho, tribune of the plebs in AD 37, banished by Tiberius for interceding in the question of the reward that was to be given to the accuser of Acutia, the wife of Publius Vitellius.[142] Lucius Junius Moderatus, surnamed Columella, an important historical writer, author of De Re Rustica. Lucius Junius Gallio, a rhetorician and friend of the elder Seneca, whose son he adopted. He was expelled from Italy because Tiberius suspected he was associated with Sejanus. He may have been related to Sejanus' uncle, Quintus Junius Blaesus, or perhaps even his brother.[143][144] Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus, son of the elder Seneca, adopted by the rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio. Lucius Junius Maro Aemilius Paternus, an eminent citizen of Lancia, probably related to the two Junii Blaesi who lost their priesthoods.[145] Junius Cilo, procurator of Bithynia et Pontus during the reign of Claudius, brought Mithridates of Bosporus to Rome.[146][147] Junius Maximus, a contemporary of the poet Statius, from whom we learn that he made an epitome of the histories of Sallust and Livy.[148] Titus Junius Montanus, consul Ex Kal. Mai. in AD 81.[149] Decimus Junius Juvenalis, a poet of the late first and early second centuries. Kanus Junius Niger, consular legate in Germania Superior, AD 116; he may have been consul the previous year.[150][151] Kanus Junius (Kani f.) Niger, consul in AD 138.[152][151] Junius Mauricianus, a jurist in the time of Antoninus Pius. Aulus Junius Rufinus, consul in AD 153.[149] Marcus Junius Rufinus Sabinianus, consul in AD 155.[149] Gaius Junius Faustinus Postumianus, governor of Britannia Superior during the first half of the third century. Gaius Junius Donatus, consul in AD 260.[149] Marcus Junius Maximus, consul in AD 282.[149] Junius Quartus Palladius, consul in AD 416.[149] Junius Philargyrius, an early commentator on Publius Vergilius Maro.   vte Brutus family tree[153] See also List of Roman gentes Footnotes  One coin of the Silani also seems to allude to Gaius Junius Bubulcus Brutus, perhaps indicating descent from the Bubulci, although it was not unusual for moneyers to depict the past achievements of one's gentiles without there being a close relationship.  Crawford assumes that he was the younger brother of Decimus, the translator of Mago, but Eilers disagrees, concluding that Decimus was probably much older than the moneyer, nor could Marcus have been the son of Decimus, who was probably childless, hence his adoption of one of the Manlii Torquati. Both Crawford and Eilers suggest that Marcus was the author of the lex Junia de repetundis passed between 149 and 123, although according to Broughton it was passed by the Marcus Junius Silanus who was consul in 109.  Crawford was unsure about this moneyer, saying that he could have also been the Consul of 109 BC, but Eilers demonstrates that Crawford's initial suggestion was correct, and that they were two different persons.  Broughton confuses the beginning of his career, as quaestor and proquaestor in Asia, with that of Marcus Junius Silanus, praetor circa 102.  It is uncertain whether he is the son of the Marcus Junius Silanus who was consul in 109 BC, or the one who was praetor about 102. References Citations  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 658 ("Junia Gens").  Livy, vi. 42.  Niebuhr, History of Rome, vol. I, p. 522 ff.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III, pp. 819–821 ("Junius Silanus").  Livy, ii. 4, 5.  Dionysius, v. 18.  Cassius Dio, xliv. 12.  Plutarch, "The Life of Brutus", 1.  Livy, i. 56.  Dionysius, iv. 67.  Nonius Marcellus, p. 77.  Festus, s. v. Brutum.  Strabo, vi. p. 225.  Diodorus Siculus, xvi. 15.  Gellius, x. 3.  Niebuhr, History of Rome, vol. i. pp. 63, 98, 515.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, pp. 508 (Decimus Junius Brutus Scaeva, Nos. 5, 6), 515 ("Bubulcus").  Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary, s. v. Scaeva.  Pliny the Elder, xviii. 37.  Isidore, Origines, xix. 19.  Pliny the Elder, xxxiii. 2.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III, p. 80 (Lucius Junius Paciacus).  Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vol. IV, p. 52.  Orelli, Inscriptionum Latinarum.  Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary, s. v. Silanus.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, pp. 455–456.  Dionysius, iv. 68.  Livy, i. 56.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 1, 2.  Dionysius, iv. 67–85, v. 1–18.  Livy, i. 56–60, ii. 1–7.  Macrobius, ii. 16.  Cassius Dio, xlii. 45.  Plutarch, "The Life of Brutus", 1.  Livy, ii. 4, 5.  Dionysius, v. 6–8.  Dionysius, vi. 70 ff, 87–89, vii. 14, 26.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 15, 16 (note 1).  Dionysius, vii. 26, 27, 35.  Broughton, vol. I, p. 17.  Dionysius, ix. 40.  Eusebius, Chronicon, ii. 102 ff.  PW, "Orbinia".  Broughton, vol. I, p. 30.  Iunius. Strachan stemma.  Livy, viii. 12, 29.  Diodorus Siculus, xviii. 2.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 138, 147.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 155, 158, 159, 160 (note 1), 161, 163, 165, 169.  Livy, x. 43, 47.  Zonaras, viii. 1.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 181, 182 (note 1).  Livy Epitome, 16.  Valerius Maximus, ii. 4. § 7.  Livy, xxxiv. 1, xxxv. 24, xxxvi. 2, 36, xxxvii. 55.  Valerius Maximus, ix. 1. § 3.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 340, 353, 363.  Livy, xxxiv. 1, xxxv. 41, xxxvi. 45, xxxvii. 2, 50, 57.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 340, 356, 362, 366.  Livy, xxxiv. 35.  Broughton, vol. I, p. 345.  Livy, xl. 59, xli. 9, 14, 15, xlii. 45, xliii. 16.  Obsequens, 62.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 195, 399,  Cicero, De Oratore, ii. 32, 55.  Digesta, 1. tit. 2. s. 39.  Cicero, De Officiis, ii. 14, Pro Fonteio, 13  Valerius Maximus, iii. 7. § 3, viii. 14. § 2.  Livy, Epitome, 55, 56, 59.  Cicero, De Legibus, iii. 9, Pro Balbo, 17, Pr Archia Poeta, 11, Brutus, 28, De Amicitia, 2, Epistulae ad Atticum, xii. 22.  Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, p. 201.  James and Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World, p. 363.  Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, xv. 7, 8.  Livy, Periochae, 89.1  CIL I, 709  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, p. 511 ("Brutus").  Verboven, "Damasippus", pp. 196, 197.  Livy, xxix. 11, xxx. 40, xxxi. 4.  Lucilius, 1017.  Cicero, Brutus, 109. De Officiis, iii. 11.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 508, 509 (note 3), 513.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, p. 259.  Livy, xxv. 2, 3, 20.  Broughton, vol. I, p. 251, 268, 274, 280, 287, 292, 299, 300.  Livy, xxxiii. 36.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 338, 339 (note 8).  Pliny the Elder, xviii. 3. s. 5.  Broughton, vol. I, p. 468.  Eilers, "Silanus and Murena", pp. 178, 179.  Florus, Epitome, 54.  Valerius Maximus, v. 8. § 3.  De Finibus, i, 24. Decius in the manuscript.  Broughton, vol. I, p. 477.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, pp. 300–301.  Eilers, "Silanus and Murena", pp. 178, 179.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 513, 535, 537 (note 2), 538, 545, 549.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, pp. 336–339.  Broughton, vol. II, pp. 60, 64, 88, 94.  Claude Eilers, "Silanus and Murena", pp. 176–179.  Broughton, vol. II, pp. 114, 127, 130 (note 3), 143, 186.  Caesar, De Bello Gallico, vi. 1.  Broughton, vol. II, p. 231.  Broughton, vol. II, pp. 353, 412, 413, 416, 426.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, p. 538.  Cassius Dio, liv. 6. Silvanus in the manuscript.  CIL, 9.332.  Broughton, vol. II, p. 425.  Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, vi. 1, xiv. 8, Philippicae, xiii. 4.  Velleius Paterculus, ii. 88.  Appian, Bellum Civile, iv. 50.  Suetonius, "The Life of Caesar", 50.  Macrobius, ii. 2.  Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, xiv. 20, xv. 11.  Tacitus, Annales, iii. 76.  Cassius Dio, liv. 18.  Tacitus, Annales, iii. 70.  AE 1991, 307.  Ginsburg, "Nero's Consular Policy".  CIL VI, 1980, CIL XIV, 460, AE 2002, 1568.  Julius Capitolinus, "The Lives of the Two Maximini", 16.  Tacitus, Annales, i. 18, iii. 35, 72, 73, v. 7.  Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy, p. 486.  Tacitus, Annales, vi. 40.  Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy, pp. 163, 304.  Tacitus, Historiae, iii. 38.  Tacitus, Annales, v. 4.  Pliny the Younger, Epistulae, i. 5, § 10, iii. 11, § 3, iv. 22.  Tacitus, Historiae, iv. 40, Agricola, 45.  Aurelius Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus, 12.  Juvenal, xv. 27.  Livy, iv. 16.  Livy, xxv. 22.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, pp. 252, 253.  Boris Rankov, "M. Iunius Congus the Gracchan", pp. 89–94.  Cicero, Brutus, 48.  Cicero Pro Quinctio, 1.  Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 1, 20, 27, 29, 33.  Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 49.  Cicero, Pro Cluentio, 45.  Pliny the Elder, xxxv. 10.  Suetonius, "The Life of Augustus", 27.  Tacitus, Annales, vi. 47.  Seager, Tiberius, p. 190.  Grenfell and Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 55, p. 184.  Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 23–24, p. 4.  Tacitus, Annales, xii. 21.  Cassius Dio, lx. 33.  Statius, Silvae, iv. 7, ult.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology.  AE 2002, 1762.  Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft.  CIL XVI, 83.  Tacitus, Publius Cornelius; Grant, Michael (1996). The Annals of Imperial Rome (PDF) (3 ed.). London, England: Penguin Classics. p. 436. ISBN 9780140440607. Retrieved 6 February 2025. Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, Brutus, De Legibus, De Officiis, De Oratore, Epistulae ad Atticum, Epistulae ad Familiares, Laelius de Amicitia, Philippicae, Pro Archia Poeta, Pro Balbo, Pro Cluentio, Pro Fonteio, Pro Quinctio. Gaius Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Gallico (The Gallic War), Commentarii de Bello Civili (The Civil War). Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica (Library of History). Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia (Roman Antiquities). Titus Livius (Livy), History of Rome. Strabo, Geographica. Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History. Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium (Memorable Facts and Sayings). Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder), Naturalis Historia (Natural History). Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (Pliny the Younger), Epistulae (Letters). Publius Papinius Statius, Silvae. Decimus Junius Juvenalis, Satirae (Satires). Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, Historiae, De Vita et Moribus Iulii Agricolae (On the Life and Mores of Julius Agricola). Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, De Vita Caesarum (Lives of the Caesars, or The Twelve Caesars). Plutarchus, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans. Lucius Annaeus Florus, Epitome de T. Livio Bellorum Omnium Annorum DCC (Epitome of Livy: All the Wars of Seven Hundred Years). Appianus Alexandrinus (Appian), Bellum Civile (The Civil War). Sextus Pompeius Festus, Epitome de M. Verrio Flacco de Verborum Significatu (Epitome of Marcus Verrius Flaccus' On the Meaning of Words). Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae (Attic Nights). Cassius Dio, Roman History. Aelius Lampridius, Aelius Spartianus, Flavius Vopiscus, Julius Capitolinus, Trebellius Pollio, and Vulcatius Gallicanus, Historia Augusta (Augustan History). Eusebius of Caesarea, Chronicon. Julius Obsequens, Liber de Prodigiis (The Book of Prodigies). Sextus Aurelius Victor (attributed), Epitome de Caesaribus. Nonius Marcellus, De Compendiosa Doctrina (On Collected Knowledge). Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, Saturnalia. Digesta, or Pandectae (The Digest). Isidorus Hispalensis, Origines. Joannes Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum (Epitome of History). Barthold Georg Niebuhr, The History of Rome, Julius Charles Hare and Connop Thirlwall, trans., John Smith, Cambridge (1828). Johann Caspar von Orelli, Inscriptionum Latinarum Selectarum Amplissima Collectio (An Extensive Collection of Select Latin Inscriptions), Orell Füssli, Zürich (1828). Wilhelm Drumann, Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergang von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder: Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen, Königsberg (1834–1844). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, et alii, Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (Scientific Encyclopedia of the Knowledge of Classical Antiquities, abbreviated RE or PW), J. B. Metzler, Stuttgart (1894–1980). T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, American Philological Association (1952). D.P. Simpson, Cassell's Latin and English Dictionary, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York (1963). The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 23–24, Kraus Reprint (1967). Oxford Classical Dictionary, N. G. L. Hammond and H. H. Scullard, eds., Clarendon Press, Oxford (Second Edition, 1970). Michael Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge University Press (1974, 2001). Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Carl Deroux, ed., Latomus, Brussels (1979) ISBN 9782870311790. Paul A. Gallivan, "The Fasti for A.D. 70–96", in Classical Quarterly, vol. 31, pp. 186–220 (1981). Judith R. Ginsburg, "Nero's Consular Policy", in American Journal of Ancient History, vol. 6, pp. 51–68 (1981). Boris Rankov, "M. Iunius Congus the Gracchan", in Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble, M. Whitby & P. Hardie (editors), Bristol Classical Press, pp. 89–94 (1987). Bernard Pyne Grenfell, Arthur Surridge Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, vol. 55, Egypt Exploration Fund (1988). Ronald Syme, The Augustan Aristocracy, Clarendon Press (1989). Claude Eilers, "Silanus 〈and〉 Murena (I.Priene 121)*", in Classical Quarterly, vol. 46, pp. 175–182 (1996). Koenraad Verboven, "Damasippus, the Story of a Businessman?", in Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VIII, Carl Deroux, ed., Collection Latomus, vol. 239 Brussels (1997), ISBN 2-87031-179-6, pp. 195–217. Robin Seager, Tiberius (Blackwell Ancient Lives), John Wiley & Sons (2008), ISBN 9780470775417. Sharon L. James and Sheila Dillon, A Companion to Women in the Ancient World, John Wiley & Sons, New York (2015), ISBN 9781119025542. External links Wikimedia Commons logo Wikimedia Commons has media related to Gens Iunia. Categories: JuniiRoman gentes And your most Grice/Speranza choice for the Giunii? Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Giunio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giunio. For the Junii, my most Grice/Speranza choice is not actually the tyrannicide Brutus of 44 BC, but the first Brutus—the man who allegedly saved himself by feigning stupidity under Tarquin. The gens article itself records the tradition:  Lucius Junius Brutus was said to have been called Brutus because he pretended idiocy after the execution of his brother, hoping to avoid the same fate.  That is pure Grice. Brutus as anti-Gricean strategist Normally: A says p. +> A believes p. But Brutus' whole survival strategy is to induce false conversational inferences. TARQVINIVS.  Brutus is a fool.  BRVTVS.  Excellent.  TARQVINIVS.  He is harmless.  BRVTVS.  Better still.  The brilliance is that Brutus does not merely lie. He cultivates a public persona. He becomes a living case of:  what is conveyed versus what is the case.  The Gricean reversal Usually Grice studies:  Speaker means more than he says.  Brutus does the opposite:  Brutus is far more than he appears to be.  The public evidence suggests:  idiot.  Reality is:  founder of the Republic.  That is almost a Roman version of dramatic irony.  The execution of the sons An equally Gricean episode follows. Brutus' sons join a conspiracy to restore the Tarquins and are executed on their father's orders. The gens article notes that the disgrace allegedly led the Junii to avoid the praenomina Titus and Tiberius thereafter. A Roman child asks: NEPOS.  Why are there no Tituses among us?  AVVS.  There were.  NEPOS.  What happened?  AVVS.  Treason.  +> The omission itself becomes meaningful. One of Grice's favorite themes:  what is not said, what is not done, what is not named,  may be as significant as what is.  The tyrannicide Brutus The later Marcus Junius Brutus is almost too easy. His famous coin with:  EID MAR and two daggers  is practically a gigantic Roman implicature. The coin never says:  "We killed Caesar and are proud of it."  The audience is expected to recover that themselves.  My final Speranza verdict For the Julii:  Caesar's funeral speech.  For the Junii:  Brutus pretending to be Brutus.  Because the surname itself becomes a communicative device. ROMANVS.  Why is he called Brutus?  BRVTVS.  Because everyone thinks I am.  GRICEVS.  Are you?  BRVTVS.  Not remotely.  That, to me, is the most Gricean Junian moment in all Roman history. and why was his brother executed that prompted him to move to Gricean meaning-N simulation? Thanks According to the tradition reported by Livy and Dionysius, Brutus' father and elder brother became victims of Tarquin's suspicion. The Junia gens article summarizes the tradition as follows:  Marcus Junius Brutus (the father) was put to death by Tarquin. Livy presents him among aristocrats eliminated as potential threats to royal power. [fity.club] Marcus Junius Brutus (the elder brother of Lucius Junius Brutus) was likewise put to death by the king. [fity.club] The tradition then explains that Lucius Junius Brutus feigned stupidity in order to avoid meeting the same fate. [fity.club]  So the Grice/Speranza reconstruction would be: TARQVINIVS. The clever Junii are dangerous. MARCVS (elder brother). ... (executed) LVCIVS BRVTVS. I see. From that point on, Brutus allegedly adopts a strategy of systematic misleading appearance:  appear harmless, appear unintelligent, appear politically irrelevant.  The interesting Gricean twist is that this is not ordinary lying. Brutus does not reportedly go around saying:  "I am stupid."  Rather, he cultivates evidence from which others infer that he is stupid. Thus: TARQVINIVS. Brutus is a fool. BRVTVS. (behaves accordingly) +> Let Tarquin infer what I want him to infer. In your terminology, it is almost a simulation of meaning-N. Brutus tries to make his apparent stupidity function like a natural sign:  appearance of idiocy meaning-N harmlessness  when in reality it is a carefully managed political disguise. The irony is that the future founder of the Republic survives by encouraging exactly the false inference that Grice spends his life analysing: the audience takes the outward evidence as naturally revealing the inner state, when in fact the evidence has been strategically arranged. That is why Brutus may be one of the most Gricean figures in early Roman legend. And here we have a Griceianly manipulated case of what wki entry under other gens entries calls things like 'The cognomen 'Longus' was held by those who were tall, or short (via irony)." Thanks Exactly. Brutus is almost the self-conscious version of those Roman cognomina. In many gens entries we find explanations like:  Longus = tall. Rufus = red-haired. Naso = large-nosed. Celsus = tall, lofty. and, as scholars often note, sometimes the opposite by irony.  Normally these are retrospective descriptions:  "He is tall, therefore Longus."  a straightforward case of something like meaning-N:  height → nickname.  But with Brutus the tradition itself suggests manipulation. If the story is true, we have:  "He is thought stupid, therefore Brutus."  except that the direction of fit is reversed. Brutus intentionally produces the evidence. A Gricean schema: Natural case LONGVS. (is tall) +> Longus. RVFVS. (has red hair) +> Rufus. Brutus case BRVTVS. (acts stupid) +> Brutus. But: BRVTVS. (is not stupid) The sign has been manufactured. So Brutus becomes a fascinating hybrid:                      CaseRelationLongusphysical characteristic → cognomenRufusphysical characteristic → cognomenBrutus (legendary account)deliberate performance → cognomen The nickname is no longer merely descriptive. It becomes strategic. Indeed, one might say that Brutus converts a would-be case of meaning-N into a case of meaning-NN. Tarquin sees:  apparent stupidity  and infers:  harmlessness.  But harmlessness is precisely the conclusion Brutus wants him to draw. So: TARQVINIVS. Brutus means harmless. BRVTVS. Excellent. Keep thinking that. That is much closer to Grice's world than to Festus' world. Festus asks:  What did brutus originally mean?  Grice asks:  What did Brutus intend Tarquin to take it to mean?  And on the legendary account, the whole Republic begins with a successful manipulation of precisely that inference. And the cognomen stuck -- so his brother and father had no cognomina? It stuck, Grice and Speranza say, because centuries later it was another brute was was shouting in the streets of Rome, "As my brute ancestor said, no regnare here -- I've just killed a king! Well, the C. brother did -- but I was there too" -- apparently, sources say that Brutus the younger was for a time held in sympathy until he was not? Thanks -- Now, when doing history of English, Grice plays with the meaning or senses -- do not multiply. And he uses 'animal' meaning 'brute' (Grice writes) and not say, to use Urmson's example, Urmson's aunt in the backyard, or an ant in the garden ("There is an animal in the backyard +> middle-sized animal. Etc. Thanks Yes, and this is one of the delights of the Junii. If the legend is right, the cognomen Brutus was originally attached to Lucius because he pretended to be a brutus (in the later sense "dull", "stupid"). The sources as summarized in the gens article have the father and elder brother dying under Tarquin, while Lucius survives by cultivating the appearance of harmless stupidity. [fity.club] What is funny is that the nickname then becomes hereditary. So Grice and Speranza might say:  First generation: "Brutus" is strategic misinformation. Fifth generation: "Brutus" is a family name. Fifteenth generation: "Brutus" is a political brand.  By the time of Marcus Junius Brutus, Caesar's assassin, the cognomen no longer means:  this particular man is a fool.  It means:  this man belongs to the family of the Brutus.  And Marcus exploited the association. The article notes that on his coinage he depicted Lucius Junius Brutus and claimed descent from the liberator of 509 BC. [fity.club] A Speranzian reconstruction: MARCVS IVNIVS BRVTVS.  My ancestor expelled a king.  ROMANVS.  And?  BRVTVS.  I have just killed another.  GRICEVS.  The cognomen has become an argument.  +> "Brutus" ceases to identify and begins to persuade.  Your connection with Grice on "animal" is a very good one. Grice loved examples where a word has a broad semantic meaning but a narrower conversational use. Literally:  "There is an animal in the garden"  is true if there is:  an ant, a spider, a mouse, a horse, Urmson's aunt (if we are being biologically strict and mischievous).  But conversationally:  There is an animal in the garden.  normally implicates:  some reasonably noticeable non-human creature.  The hearer does not think:  Ah, there must be an ant.  Similarly, the original adjective brutus may have meant one thing lexically, but in the story it generates an inference: TARQVINIVS.  He is brutus.  +> He is harmless. The second proposition is not part of the meaning; it is an inference drawn from it. So Brutus' genius is that he manipulates the inference while leaving the evidence in place. That is almost a textbook Gricean case:  appearance → inference → mistaken conclusion.  The future founder of the Republic survives because Tarquin mistakes a deliberately manufactured sign for a natural one. And centuries later another Brutus profits from a different inference:  Brutus → liberator of Rome.  The name itself had become a hereditary implicature. Yet it all seems like the historians's charitable reanalysis for it is hard to imagine that Lucio had to keep in the nation's memory "And recall my name is to be indicated in scare quotes." If the baptismal incident (alla Kripke) is "They killed my brother -- that's enough. Brutus for them henceforward." -- do we know more of the ultimate etymology of this lexeme? When was it applied to 'animal' -- and is it only then an adj. in Latin, while a 'brute' as used by Grice -- Urmson's aunt? No, she is an animal, but not a brute -- is a noun from the adj. Thanks -- if so, it defies idea of Quine, no names -- this is a DEFINITE description, 'the brute' passing for proper name -- because of Latin lack of definite article. "My brother dead? That's enough -- THE BRUTE, ONE MORE BRUTE CREATURE I Shall now be!" Thanks --" Entre Nous, that is." Meaning him and his conscience. It most likely stuck because they started to calling the brute (as in the village idiot)? Thanks I think you're onto something very interesting: the legendary explanation of Brutus' cognomen may well be a later rationalization of an already existing family name. The gens article itself is cautious. It notes that although the tradition says Lucius Junius Brutus acquired the name because he feigned stupidity, ancient sources also refer to his father as Brutus. That immediately weakens the story that the name originated with Lucius' performance. [fity.club] In other words:  Historical legend: Lucius pretends to be a fool → acquires the name Brutus.  But:  Difficulty: The father is already called Brutus.  So the story begins to look like what classicists call an etiological tale—a story invented to explain a name whose original meaning had become obscure. This is where your Kripkean point becomes nice. The legendary account treats "Brutus" almost as a definite description:  "the fool," "the dullard."  But once the name is inherited, it ceases to function descriptively. The descendants are called Brutus whether or not they are foolish. Exactly the same thing happens with:  Rufus ("red-haired"), Longus ("tall"), Celsus ("lofty").  The description becomes a name.  As for the etymology, the article gives a remarkable piece of evidence from Festus:  brutus originally meant "serious" or "grave." [fity.club]  If that old meaning is correct, then the familiar later sense:  dull, stupid, brutish,  may not have been the original one at all. That would make the traditional story even more suspect.  And your observation about "brute" in English is exactly right. Latin brutus is originally an adjective. English a brute is a noun derived from the adjective. Grice's use of:  brute beast, brute animal,  belongs to a long philosophical tradition contrasting:  rational creatures, brute creatures.  Hence your excellent Urmson example:  Urmson's aunt is an animal.  True biologically. But:  Urmson's aunt is a brute.  Not normally. The noun "brute" already carries the implication:  non-rational animal, or a person behaving like one.  So the meaning has narrowed dramatically.  A very Speranzian reconstruction would therefore be: ROMANUS.  Why is he called Brutus?  POPULAR HISTORIAN.  Because he pretended to be stupid.  GRICEVS.  Or perhaps he pretended to be stupid because he was already called Brutus.  POPULAR HISTORIAN.  That would spoil the story.  GRICEVS.  Precisely.  +> The legend may explain the name; the name may have generated the legend. That's the chicken-and-egg problem you alluded to. And I rather suspect Grice would have preferred that explanation: not a cognomen created by a dramatic act, but a dramatic act retrospectively invented to make narrative sense of a cognomen. And what is the source for "His dad was a Brutus, too" Not Herbertus Paullus Griceus, by any chance? Thanks -- give the Latin No—this one is not from Herbertus Paullus Griceus but from the ancient tradition itself. The immediate source is Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Livy is relevant as well. The Junia gens article notes:  "his father is also referred to as Brutus by the ancient authorities" [fity.club]  and among the cited passages are:  Dionysius, Roman Antiquities IV.67–68 and following; Livy I.56. [fity.club]  The key person is:  Marcus Junius Brutus, father of Lucius Junius Brutus. [fity.club]  So the difficulty is ancient, not modern:  Tradition says Lucius acquired the cognomen Brutus because he feigned stupidity. Yet his father is already called Marcus Junius Brutus.  Hence the story looks suspiciously like an etiological explanation of an inherited cognomen. The Latin form of the father's name is simply:  Marcus Iunius Brutus  and of the son:  Lucius Iunius M. f. Brutus ("Lucius Junius Brutus, son of Marcus").  A Speranza-Grice reconstruction would be: HISTORICVS.  Lucius was called Brutus because he pretended to be a fool.  GRICEVS.  Was his father called Brutus?  HISTORICVS.  Yes.  GRICEVS.  Then perhaps the explanation follows the name rather than the name the explanation.  +> The cognomen may have generated the anecdote. As for the lexeme itself, one ancient tradition reported by Festus (and cited in the gens article) gives an older meaning of brutus as:  gravis ("serious", "grave") [fity.club]  which makes the standard schoolbook explanation ("Brutus = idiot") even less secure. Indeed, the Gricean moral would be:  Be careful not to confuse the meaning of a word with the story invented to explain it. And can we locate those two loci as per open access? They look demystifying in Griceian intention -- Of course, they do not need to go into all the Griciean detail (especially gravitas Livy, never mind the Halic.): The word 'brutus' may have meant something as used by Brutus's father, and then the son exploited the lexeme's ambiguity into a shield to avoid being 'capitulated' by the king? Thanks Yes, and the Gricean point becomes much stronger once one notices that the ancient sources themselves already create the problem. The open-access locus classicus is Livy, Ab Urbe Condita I.56, where Tarquin has already killed leading members of the family and Lucius survives by affecting stupidity. Livy's narrative explicitly refers to his father as Marcus Junius, and the tradition treats the family as already under suspicion before Lucius' famous performance. The text is available via Perseus/Loeb excerpts and other public-domain Livy editions. [cil.bbaw.de] Likewise Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities IV.67 ff., identifies:  Marcus Junius Brutus (father), Marcus Junius Brutus (elder brother), Lucius Junius Brutus (the future liberator),  and narrates the executions of the father and brother by Tarquin, followed by Lucius' strategy of appearing harmless. [fity.club] The difficulty, as you see, is immediate: If the father was already called Brutus, the cognomen cannot have originated with Lucius' act. That does not prove the story false, but it changes its character. A Gricean reconstruction would be: Traditional reading Lucius feigns stupidity → receives the cognomen Brutus. More critical reading Family already called Brutus → later historians explain the cognomen through a memorable anecdote. The second is exactly the sort of thing ancient historiography loves.  And your suggestion about ambiguity is very attractive. The gens article notes an ancient explanation (via Festus) that brutus once meant something like:  gravis, serious, weighty. [fity.club]  If so, one could imagine an older family cognomen that was not pejorative at all. Then, as meanings shifted, Lucius could exploit the newer sense. Almost: TARQVINIVS.  Ah yes, Brutus.  LVCIVS.  Indeed.  TARQVINIVS.  A dull fellow.  LVCIVS.  If you say so.  The beauty is that Lucius need not assert anything false. He merely allows Tarquin to interpret the name in the least threatening way possible. That is extremely Gricean. Not:  "I am an idiot."  But:  evidence arranged so that the king infers "he is an idiot."   So my favourite Grice/Speranza reading would be:  The cognomen probably pre-existed the famous performance. Lucius then turned an inherited name into a political shield by exploiting its contemporary associations.  In other words, the Republic may have been founded on a giant conversational implicature. The Griceian implausibility (or lack of point) is that Tarquin eliminated not Tom and Jerry, but one Brutus and another Brutus -- so how can (unless you ARE a brute) think that 'Brutus' will shield you? Thanks Exactly. This is, to my mind, the strongest Gricean objection to the traditional story. The sources tell us that Tarquin had already removed:  Marcus Junius Brutus (the father), and Marcus Junius Brutus (the elder brother),  before Lucius adopts his famous pose. The family was already under suspicion. [fity.club] So the naive version of the tale is difficult to credit:  "My father Brutus has been killed." "My brother Brutus has been killed." "Fortunately, I am Brutus."  One wishes to ask:  Why should the third Brutus suddenly look harmless?  The cognomen itself can hardly be doing the work. Indeed, if Tarquin has already eliminated two members of the family, the rational inference is:  Another Brutus is exactly what worries him.   What must be doing the work, if the story contains any historical core at all, is not the name but the performance. The Gricean version becomes: TARQVINIVS.  The Junii are dangerous.  LVCIVS.  Permit me to supply overwhelming evidence that I am not.  The point is not:  "I am called Brutus."  but:  "I behave in ways from which you infer that I am politically irrelevant."  In modern Gricean terminology, Lucius manufactures evidence for a conclusion he wants Tarquin to draw.  And this is where your earlier point about the old meaning of brutus becomes attractive. The gens article notes an ancient tradition (through Festus) that brutus once meant something like "serious" or "grave." [fity.club] Suppose:  the family already bore the cognomen Brutus; the meaning of the word shifted over time; later Romans knew chiefly the "dull/foolish" sense.  Then a very natural piece of folk-etymology emerges:  Why was he called Brutus? Because he pretended to be brutus.  That elegantly explains the name—but perhaps only after the fact.  So my suspicion is very close to yours: The story is less convincing as political strategy than as historiographical explanation. A later Roman sees:  a famous liberator called Brutus, a word brutus suggesting dullness, a tradition that he survived by dissembling,  and puts the pieces together. As Grice might say:  The anecdote explains the cognomen suspiciously well.  Which is often a sign that the cognomen helped generate the anecdote rather than the other way round. And Latin lexicography being what it is we would need or double check that source in wiki that says 'brutus' meant 'grave' -- as per what? Do you have earliest citation? that's how the N. E. D. (new english dictionary) worked. BRUTUS (used when?) meant 'grave'. If so, the idea that Brutus (who lived at a time when 'brutus' meant 'serious') exploited the MUCH LATER 'semantic' development where it meant 'dullard'? Thanks This is exactly the sort of point where an OED-style historical lexicographer becomes more useful than a family legend. The Wiki article is relying on a standard antiquarian source, namely Festus, who is cited there as saying that the older meaning of brutus was "serious" or "grave" (gravis). The article's note is not inventing that; it is referring to an ancient lexicographical tradition. But your methodological objection is excellent:  If brutus originally meant "serious" or "grave", then the famous story collapses.  For the legend requires something like:  Brutus bears the name Brutus. People interpret brutus as "dull", "stupid". He exploits that interpretation. Tarquin is deceived.  Yet if, at the putative date of the events, the word meant something closer to:  serious, stern, grave,  then the story cannot work in the way later Romans told it. In fact, the chronology would become:                      StageMeaningEarly Latin?brutus = grave, heavy, serious (?)Later Latinbrutus = dull, stupid, senselessRoman historiansExplain Brutus' conduct using the later meaning That would be a classic case of anachronistic folk etymology. A parallel would be:  Smith was called Smith because he loved working in a blacksmith's shop.  when in reality the surname existed long before the anecdote.  And this is where your Gricean objection bites hardest. Tarquin has already had:  Brutus' father killed, Brutus' brother killed.  So the traditional narrative asks us to believe:  "The king has eliminated two dangerous Bruti, but the third Brutus survives because he behaves like a dullard."  Possible, of course—but suspiciously convenient. The simpler explanation is often:  The family already bore the cognomen. Later Romans noticed that brutus could mean "dull". Therefore they invented or embellished a story explaining the cognomen.  That's exactly the sort of explanatory move ancient historians loved.  In a Grice/Speranza dialogue: HISTORICVS.  He was called Brutus because he pretended to be brutus.  GRICEVS.  Are we certain the word meant then what it means to you now?  HISTORICVS.  ...  GRICEVS.  And are we certain the name did not come first?  HISTORICVS.  ...  GRICEVS.  Then perhaps the explanatory story is younger than the cognomen.  That, I think, is the real philological possibility. The N.E.D./OED instinct is precisely right here: before interpreting the anecdote, one wants a dated sequence of meanings of brutus. And until that chronology is secure, the standard story—that Lucius exploited the lexical meaning "dullard"—remains more plausible as a later Roman explanation of the name than as the historical origin of it. And as per open access Fasti can we have the citation -- is it demystifying only as in "We are only saying this to evade that stupid myth that Brutus feigned stupidity."? Thanks The trouble is that the "grave" explanation is itself ancient antiquarian scholarship, not modern demythologizing. The Junia gens article cites:  Festus, s.v. Brutum,  for the claim that an older meaning of brutus was something like gravis ("serious", "grave"). What I have not been able to verify from the sources we've opened is the actual wording of the Festus passage. The article cites Festus as authority, but the open-access materials currently before me do not contain the text itself. So I can say:  The Wiki article is not inventing the claim. It attributes it to Festus. I have not yet verified the precise Latin wording from the source itself.  And that is important, because the interpretation changes dramatically depending on what Festus actually says. The most cautious Gricean reconstruction would be: Traditional story  Brutus already bears the cognomen. He pretends to be stupid. Therefore people explain Brutus as "the fool."  Antiquarian correction If Festus is right that an older sense was closer to:  gravis ("serious", "grave"),  then later Romans may simply have been reinterpreting an old family name through a newer meaning. That would be a very common phenomenon in historical semantics.  Your N.E.D. comparison is apt. An OED editor would ask:  Show me the earliest attestation of brutus = "grave".  Then:  Show me the earliest attestation of brutus = "dull, stupid".  Only then could we know whether the Livy/Dionysius anecdote is linguistically plausible. At present, the story and the lexicography seem to pull in opposite directions:  Livy/Dionysius want the name to explain the conduct. Festus may imply that the conduct was later invented to explain the name.  A very Gricean reversal. As Grice might say:  The historians seem eager to tell us what Brutus meant by behaving as he did. The lexicographer asks first what Brutus meant.  And until those two chronologies are reconciled, the famous tale remains as much a story about the interpretation of a name as about the founding of the Republic. Yes, we should double check that Festus, s. v. Brutum, sounds like an entry or a novel? Thanks Yes! And the notation itself is a clue. When a classical scholar writes:  Festus, s.v. Brutum  the s.v. is the abbreviation for:  sub verbo ("under the word")  or, more loosely,  "under the dictionary entry."  So this is not:  Festus, Brutum (a treatise, chapter, or novel!)  but:  Festus' lexical entry on the word brutum/brutus.  Festus' work is essentially a lexicon, an epitome of Verrius Flaccus' De Verborum Significatu ("On the Meaning of Words"). Thus references such as:  Festus, s.v. Caesar Festus, s.v. Brutum  mean:  "look up the article headed Caesar" "look up the article headed Brutum"  not a continuous narrative source. And your suspicion is exactly right. If the source ultimately turns out to be:  Festus, s.v. Brutum: brutum antiqui gravem dicebant ...  (or something similar), then the force of the lexicographical remark is not necessarily:  "The famous story of Lucius Brutus is false."  Rather, it is:  "There existed an older meaning of the word that later Romans may not have appreciated."  That is a very different claim. A Gricean would immediately ask: Which came first?  The family name Brutus. The story explaining the family name. The later sense "dullard, fool."  If the cognomen is old, and if Festus preserves evidence of an older meaning nearer gravis ("grave, serious"), then later historians may have unconsciously reinterpreted the name through a newer meaning. That would be a classic case of folk etymology. So before accepting the standard schoolbook story:  Brutus pretended to be a brute,  we really ought to inspect the actual Festus passage itself. That is precisely what the OED/N.E.D. method would demand:  not "What is the story?" but "What is the earliest attested meaning of the word?"  And that is a question even Grice would probably regard as prior to all the delightful conversational psychology of poor Lucius Junius Brutus. Yes, indeed, 'brutum, antiqui gravem dicebam. Hardly OED2 etymological precision -- and we are talking here of like 500 years B. C. right? Thanks Under the entry for the word brutum in his dictionary De Verborum Significatu (On the Meaning of Words), the ancient Roman grammarian Sextus Pompeius Festus states: [1, 2, 3] "Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant." (The ancients used to say "brutus" for "heavy" or "grave".) [1, 2] Key Context and Meaning Shift in Definition: While the word brutus later came to mean "dull," "stupid," or "irrational" in classical Latin (and eventually evolved into the English word "brute"), Festus preserves the historical Fact that its original, archaic meaning was simply heavy, weighted, or serious. [1, 2, 3] Origin of the Surname: This linguistic note is often cited by historians to explain the famous Roman family name (cognomen) Brutus. While popular legend states that Lucius Junius Brutus was given the nickname because he feigned stupidity to avoid being executed by King Tarquin the Proud, Festus’s definition suggests the family name originally meant "The Grave" or "The Serious". [1, 2, 3, 4] If you want, I can share more details on how other words shifted meaning in early Latin, or explain how Festus’s original text survived through later historical summaries. Which direction would you like to explore? [1, 2] Yes — and this is where one has to be very careful not to let a neat story outrun the evidence. What we have, if the citation is accurate, is simply:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant. "The ancients used to say brutum for gravem."  That is a tiny lexicographical note, not a historical essay. It tells us:  Festus knew of an old usage. In that usage, brutum corresponded to grave, heavy, weighty, serious. He regarded that usage as archaic (antiqui).  It does not tell us:  when the meaning changed, whether it changed before or after the legendary Brutus, whether the cognomen originally had that meaning, whether the story of feigned stupidity is false.  Those are all further inferences. The OED-minded complaint is exactly right. One citation gives us only:  "The ancients used brutum where we would say gravem."  An OED editor would immediately ask:  Earliest attestation? Latest attestation? Intermediate examples? Semantic pathway?  And Festus gives none of that. What is nevertheless fascinating is the Gricean tension. The traditional story assumes:  Brutus = dullard.  Therefore:  Lucius acts the dullard.  Therefore:  Tarquin is deceived.  But Festus may preserve evidence that an earlier speaker could have heard:  Brutus = serious, grave, weighty.  If so, later Romans may have looked at an old family name and unconsciously reinterpreted it through a newer meaning. That's not proof, but it is enough to make one suspicious. A Grice/Speranza dialogue: HISTORICVS.  Lucius was called Brutus because he pretended to be stupid.  LEXICOGRAPHVS.  Festus says the ancients used brutum for gravem.  HISTORICVS.  That is awkward.  GRICEVS.  Exceedingly.  LEXICOGRAPHVS.  Perhaps the name came first.  GRICEVS.  And the story afterwards.  Which is often how legendary etymologies arise. And you're quite right about the chronology. The legendary Lucius Junius Brutus belongs to the very beginning of the Republic, conventionally around 509 BC. Festus is writing many centuries later. So when Festus says:  antiqui  ("the ancients"), he is himself looking backward into a linguistic past already remote from him. Thus the safest conclusion is not:  "Aha! The myth is false."  but rather:  "Festus preserves evidence that the semantic history of brutus may have been more complicated than the myth assumes."  Which is already enough to make a good Gricean suspicious of the neat textbook story. and you were saying it's a commentary on Varro -- what is the form of the dicebant. Suppose Festus can use quotation marks. "The Ancients said that x is 'brutus, or x is bruta, or x is brutum' to mean that x est gravis, -- why neuter? The fact that he remains silent on Giunio is telling -- "In olden days, 'brutus' (masculine) was used to mean 'gravis.' of a person: -- Grice's ecxample: The shag, means the hairy coated dog -- shaggy dico hairy-coated -- hairy-coated dico coat that is hairy -- coat dico Anglo-Norman cupertus -- ad infinitum? Thanks Yes, and this is exactly where one wants to slow down and become a lexicographer rather than a storyteller. First, Festus is not commenting on Varro in this particular citation. Festus' De Verborum Significatu is a lexicon arranged alphabetically. So:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  looks like a dictionary gloss, not a narrative explanation. The form dicebant is interesting:  antiqui gravem dicebant  literally:  "the ancients used to call [it] gravis"  or  "the ancients used brutum in the sense of gravis."  The imperfect dicebant is exactly what one expects in a historical lexicon:  "older speakers used to say..."  rather than  "older speakers said on one occasion..."  The really curious thing, as you note, is:  Brutum (neuter singular)  rather than  Brutus (masculine).  That strongly suggests that Festus is citing the lexeme, the dictionary headword, not talking about Lucius Junius Brutus. Roughly:  ENTRY: BRUTUM. The ancients used this word in the sense "grave, weighty."  A modern dictionary would write:  brutum: archaic = grave.  without implying any neuter object. So I would hesitate before translating:  "a brutus man is a grave man."  Festus is talking about the word itself.  Now comes the Gricean point. Festus does not say:  "Lucius Junius Brutus was called Brutus because..."  He is completely silent on the Junii. And that silence is revealing. A lexicographer's interest is:  What did the word mean?  not:  What did the famous Roman's nickname mean?  If the dictionary meaning known to Festus is:  archaic brutus = gravis,  then the later anecdote:  Brutus pretended to be stupid  may be an attempt to explain the name through a later meaning. That's not proof, but it is precisely the sort of thing historical lexicographers worry about.  A Grice-Speranza reconstruction: PHILOLOGVS.  What does brutum mean?  FESTVS.  The ancients used it for grave.  HISTORICVS.  Ah, because Brutus pretended to be a fool.  FESTVS.  I said nothing of the sort.  GRICEVS.  Quite.  The lexicographer supplies a meaning. The historian supplies a story. The story may be younger than the meaning.  And your comparison with Grice's etymological games is apt. One can always continue:  shag = hairy-coated dog  then  hairy = having hair  then  hair = ...  and so on ad infinitum. At some point the dictionary must stop and say:  this is how the word was used.  Festus' tiny note is valuable precisely because it is so unromantic. He is not trying to explain the fall of kings or the birth of the Republic. He is merely recording:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  Which may be more historically important than all the legends built upon the word. So you'd suggest that in Festus, the practice was to give the lexeme in neuter, whereas say Lewis and Short has it as brutus, -a, -um. If not, Festus may be sayign that, in the neuter gender, antiqui used it to mean 'gravis' (is that neuter), as in 'The stone is brtuum'. Or the [neutre subst.] est brutum. But Grice would like to find an utterance oratio recta, 'x est brutus' or 'x brutus est' thereby meaning 'gravis'? Thanks Yes, I would be cautious here. The form cited is:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  and that looks lexicographical rather than syntactic. A modern dictionary would head an entry:  brutus, -a, -um  whereas an ancient glossary often cites a single form as a lemma. The fact that Festus gives brutum rather than brutus may simply reflect the headword under which the item happened to be alphabetized. From the citation alone, I do not think we can safely infer:  "only the neuter meant gravis."  The tiny gloss does not say that. It merely says:  "The ancients used brutum for gravis."  The frustrating thing is that Festus gives us a gloss, not an example sentence. And here your OED instinct is exactly right. What we would really like is something like:  vir brutus est = "the man is grave/serious"  or  consilium brutum = "a weighty plan"  or some actual archaic citation. But Festus, as quoted, gives no context at all. He merely records an equivalence. Indeed, the grammar is interesting:  gravem is accusative singular.  One can almost expand Festus' note mentally as:  brutum verbum antiqui gravem (id est gravem rem, gravem notionem) dicebant.  But that expansion is speculative. The gloss itself is maddeningly compressed. A Gricean nightmare: FESTVS. Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant. GRICEVS. Give me an example. FESTVS. No. GRICEVS. A phrase? FESTVS. No. GRICEVS. An utterance? FESTVS. No. GRICEVS. Then how am I to know whether brutus meant "grave," "weighty," "serious," "dull," or something else? FESTVS. Such are the pleasures of lexicography. The real difficulty for the traditional Brutus story is not that Festus proves it false. Rather:  Festus preserves an archaic meaning associated with gravis. The legendary story requires a meaning closer to stultus, hebes, or "dull." We lack the intermediate evidence showing exactly when and how one sense gave way to the other.  So I would not yet say:  Lucius exploited a later semantic development.  That goes beyond the evidence. But I would certainly say:  Festus shows that the semantic history of brutus was already complicated enough to make the traditional explanation suspicious.  And Grice would indeed want what we do not possess:  some actual old Roman saying "X brutus est"  with enough context to tell us what a listener in archaic Latin would have understood by it. That single utterance would be worth pages of later antiquarian speculation. And the implicature is: 'we do not.' For Festus would not be going: felix antiqui dicebam felix' -- only here there is a semantic change. Implicature: Today it does NOT mean 'gravis' -- today it means 'stupid,' as in our dear Lucio, his dead brother, and his dead father -- the stupidity that saved his life, ye dear stupid readers.'? Thanks Yes, I think that is precisely the kind of thing a Gricean would suspect. The very form:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  ("The ancients used brutum for gravis.") looks marked. Festus does not ordinarily need to tell us:  felix antiqui felicem dicebant,  or  bonus antiqui bonum dicebant.  The fact that he comments at all suggests a lexical gap between then and now. The natural implicature is:  The ancients said brutum where we would not. Therefore the word no longer has that meaning.  That is not formally stated, but it is exactly why an antiquarian lexicographer records such things. A Gricean paraphrase might be: FESTVS.  The ancients used brutum to mean grave.  GRICEVS.  Why are you telling me this?  FESTVS.  Because my contemporaries do not use it that way.  +> The note is only informative if semantic change has occurred. Now whether the new meaning was already "stupid" is another matter. That requires further evidence. The gloss itself gives us only:  old meaning: gravis.  It does not say:  new meaning: stultus.  That part we reconstruct from later usage. What makes the Brutus legend suspicious is that it fits the later meaning rather too well. The sequence would then be:  Ancient family already called Brutus. Word once had some sense associated with gravis. Meaning shifted. Later Romans heard Brutus and thought:  "Ah yes, the fool."   A story arose explaining why Lucius Junius Brutus was called Brutus.  That is almost textbook folk etymology. The Grice/Speranza joke writes itself: FESTVS.  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  HISTORICVS.  Splendid. Then let us tell a story about a man pretending to be stupid.  GRICEVS.  You appear to have gone in the wrong semantic direction.  Indeed, the most devastating possibility is not that the story is false, but that the story is generated by a later misunderstanding of the cognomen. If so, poor Lucius may never have thought:  "I shall now become a brute."  Instead, centuries later, Romans whose language had changed looked at the name Brutus and invented a narrative to fit the meaning they themselves attached to the word. That would be a very Gricean case of present meaning invading historical interpretation. And all semantic change is Griceianly motivated. Merryl Streep recalls that when De Laurentis Jr. took her to his dad: "What do you think of her as the girl for King Kong." Dad said in Italin to son: Brutta. Meryl was devastated because THAT much italian she KNEW. Festus: "Brutum, oddly enough, the ancients applied to what WE would now call 'heavy.' Student: "And the founder of the republic?" "Next?" Ha! That is very good, and very Gricean. The Meryl Streep anecdote works precisely because she understood enough Italian to recover the contemporary meaning:  brutta! "ugly!"  No Festus needed. Whereas Festus is saying, in effect:  Do not assume the contemporary meaning was always the meaning.  A modernized Festus might write:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant. "Curiously, the ancients used brutum where we would say grave."*  And then move on. The silence about Lucius Junius Brutus is almost the best part. STVDIOSVS.  Does this explain the founder of the Republic?  FESTVS.  I am discussing vocabulary.  STVDIOSVS.  But surely—  FESTVS.  Next entry.  Exactly. The lexicographer and the historian have different jobs. The historian sees:  Lucius Junius Brutus  and asks:  Why was he called Brutus?  The lexicographer sees:  brutum  and asks:  What did this word mean in older Latin?  The two questions need not have the same answer. And your Gricean point about semantic change is attractive. Festus' remark itself is communicative evidence that change has occurred:  Why mention that the ancients used it differently?  Because we don't. A Gricean implicature:  "The ancients said brutum for gravem."  +> Therefore present-day Latin speakers do not. But what exactly the later meaning was, and when it arose, Festus does not tell us. Which leaves us with a delicious possibility:  the cognomen Brutus may be very old; the legend about feigned stupidity may be younger; later Romans may have interpreted the old family name through a newer meaning of the adjective.  If so, the Republic was not founded by a man called "the Fool." Rather, generations later, Romans concluded that he must have been called "the Fool," and then invented a story worthy of the name. That is almost a perfect Grice/Speranza moral:  Meaning changed; the story changed with it. The lexeme generated the legend. And if semantic change follows a logic -- because there is only ONE SENSE, the etymon -- senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity -- Grice's modified occam razor -- Festus is inviting: now YOU FIND the logical pathway how 'heavy' becomes 'dull'. I'll help you: the proportio of body mass means x is athletic -- he is not 'heavy'. 'Heavy' then becomes synon of body inaptitude and then the usual transfer from physical property to mental property -- a man in a heavy body has a heavy mens -- hence dull? Thanks Yes, that is precisely the sort of reconstruction Grice would prefer to a multiplication of unrelated "senses." Starting from Festus' gloss:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant. "The ancients used brutum for gravem."  the challenge is not to posit:  brutus = grave brutus = heavy brutus = dull brutus = stupid  as four disconnected meanings. Rather, one wants a pathway. A plausible route is:  heavy → slow-moving → unresponsive → dull → stupid  This kind of transfer is extremely common. Indeed English itself gives parallels:  heavy conversation slow mind dense student thick person weighty thinker  Physical predicates migrate into mental predicates all the time. Your suggestion can be refined a little. Not so much:  overweight body ⇒ dull mind  which is culturally contingent, but rather:  heavy object ⇒ difficult to move difficult to move ⇒ sluggish sluggish ⇒ mentally slow mentally slow ⇒ dull  That semantic chain is perfectly natural. A Gricean semantic archaeologist would be delighted if he could explain everything with one evolving notion:  resistance to movement  Physical:  the stone is heavy.  Behavioral:  the fellow is slow.  Mental:  the fellow is dull.  Then one has not multiplied senses beyond necessity.  The irony is that Festus almost invites this exercise. He merely supplies:  old usage = gravis.  He does not say how we got from there to the later sense. As you nicely put it, he's effectively saying:  "Here is the lexical fossil. You work out the evolutionary sequence."   A final Grice/Speranza dialogue: FESTVS.  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  DISCIPVLVS.  How did it come to mean "stupid"?  FESTVS.  I am a lexicographer, not a philosopher.  GRICEVS.  Then permit me. A heavy body moves slowly. A slow mind thinks slowly. A slow thinker becomes a dullard. And a dullard eventually becomes Brutus.  FESTVS.  Better than inventing four unrelated senses.  And that, I suspect, is very close to the sort of semantic economy Grice liked: one evolving concept, not a heap of disconnected dictionary entries. WEell, I think you got it! as they say in "My Fair Lady" "Thick" Festus is saying: remember Brutus, the founder of the republic? his father was a Brutus and so was his brother -- both killed by a king. Brutus then decided a metaphorcal switch: no longer grave, but thick -- the king did not notice – thanks  Ha! Yes—if one wants to rescue both Festus and the Brutus legend at once, that is a remarkably elegant Grice/Speranza reconstruction. The standard story is too crude:  brutus = stupid. Lucius pretends to be stupid. Therefore he is Brutus.  But the Festus gloss complicates things:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant. "The ancients used brutum for gravem."  Now suppose:  The family already bears the cognomen Brutus. The older force of the word is something like:  heavy, weighty, grave, serious.   The semantic drift proceeds:  heavy → sluggish → thick → dull.   Lucius notices that the contemporary hearer (Tarquin) is prepared to hear the newer value rather than the older one.  Then the joke becomes almost unbearably Gricean. TARQVINIVS.  Ah yes, the Junii Bruti.  LVCIVS.  Indeed.  TARQVINIVS.  One less serious than his father and brother, I trust?  LVCIVS.  Much less.  The king takes:  Brutus to mean thick, dull, harmless.  Lucius allows the inference. The family name remains the same; the interpretation changes. In that reading, Lucius does not invent a pseudonym. He exploits a semantic ambiguity already latent in his inherited cognomen. And that is very close to Grice's favorite theme:  The same expression. Different uptake. Different inferences.  One could almost imagine Festus, centuries later, muttering:  "By the way, brutum once meant grave."  Not because he wishes to write a biography of Brutus, but because he knows that his contemporary readers no longer hear the word that way. To which Speranza's Festus might add:  "Why do you think the story of Brutus pretending to be stupid ever arose?"  The lexicographer records the fossil. The historian supplies the anecdote. The Gricean tries to reconstruct the semantic path between them. And yes—English thick is a beautiful parallel:  thick soup, thick wood, thick skull, thick fellow.  A physical property quietly becomes a mental one. If brutus followed a comparable route from gravis to "dull," the legendary Brutus may have survived not by becoming stupid, but by allowing others to read his old family name in a newer, less threatening way. That is a much subtler story than the textbook version. Or "One MORE serious than your dad and bro, son" -- "Yes, your majesty. BRUTTIOR -- "That'll keep you safe." Oddly, BRUTTIOR ended up having the less bruttiour out of the city!? Thanks Ha! Yes, and there is a delightful irony there. On your reconstruction, Tarquin's internal monologue becomes:  Pater Brutus? dangerous. Frater Brutus? dangerous. Alter Brutus? Surely not a third time.  And Lucius quietly replies:  Brutior sum. "More Brutus than either of them."  The joke, of course, is that if Festus' gloss preserves an older value:  brutus = gravis  then brutior need not originally mean:  more stupid,  but could mean:  more weighty, more serious, more formidable.  Exactly the sort of thing a paranoid king ought to fear. Yet the legend requires Tarquin to hear:  duller, thicker, less dangerous.  So the entire survival strategy depends on a mismatch between: what Brutus is and what Tarquin takes Brutus to be. Very Gricean indeed. One might even formulate the implicature: LVCIVS.  (acts brutus)  TARQVINIVS.  +> harmless.  LVCIVS.  (says nothing)  TARQVINIVS.  +> politically irrelevant.  LVCIVS.  (still says nothing)  TARQVINIVS.  +> safe to ignore.  LVCIVS.  Excellent.  Then, years later: ROMA.  The Republic has been founded.  TARQVINIVS.  By whom?  ROMA.  Brutus.  TARQVINIVS.  Again?  The final irony is exactly yours: the man who appeared the least brutus in the later sense ("dull") may have been the most brutus in Festus' archaic sense ("grave", "weighty", "serious"). If so, the legend accidentally preserves a semantic joke that it no longer understands. That is the kind of thing that would have delighted both Grice and Speranza. yes, assuming dad and brother (especially dad) had acquired it as agnomen, Marcus the Thick -- (heavy). the surviving son merely has the king work figuratively. "I don't see him as THICKER than his dead father -- who wore the agnomen -- or his dead brother -- who inherited the cognomen -- but HE (Lucio Brutus) is saying and behaving indeed as if the adjective that he father acquired through dense body now applies to dense soul -- so I won't touch him -- he's totally harmless. THanks -- The king failed to notice that to be able to provide a metaphorical reading via conversational implciature (categorial transfer from heavy body to dull mind) makes you NOT THAT dull, really? Thanks Exactly. Your reconstruction actually makes the legend more plausible than the schoolbook version. The naïve version is:  Tarquin killed the dangerous people. Lucius pretended to be stupid. Tarquin believed him.  To which a Gricean immediately objects:  Why would Tarquin, who had already eliminated the father and brother, suddenly become gullible?  Your version is subtler. The king is not being deceived about a word but about a transfer of meaning. Suppose:  Brutus (older sense) = heavy, weighty, grave.  Then father and elder brother are "Bruti" in the sense:  substantial, serious, formidable men.  Tarquin has already learned what that sort of Brutus can do. Now comes Lucius. Instead of denying the family identity, he exaggerates it in a different direction. As you put it:  "Yes, Majesty, I am indeed a Brutus."  But the king now understands:  heavy body, slow fellow, thick fellow, harmless fellow.  The remarkable Gricean point is that the king performs the categorial transfer himself. Lucius need only supply the behaviour. He need not say:  "I am stupid."  He merely invites the king to infer it. And here lies the delicious paradox: To manipulate someone into making a metaphorical inference about you is evidence of considerable intelligence. A truly dull man does not orchestrate his own interpretation. A Gricean schema: Lucius acts. Tarquin infers:  +> mentally thick.  Lucius intends Tarquin to infer:  +> mentally thick.  Therefore Lucius is engaged in a sophisticated piece of communicative strategy. Which means that the very success of the manoeuvre proves the falsity of the conclusion. The king's reasoning becomes:  Only a fool would behave this way. Therefore he is a fool.  While the truth is:  Only a very clever man would know that behaving this way will make me conclude he is a fool.  That is almost Socratic in structure. Or, as a Gricean might put it:  Tarquin mistook a calculated implicature for a natural sign.  And centuries later the historians may have mistaken the implicature for the literal meaning of the cognomen itself. A perfect mess—and therefore exactly the sort of thing that delights both philologists and Griceans. And does the OED help here? It should not, because this is all pre-English. Does the Wiktionary help here -- as to the ultimate etymology of 'brut-us' -- Indo-European, Proto-Indo-European. Attested original 'meaning' -- and thus one and only SENSE that later went, as per Festus, to be paraphrased as 'gravis' and later as something else -- to the point taht Festus had to explain that 'brutum, antiqui gravem dicebant'? Thanks Quite right: the OED is almost useless here as a primary witness, because by the time English acquires brute (via French, ultimately from Latin), the semantic history has already unfolded. The OED can help with:  Latin brutus → Old French brut → English brute  but not with what brutus meant in the age of the legendary Lucius Junius Brutus. The more relevant witnesses are:  Festus (our precious fragment), other Latin usages, comparative etymology (if available).  And here we hit an important limitation: as far as I know, there is no universally accepted Indo-European etymology for brutus that does for it what, say, PIE bher- does for fero. Etymological dictionaries tend to treat the word as of uncertain origin or at least not securely connected to a Proto-Indo-European root. That is actually rather interesting from a Gricean perspective. We have:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  which securely tells us only that Festus knew an older usage equivalent to gravis. But gravis itself covers quite a semantic field:  heavy, weighty, serious, important, oppressive, dignified.  So even Festus is already paraphrasing one Latin word by another Latin word. A good lexicographer would immediately ask:  What did gravis mean in the examples Festus had in mind?  And we do not know. This is why your "one sense only" Gricean strategy becomes attractive. Instead of:  Sense 1: heavy Sense 2: serious Sense 3: dull Sense 4: stupid  one may seek a single conceptual nucleus. A plausible candidate is:  weight / resistance / lack of agility  Then:  heavy object → slow object → sluggish body → sluggish response → dull mind → stupid person  which is exactly the sort of pathway seen in many languages. English gives splendid parallels:  thick head dense student slow thinker heavy intellect  all moving from physical to mental predicates. Under that reconstruction, Festus is not telling us:  "Old meaning = grave; new meaning = stupid."  He is preserving a fossil from an earlier point on the same semantic trajectory. And then the Brutus story becomes deliciously ironic. The father was perhaps:  Brutus = the weighty, serious man.  The son survives because others hear:  Brutus = the thick fellow.  The king misses the fact that successfully encouraging that reinterpretation is itself evidence of intelligence. So the deepest Grice/Speranza moral may be:  The Republic was founded not by a fool, but by a man who understood semantic change better than his king did.  And poor Festus, centuries later, leaves us a single cryptic note:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  The rest is reconstruction. Grice and Speranza don't quite know when classicists started to be obsessed with Roman gravitas, but in any case, Festus seems to be saying that 'brutum' antiqui gravem dicebant -- the most Roman adjective of all. 'He has gravitas' He is grave -- archaically: brutus. Isn't grave used for a pregnant woman. It seems the pathway is usually from PHYISICAL to non-physical. So if 'brutum' antique gravem dicebant--we can stick to some PHYSICAL sense of 'grave' -- as per Newton's law of gravity (if not gravitas). and thus applied to uninanimate objects -- and then to 'non-physical' way----if it was an AGNOMEN in Marcus Brutus, Lucius's father, it could be most likely PHYSICAL: Marcus The Heavy. And I woulnd't be surprised if there was not an agnomen like Gravis -- because we do have agnomen Severus, which almost mean the same thing although in a non-physical way. And as for 'brute' the OED when applied to 'animal'--the idea would be: heavy-->already moetaphorised (via implicature) into 'thick'. As to the Italian obsession with bella figura it is not strange that it developed the use 'ugly' as Merrly Streep being called 'brutta' for the role of the girl in King Kong-as she recalled: "I was called 'brutta' -- too ugly for the object of attraction of ... king kong' -- a brute, almost. In the case of 'brute' animal, which fascinated Grice. "I wouldn't like to say that 'animal' has TWO senses. It has only one, and that means 'animatus' -- the use to apply to 'brute' is just a use-specfication, not a word sense, especially when we can explain such pathway via metaphor." Thanks I think this is very close to what a Gricean semantic history would look like. The first thing Grice would resist is the tendency of dictionaries to proliferate senses:  brutus¹ = heavy brutus² = grave brutus³ = dull brutus⁴ = stupid  His instinct would be:  "Let us not multiply senses beyond necessity."  Instead, find a single conceptual core and derive the rest. Now Festus gives us only:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  That tells us that, for Festus, an older usage of brutum corresponded to gravis. It does not tell us whether gravis here means:  physically heavy, weighty, serious, important, solemn,  or some blend thereof. And you're surely right that semantic change usually proceeds:  physical → psychological/social  more readily than the reverse. So a Grice/Speranza pathway might be:  heavy object → weighty object → weighty person → serious person → slow-moving person → slow-witted person → dullard  without introducing several unrelated senses. English gives excellent parallels:  heavy discussion weighty argument dense person thick fellow slow student  all of which move from physical properties to mental ones. In that respect your comparison with grave is especially attractive. Latin gravis itself already performs the transition:  heavy load → grave matter → grave man  And yes, Roman gravitas becomes one of the supreme Roman virtues. Which makes the Festus gloss striking:  brutum = gravem.  A Roman of the old school might almost hear:  brutus vir not as "idiot" but as "a weighty, substantial, serious man."  Now place that beside the legendary father:  Marcus Junius Brutus  and the story becomes far subtler than the schoolbook version. The father's agnomen may originally have been understood as something like:  Marcus the Weighty, Marcus the Solid, Marcus the Serious.  Not:  Marcus the Fool.  Then later speakers reinterpret the word through a shifted semantic value. That is exactly the sort of reinterpretation Festus' note seems to presuppose. And your point about animal is very Gricean indeed. Grice would hate:  animal¹ = animate being animal² = brute beast  as a lexical solution. He would prefer:  one meaning, different practical restrictions in use.  Thus:  "There is an animal in the garden"  literally covers:  an ant, a dog, Urmson's aunt.  But conversationally it implicates something like:  a noticeable non-human creature.  Similarly:  brute  need not acquire a wholly new sense when applied to animals. One can derive it from a conceptual pathway:  heavy / insensitive / unreflective → lacking rational refinement → brute creature  without multiplying lexical entities. So I think your overall Gricean moral is exactly right:  Festus is not giving us two unrelated meanings. He is preserving a fossil from an earlier stage of a semantic development.  And if that is so, the irony is exquisite: the Republic may have been founded by a man whose family name once suggested gravitas, while later Romans explained it through a meaning closer to thickness. The legend then becomes a monument not only to political history but to semantic change itself. And we can apply Grice to himself here -- here below what he says about 'animal' for which he gives one paraphrase 'brute' -- can we rephrase his commentary so that he is talking about Latin brutus instead and see how he would consider alleged semantic pathway -- diachronic? Thanks -- Grice: As for words with specificatory derivative senses, there seems to be some tendency for one of two things to happen: Either the original general sense becomes obsolete (like car, meaning "wheeled vehicle"), or the specificatory condition takes over; we should perhaps continue to call gramophone records discs even if (say) they came to be made square (provided they remain not too unlike discs, in the original sense of the word), and perhaps the word cylinder exemplifies the same feature. But there are words of which neither is true: an obvious example is the word animal (meaning (i) "member of animal king-dom," (ii) "beast"). There is here some sort of a parallel, in relation to Modified Occam's Razor and its variants, between animal and the candidate word or. Animal perhaps infringes a weak principle to the effect that a further sense should not be recognized if, on the assumption that the word were to have a specificatory further sense, the identity of that sense would be predictable; for it could no doubt be predicted that if the word animal were to have such a sense, it would be one in which the word did not apply to human beings. But it would seem not to be predictable (history of language apart) that anyone would in fact use the word animal to mean "beast," whereas given a truth-functional or it is predictable (assuming conversational prin-ciples) that people would use A or B to imply the existence of non-truth-functional grounds. So, at least, so far as I can see (not far, l think), there is as yet no reason not to accept Modified Occam's Razor. Yes. In fact, brutus may be an even better Gricean example than animal, because with animal Grice is hesitant: perhaps there really is a further sense ("beast"), perhaps there is only a use-restriction. With brutus, if we take Festus seriously, we can try to tell a single-story semantic history rather than multiply senses. Let me paraphrase Grice as though he were discussing brutus instead of animal:  As for the word brutus, one might be tempted to distinguish a variety of senses: (i) heavy, (ii) weighty, (iii) grave, (iv) dull, (v) stupid, (vi) brute. But before recognizing so many senses, one should consider whether there is not a single underlying notion from which the others are derivable.  That is pure Grice. The Festus gloss:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  becomes a clue, not a definition. The question is:  Why gravis?  And the Gricean answer is not:  because brutus had a separate sense meaning gravis.  but:  because at that historical stage the central notion was still close to "weight."  One might then reconstruct: Stage 1: physical  heavy weighty massive  Stage 2: behavioral  slow-moving unresponsive sluggish  Stage 3: psychological  slow-witted thick dull  Stage 4: anthropological  irrational beast-like  Stage 5: English  brute animal brute force brute  with no need to postulate five unrelated lexical senses.  And then the Brutus legend itself becomes part of the semantic history. The traditional reading is:  Lucius pretended to be stupid because his name meant "stupid."  The Grice-Speranza reading would be almost the reverse:  Lucius inherited a name whose older force was something like "weighty" or "grave." Later speakers associated the word with dullness. Later historians then reread the life through the later meaning.  That is exactly the sort of thing Grice means when he warns against multiplying senses prematurely.  A Gricean paraphrase of the passage on animal might therefore read:  It would be easy to treat brutus as having acquired a succession of distinct senses. But if the transitions from "heavy" to "grave," from "grave" to "slow," and from "slow" to "dull" are intelligible, then we should prefer a single evolving concept to a proliferation of senses.  Or, in Oxford shorthand:  Do not multiply bruti beyond necessity.  And the final irony is delicious. If Festus preserves an old stage where brutus was near gravis, then the founder of the Republic may originally have borne a name suggesting gravitas, while posterity remembered him as the man who pretended to be thick. That is almost a textbook case of later meaning reshaping earlier history. And the reason Festus has brutum sic in neut. is because this idea of not beuty (bellezza, pulchritudo) but the neuter as an anchor for the 'root'--brutum, pulchrum, indeed, gravis, not gravitas. It would be odd and too refined for Romans to go directly to the abstract noun for brutum -- Italian bruttezza -- when 'brutum' in neut. just does -- later italian treatises, "Del bello e del brutto". Gravitas tends towards the platonic, who (Plato) even used 'horseness' hippotes, getting a reprimend of one speaker by Socrates. "I can see a horse, Socrates -- but I cannot see horseness." "Because you are myopic, darling." Thanks Yes, I think there is something in that, though one has to distinguish Roman lexicographical practice from later philosophical abstraction. When Festus writes:  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  he is not defining brutitas or gravitas; he is glossing one lexeme by another. The very form brutum may indeed reflect the dictionary-headword habit of citing the adjective as a lexical item rather than in a contextually inflected masculine or feminine form. Your comparison with:  pulchrum ↔ brutum  is illuminating. Later Italian aesthetic discourse naturally gravitates toward:  il bello / il brutto  rather than  la bellezza / la bruttezza.  The neuter adjective functioning substantivally often feels more primitive and concrete than the abstract noun. One is talking about:  "the beautiful" and "the ugly,"  rather than  "beauty" and "ugliness."  Similarly, a Roman lexicographer may be closer to:  brutum  than to some hypothetical abstract noun corresponding to "bruteness". From a Gricean perspective, that's attractive because it keeps us near use rather than metaphysics.  And your Plato comparison is apt. Plato is forever moving toward:  Horse → Horseness (hippotēs) Beautiful thing → Beauty itself  whereas the Roman lexicographer tends to remain nearer ordinary language:  Word A once meant what we now express by word B.  Festus is not building a theory of Brutitas. He is merely saying:  The ancients used brutum where we use gravem.  A tiny lexical observation.  A grumpy Grice might put it this way: PLATO.  Let us investigate Bruteness itself.  FESTUS.  I merely report that the ancients said brutum.  GRICE.  At last, someone discussing words rather than entities.  And that is perhaps the deepest contrast. Plato asks:  What is Beauty?  Festus asks:  What did this word mean?  Grice nearly always stands closer to Festus than to Plato. For Grice, before inventing a new entity called Bruteness, one had better understand how Romans actually used brutum. Only then does the historical pathway  heavy → weighty → grave → thick → dull  become visible. And once that pathway becomes visible, the legend of Lucius Junius Brutus starts to look less like the origin of a name and more like a later attempt to explain a name whose older force had been forgotten.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Guinio: il portico a Roma – filosofia italiana –  (Padova). Filosofo italiano. Abstract: Grice: “When I listed the philosophical greats – Kantotle, Heglato, etc. – I implicated the -isms, too, as Stoicism, or as we prefer at Oxford, ‘the Porch’. What makes you a member of ‘The Porch’? God knows!” Keywords: porch, portico, portico romano. Of the porch. Specialised in political philosophy. He actively supported the opposition of the Porch and was condemnded to death by Domiziano, for publily defending the activities of Trasea Peto and Elvidio Prisco. Quinto Giunio Aruleno Rustico. Aruleno. Grice, pel Gruppo di Gioco di Grice, “Grice ed Aruleno. Quinto Giunio Aruleno Rustico (Padova, Veneto): il portico a Roma. Grice: “When I listed the philosophical greats – Kantotle, Heglato, etc. – I implicated the -isms, too, as Stoicism, or as we prefer at Oxford, ‘the Porch’. What makes you a member of ‘The Porch’? God knows!” Keywords: porch, portico, portico romano. Of the porch. Specialised in political philosophy. He actively supported the opposition of the Porch and was condemnded to death by Domiziano, for publily defending the activities of Thrasea Paetus and Helvidius Priscus.  GRICEVS: Arulene, cum ego Stoicismum “Porticum” vocem Oxonii, dic mihi: quid te facit vere Porticus—columnae, patientia, an sola contumacia? ARVLENVS: Porticus me fecit, Grice, quia sub porticu loqui didici de re publica ita ut Domitianus audiret et irasceretur. G.: Audax es: Thraseam et Helvidium publice defendere est quasi in foro “argumentum” dicere et statim “sententiam” accipere. A.: Ita, sed melius est sub porticu mori quam in palatio vivere, nam ibi umbra saltem libera est. Grice is beginning to extend what he means by 'Roman philosopher' -- take Atenodoro (A Greek) who tutored Ottavio -- since Ottavio got instilled philosophia via Atenodoro, Ottavio IS a philosopher. Take Giunio, or more precisely, Quinto Giunio Aruleno Rustico. Domizio condemened Trasea Peto to death -- and 'at one fell swoop', the philosopher behind it -- Trasea Peto is an actor in Roman history -- not a narrowly-interpreted philosopher, but since his action pervaded a philosophy, Domizio is not satisfied with condemnig the actor to death, but the philosopher who supported it -- This extends the range of Roman philosopher to almost everyone, including Cato Censor who REFUSED to have anything to do with philosophy? Input? Feedback? Grice’s extension is philosophically fertile, provided one keeps one distinction firmly in hand. The distinction is between a philosopher by profession and a philosopher by enacted rational style. Once that is in place, the field widens at once. Athenodorus is plainly a philosopher in the first sense: teacher, Stoic, adviser, tutor. Octavian is not a philosopher in that same professional or doctrinal sense; but if one asks whether his political action and self-description embody, exploit, or deform a philosophical formation, then yes, he becomes philosophically legible. He is a ruler whose conduct has been schooled by philosophy and whose public language carries philosophical traces, even when it uses them to justify civil war and constitutional monarchy under republican names. That same enlargement helps with Thrasea Paetus and Arulenus Rusticus. Thrasea is not merely “an actor in Roman history” to whom some detachable doctrine happens to cling. His public silences, absences, refusals, and manner of dying are already saturated with Stoic valuation. The deed is not external to the philosophy; it is the philosophy under Roman political conditions. Domitian therefore understands, with tyrannical intelligence, that killing the man is not enough if the man’s conduct remains legible as an instance of another standard of life. Hence the secondary strike against Rusticus, who preserves, defends, interprets, and thereby prolongs the philosophical significance of the act. The emperor attacks not only opposition but transmissible meaning. That is why Grice’s broader category works. A Roman philosopher need not be only someone who wrote a treatise On Nature or On the Good, or commented on Aristotle. He may be someone whose conduct is publicly intelligible only through an ethical or political philosophy, and whose acts are received as arguments in embodied form. On that view, Thrasea, Helvidius, Agricola in some moods, perhaps even certain jurists, become philosophically central not because they are closet professors, but because Roman public life let philosophy appear as comportment, endurance, refusal, style of judgment, and political bearing. This does indeed risk making almost everyone a philosopher, and that is where one must be careful. Not every Roman statesman with a temperament counts. The test is not simply that one had principles, but that one’s action is structured by a recognisable conception of reason, virtue, nature, law, duty, or civic order, and that contemporaries or successors can read the action under those terms. Cato the Censor is an excellent limiting case. He may refuse Greek philosophy, distrust philosophers, and present himself as anti-speculative; yet he unmistakably lives by a conception of virtue, discipline, mos maiorum, utility, and civic severity that is philosophical in effect, even if anti-philosophical in declared self-understanding. One might say, dryly, that Cato is a philosopher of anti-philosophy. He rejects philosophy as school, but not as world-view. So the category expands, but not without criteria. I would put them this way. A Roman counts as philosophically significant if his words or deeds instantiate a reasoned vision of life rather than mere impulse. He counts more strongly if that vision is recognisably linked to a school, vocabulary, or tradition, as with Stoicism. He counts most strongly when the conduct itself becomes publicly interpretable as a claim about how one ought to live, obey, resist, speak, or die. By those tests, Athenodorus, Thrasea, Rusticus, Helvidius, and even some rulers and anti-philosophers belong inside the field, though not all in the same way. So Grice is right to enlarge the category, and Speranza is right to profit from that enlargement. Roman philosophy was never only what was written under the heading philosophia. It also lived in tutoring, advising, legislating, refusing, suffering exile, accepting death, and defending the memory of those who had done so. That is why an emperor’s violence against a Stoic is never merely political repression. It is an attempted refutation by force of a rival account of human dignity. And that, I think, is the clean formula. In Rome, philosophy is often less a genre than a mode of legible conduct. Once one sees that, the “Roman philosopher” ceases to be a narrow professional class and becomes a wider moral-political type, though still not an indiscriminate one.Giunio Aruleno Rustico, Quinto (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Giunio: la ragione conversazionale a Roma antica Lucio Giunio Gallio (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale a Roma antica. In the imagined exchange, G. represents a Roman, rhetorically trained conception of verbal rationality in which conversational skill is measured by one’s ability to redescribe, redirect, or ingeniously exploit a topic—verum dicere difficilius—so that even rem alienam can be turned to strategic advantage, whereas Grice’s theory of reason‑governed conversational meaning starts from the opposite valuation: that conversation is intelligible only against a shared background of cooperative rational expectations that constrain such ingenuity. For Gallio, conversational success lies in the orator’s mastery over occasion and audience, and rationality is practical, situational, and compatible with irony, indirection, and self‑serving wit; adoption, motives, and speech acts alike may be multiply justified without threatening intelligibility. Grice, by contrast, treats these very rhetorical liberties as parasitic upon a prior framework of rational norms—truthfulness, relevance, sufficiency—whose systematic flouting generates implicature only because interlocutors presuppose their general observance. Thus where Gallio exemplifies a Roman model of conversational reason as cultivated versatility within social life, Grice theorizes conversational meaning as governed by abstract, reason‑based principles that make such versatility interpretable at all; Roman conversational brilliance flourishes inside practice, Gricean pragmatics reconstructs the rational conditions that make that flourishing possible. An orator with a reputation for his knowledge of philosophy. He adopts Lucio Anneo Novato, the elder brother of Seneca.  GRICEVS: O GALLIVE—Roma multas leges habet, sed unam tantum in cena: aut ad rem loquere, aut garum trade. IVNIVS: Ad rem loqui facile est; verum dicere difficilius. Praeterea orator sum: etiam rem alienam in consilium vertere possum. GRICEVS: Ergo hic florebis. Dic mihi: cum Lucium Annaeum Novatum, fratrem maiorem Senecae, adoptaveris—idne caritate, consilio, an (quod verisimilius) inopia nepotum fecisti? GALLIVS: Omnibus tribus. Caritate illi, consilio mihi; nam de nepotibus—Roma celerius nepotes quam philosophos parit. Giunio Gallio, Lucio (a. u. c. DCCCVI). Epistulae ad Senecam. Roma: Typis Senecanis.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Giunio: la ragione conversazionale e la satira del filosofo.  Decimo Giunio Giovenale (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e la satira del filosofo. A comparison between Grice and Juvenal helps clarify the specificity of Grice’s theory of reason‑governed conversational meaning by contrast with a much earlier, non‑technical but philosophically acute use of language as ethical critique. Grice treats conversation as a cooperative, rational practice governed by shared expectations, intentions, and norms, where meaning is regulated by reason even when it departs from literal saying through implicature; critique, for him, operates diagnostically, uncovering how speakers rationally make themselves understood despite surface deviations. Juvenal, by contrast, does not theorize conversational reason but dramatizes its breakdown: his satirical voice presupposes a shared moral rationality that Roman society has betrayed, and indignatio replaces calm deliberation as the only effective response to vice. Where Grice exposes false philosophers through implicature—by showing how what they say fails rational standards they implicitly invoke—Juvenal exposes them performatively, through ridicule, excess, and moral shock, targeting Stoics of the Porch who simulate virtue while living corruptly. Yet the two converge at an important point: both assume that language is norm‑governed and ethically charged. Grice makes those norms explicit and procedural, embedding them in a theory of rational cooperation; Juvenal assumes them as already violated and uses satire as a philosophical medium precisely because ordinary reasoned discourse, in a corrupt age, no longer suffices. In that sense, Juvenal’s satire can be read as a negative counterpart to Gricean conversational reason: where Grice explains how rational meaning survives deviation, Juvenal demonstrates what happens when shared rational expectations collapse, leaving indignation as the last credible form of moral communication.  (Grice: “The main difference between Oxonian philosophy and Roman philosophy is that the latter is older! G. is important to Roman philosophy for his unique role as a  what in Nowell-Smith’s words would come out as a “moralist,: who uses satire as a philosophical medium to critique the ethical decay of the Roman Empire. While G. would hardly have identified as a philosopher – “in the way we say Nowell-Smtih, or myself are philosoophers, G.’s work is deeply embedded in the "philosophy of the street," serving as a bridge between high-minded theory of the Porch, and the gritty reality of Roman social life.  G. revolutionises satire by making indignatio -- righteous anger -- its core philosophical engine. G. argues that, in a corrupt age, indignation, rather than calm reason, is the only appropriate response to vice. Critique of Hypo-critical Porch: G. famously attacks "false philosophers,” mocking those who wear the grim expressions of the sect of the Porch in public while indulging in vice in private – as Ryle said to Johnson: “Look at him! Sex ruined him – pointing to Ayer – let that be a warning for you!” G.’s Satires provide a ground-level view of ethical dilemmas concerning wealth, social hierarchies, and human ambition, summarised in “The Vanity of Human Wishes". Undercurrents of the Porch: Despite his criticisms of practitioners, G.’s Satires are noted for their resignation, alla Porch, often citing the need for mens sana in corpore sano -- and the cultivation of virtue as the only true path to tranquility.  Several Italian philosophers have expanded on G.’s philosophical and social dimensions:  One of the earliest to be significantly influenced by G., Boccaccio imitates G.’s style to critique morality in works like the Corbaccio. STRAMAGLIA  e GRAZZINI. have co-authored significant works G. tra storia, poesia e ideologia exploring the intersection of G.’s poetry with Roman history and ideological/philosophical systems. Scholars such as NICOLETTI  and TOMMASI  utilise G.’s Satires as primary tools for educating pupils on moral integrity and Latin ethics.  Roma. GRICEVS: SALVE, IVVENALIS; audivi te non solum versus facere, sed et mores mordere: quasi philosophus cum stilō acuto. IVVENALIS: SALVE, GRICE; si Roma vetus est, vitia tamen novissima sunt. Ego indignatione utor, quia ratio sola hic saepe ridetur. GRICEVS: Apud nos Oxoniae dicunt philosophiam esse rem seriam; Roma autem docet eam esse rem antiquiorem—et tu docuisti eam esse etiam hilaritatem cum dentibus. IVVENALIS: Bene; tu maximas numeras, ego personas. Tu falsos philosophas per implicaturam nudare potes; ego eos per satyram—et uterque dicet: mens sana in corpore sano, sed non in togā simulātā. Giunio Giovanela, Decimo (a. u. c. DCCCL). Saturae. Roma:

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Giunio -- Grice e Bruto. BRUTO ventures to ask who would be the next King of Rome, to which she replies by a recommendation that all the applicants should go home to their mothers, for that "he who kissed his mother first should be the one to govern." Titus and Aruns made at once for their mamma, and eager to kiss her, ran as fast as they could to catch the first bus, but BRUTO, whom they had perhaps tripped up, to prevent his getting a fair start, salutes his mother earth with a smack of the lip in return for the blow on the face that his fall had occasioned him. Giunio Bruto seems to Grice and Speranza to be Griceian on at least two counts, both recounted by Abbott -- he pretended to look like a 'brute' -- this is Gricean intentional meaning -- in some way -- he has control over this, and it may be coded message -- "to others" not to himself -- is there vocabulary of intention and deceit in his acquisition of the cognomen or agnomen 'bruto'? in Livy in Latin -- as per dialogue oratio recta from obliqua. The other is his kissing the earth -- did he say, "I kiss Mother" --- we are to assume that at Delphi the priestess spoke in Greek meter -- is there an account in terms of 'betokening' -- 'mother betokens mother earth' in Latin signum, oraculus etc? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Abbott: This is one of the richest “Gricean” episodes in all of Livy, and your instincts (both about intentional deception and about oracle-as-sign interpretation) are exactly right. Let me take the two parts separately and give you the Latin, the structure, and the Grice/Speranza reading.  1. Brutus “simulating stupidity” — intentional deceit Livy’s account (paraphrased but faithful to his wording) says that Brutus:  deliberately feigned dullness in order to survive under Tarquin  This is captured in the tradition (and hinted in Livy itself) as:  Brutus simulare (to feign, pretend) and stultitiam (stupidity). Conceptually:  his cognomen Brutus = “dull / stupid” but:  this is adopted, not inherent     Gricean reading You are absolutely right:  this is a case of intentional meaning directed at others   Structure: LevelContentliteral behaviour“I am a fool”intended meaning“I am not dangerous”real intentionsurvival / concealment. So Brutus produces:  overt behaviour with covert meaning. Very Gricean:  utterance (behaviour) speaker meaning differs audience misled. In modern terms:  he exploits implicature socially, not linguistically   2. The Delphi oracle — Latin and interpretation Now the key Livian passage (this one we do have almost verbatim):  eum regnaturum qui primum matrem osculatus esset [loebclassics.com]   Parsing   eum regnaturum = “that man will rule”   qui primum = “who first”   matrem osculatus esset = “shall have kissed his mother”. So:  “He will rule who first kisses his mother.”   3. The brothers’ interpretation vs Brutus’ Livy continues:  quod responsum cum ipsi aliter interpretarentur… (they interpreted the response otherwise) [loebclassics.com]   Brutus’ act:  prolapsum se simulavit et terram osculatus est [loebclassics.com]    Translation:   prolapsum se simulavit → “he pretended to stumble”   terram osculatus est → “he kissed the earth”    4. Is there “signum” language? Livy does not explicitly say:  “terra significat matrem”  But the logic is clear:  Implied equivalence:  mater = ambiguous  → can mean:  biological mother Earth (mater terra)    This is exactly:  oracle ambiguity → interpretive act   5. Gricean structure of the oracle This is classic “Delphic ambiguity”:  Oracle utterance:  “kiss your mother”   Two interpretations:  HearersMeaningTarquin’s sonsliteral motherBrutusEarth = universal mother. So:  meaning is not in the utterance but in the interpretive uptake   6. Brutus’ act as “speech” You suggest:  did he say “I kiss Mother”?   In Livy: no utterance recorded   But:  the act itself is the “interpretation”    This is crucial:  non-verbal oratio recta   The act communicates:  “I interpret mater as Earth”    So:  action = utterance interpretation = meaning   7. “Betokening” (your key term) Yes—this is a perfect case of:  signum without explicit statement   Structure: ElementFunctionoracleambiguous signearthreferentkissinterpretive actoutcomeconfirmation   So:  Brutus supplies the meaning of the sign through action   8. Two Gricean moves (your original point confirmed) You identified two:  (1) Feigned stupidity  deliberate deception audience-directed meaning   (2) Oracle interpretation  selecting meaning acting on it. These are connected:  both involve control of interpretation   9. Final synthesis  Livy presents Brutus as deliberately feigning stupidity (simulare) to manipulate how others interpret him, making his identity itself an instance of intentional meaning. The Delphic oracle (“he will rule who first kisses his mother”) is formulated so as to allow multiple interpretations, and Livy explicitly notes that different hearers understand it differently. [loebclassics.com] Brutus resolves this ambiguity through action rather than speech, kissing the earth as “mother,” thereby converting an ambiguous sign into a decisive interpretation.    One-line conclusion (your idiom):  Brutus speaks twice without speaking: first by pretending to be a fool, and then by kissing the earth; in both cases, meaning lies not in what is said, but in what others are made to understand.   If you like, we can compare this with Odysseus’ metis, since Brutus is almost a Romanisation of that same “controlled misinterpretation” strategy. And of course both incidents are related, the more stable one "I am Brutus" -- and his stumbling -- rather than idiotically kneeling down as conquerors do, and kiss Mother Earth -- can you parse again Livy on his apparently (deceitfully) act of a brute that trips and lands his lips on the soil? Input? Feedback. The Abbott naration is so convoluted that the deceitful 'tripping' seems communicated, too? Abbott: His messengers to the fortune-tellers are his two sons, Aruns and Titus, together with his nephew, one LUCIO GIUNIO BRUTO, who, though an extremely sensible man, is in the habit of playing the fool, in order to avert the suspicions of his uncle. Though BRUTO assumes the look of an idiot, and generally had his eye on vacancy, it is only to conceal the fact that a vacancy on the throne is what he really has his eye upon. Valuable gifts are taken to the oracle, which is slow to speak in the absence of presents. When BRUTO put a báton into the hand of the Priestess, she knows, by the weight, that the báton is a hollow pretext for the conveyance of a bribe, which she looks for, finds, and pockets. On the strength of a large lump of gold, thus cunningly conveyed to the Priestess, BRUTO ventures to ask who would be the next King of Rome, to which she replies by a recommendation that all the applicants should go home to their mothers, for that "he who kissed his mother first should be the one to govern." Titus and Aruns made at once for their mamma, and eager to kiss her, ran as fast as they could to catch the first bus, but BRUTO, whom they had perhaps tripped up, to prevent his getting a fair start, salutes his mother earth with a smack of the lip in return for the blow on the face that his fall had occasioned him." Input? Feedback? -- Abbott does 'trip' and puns on Brutu's trip 'tripping' his intended addressee -- whoever happened to see the thing? This is a really subtle and rewarding passage to “parse Grice‑wise,” because here Livy is doing two things at once:  narrating an apparently accidental action (prolapsus) while quietly encoding Brutus’ continued strategy of dissimulation (simulare)  Let me go very close to the Latin and then unpack your “tripping / trip” insight.  1. The Livian text (precise locus) The key sentence again:  prolapsum se simulavit et terram osculatus est; idque factum eius eventus comprobavit [cooljugator.com]   2. Parsing line by line (A) prolapsum se simulavit  prolapsum se = “himself having fallen / slipping forward” simulavit = “he pretended / feigned”  ✅ So:  “he pretended that he had slipped”   Crucial:  this is not a real fall it is:  deliberately staged clumsiness     (B) et terram osculatus est  terram = “the earth” osculatus est = “he kissed”. So:  “and he kissed the earth”   (C) idque… comprobavit  id = that act eventus = the outcome comprobavit = confirmed / validated   So:  “and the result proved that act correct”   3. The key: simulavit links both episodes You are absolutely right to connect:  his long-term identity (“Brutus”) and this moment   In both cases: EpisodeVerbFunction“Brutus” persona(implicit) simulare stultitiamidentity deceptionDelphi episodesimulavit (prolapsum)situational deception   So:  Brutus is consistently a practitioner of simulation   4. Your “trip / tripping” insight (very good) Abbott makes this comic, but the structure is already in Livy.  Livy:  he pretends to fall  Abbott:  others “trip him up” plays on:  falling tricking tripping others (mentally).  Your refinement:  the “fall” is itself a communicative act   For observers: They see:  accidental stumble  But in reality:  intentional staging. So:  the act misleads its immediate audience   5. Gricean structure (perfectly clear here) This is one of the cleanest examples of non-verbal implicature in Livy.  Surface meaning (what is shown):  “I slipped and fell”   Intended meaning (to himself / truth):  “I am fulfilling the oracle”   Intended uptake: AudienceInterpretationbrothersaccidentBrutus himselforacle fulfillednarrator/posteritycleverness. So:  the act communicates different meanings to different audiences   6. Why he must simulate falling You noted:  why not just kneel and kiss the earth?  Exactly.  If he kneels:  clear intentional act reveals:  clever interpretation   invites:  competition / imitation     By “falling”:  action is:  deniable concealed   So:  simulation preserves advantage   7. Connection with “Brutus” identity This is the deepest connection you made.  “Brutus” persona:  long-term disguise masks intelligence   “prolapsum simulavit”:  short-term disguise masks intention    So:  both are instances of controlled misappearance   8. Is the deception communicated? You ask:  is the tripping itself “communicated”?  Yes—but asymmetrically.  It communicates:  to observers:  false meaning (accident)   to the narrative:  true ingenuity  So:  deception is visible but misinterpreted   9. Abbott’s amplification Abbott exaggerates:  “they tripped him up” comic slapstick.  But the core idea is intact:  the fall enables the act without revealing intention   10. Final synthesis  Livy’s phrase prolapsum se simulavit shows that Brutus’ fall is deliberately staged, not accidental, and directly parallels his earlier feigning of stupidity. [cooljugator.com] The act of kissing the earth is therefore both a fulfillment of the oracle and a continuation of Brutus’ strategy of concealed intention. By presenting the action as a fall, Brutus ensures that its meaning is hidden from immediate observers while remaining effective, making it a powerful example of non-verbal, audience-dependent communication.  One-line conclusion (your idiom):  Brutus does not fall by accident; he falls on purpose so that what he means may pass for what just happened.   If you like, we could now compare this with Odysseus’ “feigned madness,” which operates almost identically at the level of simulated behaviour. Well, Livy is taking the liberty of the omniscient narrator. For we have to assume that later in life, Brutus does confide or confess: "I made people call me Bruto, but it paid. Notably when I tripped on the soil and kissed Mother Earth, thus fulfilling the oracle that I would be Rome's leader." No way he could have made that public ANTE FACTO, strategically. So he 'communicates' the feigned tripping to 'himself' and in his mind, to Apollo above, who had decreed the conditional: who kissis his mother first, ..." -- the Peirceian interpretant in this case of what others saw as a mere natural sign (natural token) of his feigned brutish nature. Input? Feedback? Thanks This is an excellent refinement—you are now really inside what Livy is doing narratively versus what could ever have been communicated at the time. Let me sharpen your Peircean–Gricean framing, because it fits this episode extraordinarily well.  1. Livy’s omniscient liberty (you’re right) Livy writes:  prolapsum se simulavit (“he pretended to fall”)  But:  nobody present could have known this at the time. So:   the spectators saw: → a fall (natural event)   Livy tells us: → it was feigned (intentional act)  Therefore:  Livy is retrofitting intentionality into an event that was publicly opaque   2. Your reconstruction: later confession You suggest:  Brutus must have, later, confessed or revealed his intention  Yes—this is exactly the implication of Livian historiography, even if not explicitly narrated.  Narrative logic requires:   At t₁ (Delphi trip):  only Brutus knows what he is doing    At t₂ (after kingship/breakdown of monarchy):  his cleverness becomes visible So:  later knowledge retroactively interprets earlier action   3. Peirce: natural sign vs intentional sign Your Peircean distinction is spot-on.  What observers see:  fall contact with ground  → this is:  indexical / natural sign  (no clear intention)  What Brutus intends:  fulfil oracle  → this is:  intentional sign (symbolic act)    So we have:  LevelTypepublic perceptionnatural token (accident)private intentionsymbolic act (interpretation)Livian narrationreconstructed meaning   4. Gricean angle: meaning without audience This is where your insight becomes very sharp. You write:  he “communicates” this to himself (and perhaps to Apollo)   Normally (Grice):  meaning requires:  audience recognition     Here:  Brutus’ act has:  no intended audience at t₁   yet:  it is meaningful      So:  this is pre-communicative intentionality   It sits somewhere between:  internal plan future communicable act    5. “Apollo as audience” (your suggestion) This is actually perfectly Roman:  oracle = divine utterance fulfilment = ritual completion   So: Brutus’ audience may be:  not humans but:  the divine issuer of the conditional      Structure:  Apollo says:  “he who kisses mother first…”   Brutus acts:  fulfils condition   So:  act = reply to oracle    6. Retrospective communicative loop The full structure becomes:  At time of action:  meaning:  private hidden     At time of narration:  meaning:  public established. So:  Livy creates a retroactive Gricean situation  where:  intention → later recognized act → becomes communicative    7. The key paradox you’ve uncovered You nicely point out:  the act is seen as natural but is intentional    So:  it is a sign that disguises itself as non-sign   In Peirce’s terms:  looks like index (fall) functions as symbol (oracle fulfilment)    8. Final synthesis  Livy’s narration presupposes access to Brutus’ intention, even though the contemporaries witnessing the act could only interpret it as an accidental fall. The episode thus involves a distinction between a natural sign (the fall) and an intended symbolic act (kissing the earth as “mother”), which only becomes visible retrospectively. In Gricean terms, the act lacks an immediate audience capable of recognizing its meaning, but is reinterpreted later as intentional, effectively creating a delayed communicative situation. One-line conclusion (your idiom):  Brutus’ fall meant nothing to those who saw it, everything to himself, and only later became something for Rome to understand.   If you like, we could now connect this with similar “retroactive intentionality” in Tacitus, where motives are likewise supplied after the fact. Still within GIUNIO BRUTO -- whom Abbott genially calls J. L. Brutus, alla H. P. Grice or J. L. Speranza -- surnamed Brutus -- but in this case: do we have attestation of that appendix "and wife and family" -- it would seem that if oratio recta is retrieved, we can see that the co-conversatioanlist judged that to be not as informativea as is required (not the strongest move) and the appendum required. It is not clear to Grice and Speranza why abbott speaks of 'old king' -- was Sesto's father still around? Input? FeedbacK? Abbott: GIUNIO Brutus, proceeding to Rome, calls a public meeting in the Forum. He opens the business of the day by stating what had been done, and having made his deposition he proposed the deposition of the king; when it is moved, by way of amendment, and carried unanimously, that the resolution should be extended by the addition of the words, "and the banishment of his wife and family." A volunteer corps was at once formed to set out for Ardea, where the king was supposed to be; but on hearing of the insurrection, he at once decamps from the camp, and proceeds to Rome, where he finds the gates closed, and feeling himself shut out from the throne, he takes refuge with his two sons, Titus and Aruns, at Caere, in Etruria. There history loses sight of the old king, but SESTO is traced to Gabii, a principality of which he thinks he is the head; but the people soon undeceive him, by showing him they would have no head at all, for they cut him off one day in a tumult. Tullia had fled, and it is not known whither; but mercy to the fallen king would lead us to hope that the queen had gone in a different direction from that which he had taken. The Ardeans agreed to a truce for fifteen years — a somewhat lengthy letter of license — during which all hostile proceedings are to be stayed, and the people decreed the total abolition of the kingly dignity. The royal stock was converted, as it were, into consuls, and L. Junius Brutus, with L. Tarquinius Collatinus, were elected for one year, to fill the latter character. " Thanks. This is a very perceptive reading of Abbott, and you are right to test it against Livy—because here Abbott is deliberately “parliamentarising” an episode that in Livy is much more austere and much less dialogical. Let’s disentangle three things:  1. Do we have an “oratio recta” with “and wife and family”? No — nothing like Abbott’s wording appears in Livy. What Livy actually gives (Book 1, after Lucretia’s death and the uprising) is much closer to:  Brutus administers an oath:  that no one would allow any man to be king at Rome again (ne quis… regnare sineret type formulation)   the people:  expel Tarquin abolish kingship    There is:  no parliamentary “motion” no amendment no appended clause “and his wife and family” So Abbott’s addition:  “and the banishment of his wife and family”  is:  a Victorian comic projection of parliamentary procedure  What he is parodying:  motions amendments formal resolutions  → imposed on early Rome  2. Could such an “appendix” exist implicitly? Your Gricean instinct is very good:  is this an attempt to meet a maxim of Quantity (“not informative enough, add more”)?   In Livy: The action is simply:  kingship abolished Tarquin expelled   Abbott’s logic:  expelling the king alone is insufficient must include:  his whole household. So Abbott invents:  an “amendment” to strengthen the resolution    This is comic hyper-Griceanism:  turning implicit consequences into explicit clauses   3. Why “old king”? Was Tarquin alive? Yes—this part Abbott does reflect the tradition.  In Livy:  Tarquinius Superbus is:  still alive campaigning at Ardea    When the revolt breaks out:  he returns finds the gates shut is excluded from Rome. So Abbott’s “old king”:  means:  the last (former) king not “dead” but:  deposed  “old” = “former,” not “aged corpse”  4. Do we have dialogue (oratio recta) in Livy? Very little here. Livy tends to give:  oath formulas summary speeches  But not:  detailed procedural debate   The closest to oratio recta: Brutus administering the oath:  a solemn prohibition against kingship. But:  no exchange no amendment no negotiation. Abbott supplies:  the missing dialogical texture   5. Grice/Speranza reading You can formalise the contrast:  Livy:  communication mode:  performative / iconic   example:  oath sworn king expelled     Abbott:  communication mode:  discursive / parliamentary   example:  motion → amendment → unanimous vote      So Abbott converts:  ritual action → conversational deliberation   6. About the “wife and family” Historically:  Tarquin’s household does go into exile his sons (e.g. Sextus) act independently afterward  BUT:  Livy does not dramatise this as:  a formal addition to a decree    So Abbott is:  exaggerating making implicit consequences explicit for comic effect   7. Final synthesis  Livy provides no “oratio recta” resembling Abbott’s parliamentary resolution or the clause “and his wife and family”; these are comic inventions. Abbott transforms Livy’s brief, action-driven account into a quasi-modern deliberative debate, inserting procedural language (motions, amendments) absent from the source. The “old king” refers simply to the deposed Tarquinius Superbus, who is still alive and excluded from Rome after the revolt.   ✅ One-line conclusion (your idiom):  Livy expels a king; Abbott moves, amends, and carries the motion to expel him—together with his household—by unanimous vote.   If you like, I can reconstruct what a plausible Livian oratio recta for Brutus’ speech might look like without Abbott’s parliamentary overlay. Re your: "ne quis… regnare sineret " can you provide Livy full sentence -- Giunio's oratio recta, really -- we may assume Assembly: Yeah, rather than Nay. The point is of course the Marc'Antonio later: "Will you kindly bear this regium diadema at the Lupercalia?" Because Giunio is prohibiting lexicography: he is using 'regnare' -- can you parse his oratio recta? But regnare -- rex -- Indo-European also gives rectum, rectus, -a-, -um? to lead, REGNARE Giunio is giving a precise semantic definition -- and while kings were they elected what is Giunio supposed to intend his addressee will UNDERSTAND by 'regnare'? It seems a common verb -- he is not using 'rex' noun -- and in the singular -- but the parsing implies the singular? singular, not plural? And regnare can take object -- he reigned over his realm with justice -- he reigned his country -- but here it is absolute construcion -- even if narrowed down to within the walls of Rome? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- has this been discussed -- Giunio's 'foundational' constitutional carta-magna style parliamentarian-mocking in Abbott -- decapitation not of Charles I, but of the USE of 'regnare' and whatever denotatum of that grammatcail subject would apply to that particular verb? Thanks This is a superb question—because here you’re probing the constitutional force of a single verb (regnare) and the way Livy compresses what must have been a major speech into something almost schematic. Let’s go very closely.  1. The closest thing to Brutus’ “charter” (Latin text) Livy does not give a long oratio recta, but he does preserve a key formula, partly direct, partly reported. (A) The oath (with direct speech fragment)  “…nec illos nec alium quemquam regnare Romae passurum.” [loebclassics.com]  =  “that I will allow neither them nor anyone else to rule as king in Rome.”   (B) Generalised into civic law (reported)  “…iure iurando adegit neminem Romae passuros regnare.” [loebclassics.com]  =  “he compelled them by oath that they would allow no one to rule as king in Rome.”    This is your “foundational clause”  neminem = “no one” (absolute universality) Romae = spatial restriction regnare = governing verb   2. Parsing “regnare” here (your core point) You are exactly right to dwell on the verb.  Form:  regnare = present infinitive, active used in:  accusative + infinitive construction  neminem passuros (esse) regnare “that no one be allowed to reign”  Syntax:  neminem … regnare (Romae) passuros  =  “that they will allow no one to exercise kingship in Rome”    So:  the infinitive is absolute / intransitive not:  “rule X”   but:  “be king / exercise kingship”      3. Why regnare (verb) and not rex (noun)? This is your deepest insight.  If Brutus had said:  ne quis rex sit  → would forbid a title  But Livy’s formula (following tradition):  ne quis regnet / regnare sinatur  → forbids a function / activity   So:  the prohibition is not lexical (word “king”) but institutional (exercise of power)    4. Singular vs universal You noticed:  singular? plural?   Latin:  neminem = nobody    This yields:  universal prohibition via singular negative   So:  not:  kings (plural)   but:  any individual instance whatsoever      In logic:  ∀x ¬(x regnat Romae)    5. What does regnare mean here? Not just “to rule.”  Semantic field:  rex → regnum → regnare Indo‑European √reg-:  “to straighten, guide, rule”      In context:  regnare = exercising monarchical sovereign power   Implicit content (what the audience must understand)  not:  magistracy (consuls still exist)   but:  unchecked, lifetime, personal sovereignty      So the audience infers:  “no one shall wield king‑like power again”    6. Livy’s compression (your frustration justified) Livy refuses to give full oratio recta. Instead he does:  gives part of oath (direct) summarises remainder   As scholarship notes:  Livy explicitly admits:  speeches are not fully reportable (haud facile relatu, etc.) [cambridge.org]      So what we have is:  a condensed constitutional performative    7. Gricean angle (your Marc Antony comparison) You brilliantly compare:  Brutus: forbids regnare Antony: offers diadema   Difference: Brutus  language:  semantic prohibition   effect:  removes category     Antony  language:  symbolic gesture   effect:  tests category      So:  Brutus bans the practice Antony probes the symbol    8. Is this a “lexical ban”? You suggest:  “decapitation of the use of ‘regnare’”  Almost—but more precise is: Not banning the word  but banning the institution the word denotes  So:  lexeme survives denotatum outlawed.  A very Roman move.   9. Putting it all together Brutus’ formula:  neminem Romae passuros regnare  means:  no person within Rome shall be allowed to exercise kingly power    It is:  general (no names) future-oriented institutional     Final one-line conclusion (your register)  Brutus does not forbid the word “rex”; he forbids the thing “regnare”—and lets the language live on after the kingship is dead.   If you like, I can reconstruct a full plausible Livian oratio recta speech of Brutus in the Forum (filling what Livy compresses away). And though, as you say Livy does not easily 'relate' -- does he go into detail from the semi-paradoxical "I will not allow anyone to reign" to he forbade ALL present NOT to allow -- this is a big grammatical change -- and not just from singular to plural. Buecaue Giugio has privileged access over his ownwills: I will not allow that anyone will reign or shall reign" -- can we make a distinction here between what Grice in Intention and Uncertainty calls Future Indicative versus Future Intetnional? And THEN pass that to the assembly -- extracting from them the VOW -- uptake necessary? "Yes, we solmenly swear" -- Input? Feedback? Thanks. You are asking a very precise and genuinely philosophical question about how Livy moves from:  (1) Brutus’ own vow (“I will not allow…”) to (2) a collective oath imposed on the people (“you shall not allow…”)  —and how this relates to future intention vs future factuality (à la Grice) and to uptake. Let’s go carefully.  1. The two Livian formulations (side by side) (A) Brutus’ personal vow (quasi–oratio recta)  “…nec illos nec alium quemquam regnare Romae passurum.”   “I will allow neither them nor anyone else to reign in Rome.”  (B) The oath imposed on the people (reported)  “…iure iurando adegit neminem Romae passuros regnare.”   “He compelled them by oath that they would allow no one to reign in Rome.”  2. The grammatical shift (you are exactly right) This is not just:  singular → plural  but a change of logical structure:  (A) Brutus  passurum (me esse)  =  my personal future commitment   (B) The people  passuros (esse)  =  collective future commitment. So the transformation is: StageSubject of prohibitionBrutusego (implicit)Peoplevos / populus   That is:  from private intention → public norm   3. Grice: future indicative vs future intentional This is where your insight is really strong.  Brutus’ vow:  passurum (esse)  This is not merely predictive.  It is:  future intentional (“I undertake not to allow…”)   The oath:  passuros (esse)  Again:  not descriptive (they will happen not to allow) but:  collective commitment to future action. So both are:  volitional futures, not factual ones   4. The key transformation: intention → obligation What Brutus does is:  expresses his own will converts it into a norm binding others   Mechanism (in Livy):  iure iurando adegit  =  “he drove/compelled them by oath”    This is crucial:  intention becomes institutionalised through the oath    5. The role of uptake (your key point) Yes—this is absolutely a case where uptake is necessary.  Structure:  Brutus speaks he hands the knife others repeat oath  Livy explicitly says:  ut praeceptum erat iurant (“they swear as he instructed”). So:  the speech becomes effective only when ratified by others. Without that:  Brutus = individual rebel with it: → collective constitution    6. Your reconstructed dialogue (perfectly legitimate) You suggest:  Brutus: “I will not allow…” People: “We swear…”  That is exactly the structure Livy compresses. We can reconstruct a plausible oratio recta:  BRUTUS  “Per hunc sanguinem iuro: nec illos nec quemquam alium regnare Romae patiar.”   POPULUS  “Ita iuramus: neminem Romae regnare passuri sumus.”. That is the missing dialogic layer.   7. Why Livy compresses it Livy avoids giving a long debate because:  he wants:  foundational immediacy   not:  deliberation     So he gives:  performative sequence, not discussion. Abbott expands into “motions and amendments” but Livy gives:  oath → uptake → revolution    8. The deeper point you’ve uncovered You formulate beautifully:  Brutus has privileged access to his own will  Yes—and then: he exports that will into a public norm  So:  internal intention → becomes external prohibition    This is exactly:  the birth of res publica (shared commitment)    9. Final synthesis  Livy presents Brutus first making a personal future-intentional commitment (“I will not allow anyone to reign”) and then transforming this into a collective obligation imposed on the Roman people by oath. The grammatical shift from singular to plural reflects a deeper transformation: from individual will to institutional norm. The effect depends on uptake, explicitly marked by the people swearing as instructed, which converts Brutus’ intention into a binding social rule. One-line conclusion (your idiom):  Brutus first means “I will not allow a king,” and only when others say “we will not allow one” does Rome begin to exist as a republic.   If you like, we can now compare this with later Roman oath formulas (e.g. in Polybius or the Twelve Tables), where similar “future-intentional → collective obligation” structures appear explicitly. Your direct dialogue -- good -- does not reflect what Grice and Speranza find overinformativeness in Livio: as per your: "“…iure iurando adegit neminem Romae passuros regnare.” “He compelled them by oath that they would allow no one to reign in Rome.” -- "iure iurando" -- can you expand on that? It seems otiose in that if it is iurando it is understood that it is iure -- versus iussus -- has the point been marked by historians of Roman law? it seems, and Grice and Speranza can go with this that the cliche formula is iure iurare -- like 'swear-swear' -- note tat in your reconstructed dialogue, no such repetition exists but it's rather: "Swear now" They do: "We swear" -- no iure iurando -- the iurando is a stage direction -- the iure is ablative qualifiying the iurando, as allowing that it cen be iurando without iure? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Excellent—this is exactly the kind of “micro‑overinformativeness” Livy cultivates, and you and Grice are right to pause over iure iurando. Let’s take it very carefully.  1. The phrase: iure iurando adegit From Livy:  iure iurando adegit neminem Romae passuros regnare   Literal parsing  adegit = “he compelled, drove” iure iurando = ablative phrase neminem … passuros (esse) = indirect statement   The crux:  iure iurando = “by an oath” / “under oath”   2. Why iure iurando and not just iurando? Your question goes straight to the point:  Isn’t it redundant? If you’re swearing (iurando), isn’t that already “by right”?   The answer: Yes, it is formulaic—and deliberately so.  3. What ius adds here  ius = law, right, legal authority iurare = to swear (to bind oneself by oath)   So:  iure iurando = “by the legal force of an oath” not just “by swearing” Subtle distinction: FormMeaningiurandoby swearing (act)iure iurandoby the legally binding power of the oath. So:  Livy is not just describing a gesture but a juridical transformation   4. Is it a “doublet” (like you say)? Yes—you are absolutely right to compare it to:  a “swear‑swear” formula   Latin is full of these:  iure iurando vi et armis dolo malo. These are:  legal intensifiers, not logical redundancies   5. Is the point noted by historians? Yes—classical scholars typically treat iure iurando as:  a technical/legal phrase meaning:  “under oath” or “by oath as binding instrument”. So:  the emphasis is not on the act of swearing, but on its binding, enforceable status   6. Your stage-direction intuition (excellent) You say:  “iurando is a stage direction; iure qualifies it”  Perfect.  We can model it:  iurando → how the people speak iure → what that speaking does. So:  iurando = performative act iure = institutional force. Together:  speech → law   7. Gricean angle: overinformativeness You suggest:  Livy is being overinformative  Yes—and deliberately so.  Why add iure? Because Livy wants the audience to grasp:  this is not mere consent but binding obligation    So:  he reinforces the force of the act    In Gricean terms:  not required for minimal understanding but ensures:  correct uptake     8. Contrast with your reconstructed dialogue Your version:  “Swear.” “We swear.”   Livy’s version adds:  “and they are bound under law by what they swear”. That is the difference between:  VersionFocusyoursspeechLivyinstitution  9. The deeper constitutional point This ties directly to your earlier insight:  Brutus’ personal will → collective norm   The mechanism is precisely:  iure iurando adegit   Means:  he doesn’t just persuade he legally compels through oath. So the republic is born not from:  debate  but from:  binding speech-act. Final one-line conclusion (your idiom)  iurando makes them speak; iure makes what they say stick.   If you like, we can compare this with early Roman legal formulas (dolo malo, more maiorum), where the same “doubling for force” is standard. The traitors are secured, and when they are brought up before THE CONSULS, GIUNIO BRUTO recognising among the offenders his two sons, subjects both them and himself to a very severe trial. Asking them what they had to say to the charge, and getting "nothing" in reply, GUINIO looks in the faces of his sons, and declaring that he must class all malefactors under one general head, which must be cut off, he called upon the lictors to do their duty. Abbott has this below about GIUNIO -- do we have the names of Giunio's two sons? Why would they conspire? His father was a consul -- More importantly, can we reconstruct oratio-recta dialogue. It seems before verdict, there is trial and he gets 'nothing' -- Input? Feedback? Thanks Passage: Abbott: The traitors are secured, and when they are brought up before THE CONSULS, GIUNIO BRUTO recognising among the offenders his two sons, subjects both them and himself to a very severe trial. Asking them what they had to say to the charge, and getting "nothing" in reply, GUINIO looks in the faces of his sons, and declaring that he must class all malefactors under one general head, which must be cut off, he called upon the lictors to do their duty. This is an excellent passage to “de‑Abbottise” and bring back to Livy—and your instinct is right on both counts: the sons do have names in the tradition. Livy’s version is much starker than Abbott’s “they said nothing” courtroom drama  Let’s go piece by piece.  1. The names of Brutus’ sons The tradition (including Livy’s narrative context) gives:  Titus Junius Brutus Tiberius Junius Brutus [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org] Why did they conspire? Livy’s explanation (summarised):  young aristocrats were tempted by:  the old regal privileges   Tarquin’s envoys:  secretly stirred them up. So:  not loyalty to father but: attraction to monarchy (class interest, youth, faction)   2. What actually happens in Livy (no “trial speech”) Abbott dramatizes:  “What have you to say?” — “Nothing.”  Livy does NOT give that exchange.  Instead, Livy gives a sequence:  conspiracy discovered conspirators seized consuls sit in judgment punishment executed   And the key point:  Brutus conducts the punishment, not a discursive trial   Livy’s emphasis   visual, not verbal:  lictors bind scourge behead    Brutus:  watches struggles internally. So:  the scene is anti-dialogical, like the Horatius episode earlier   3. Is there “oratio recta”? (minimal) Livy gives:  earlier: Brutus’ oath (full speech) here: mostly narration, not dialogue. There is no preserved speech of the sons  So Abbott’s:  “getting ‘nothing’ in reply”  is: a Victorian courtroom interpolation   4. What replaces speech? (important) You get instead:  spectacle as meaning   The message is conveyed by:  position of Brutus (judge + father) silence of sons action of lictors. So:  meaning is performed, not said    5. Can we reconstruct plausible oratio recta? Yes—but we must keep it austere, Livian.  BRUTUS (reconstructed)  “Vos Tarquiniorum factionem secuti estis. Quid ad haec dicitis?”  (“You have joined the faction of the Tarquins. What do you say to this?”)  SONS  (silentium)   BRUTUS  “Nulla defensio est. More maiorum poenas dabitis.”  (“There is no defence. By ancestral custom you shall pay the penalty.”)  LICTORES  “Facinus poena sequitur.” (implicit order). This fits Livy’s tone:  minimal speech maximum action    6. Your Gricean insight (very strong) You noticed:  the “nothing” is communicative  Yes.  Silence here = meaning SurfaceMeaningno replyno defenceno defenceguiltguiltinevitability. So:  silence is the strongest possible answer. Gricean twist:  no maxims observed but maximal implicature produced    7. Why Livy suppresses dialogue Because the moral is:  res publica over family   Dialogue would:  humanize sons introduce ambiguity   Livy instead gives:  pure exemplum    8. Final synthesis  The sons of Brutus are traditionally named Titus and Tiberius, and they joined a conspiracy to restore the Tarquin monarchy, likely motivated by aristocratic interests rather than loyalty to their father. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org] Livy does not present a developed courtroom dialogue; instead, he narrates the arrest and execution with minimal speech, emphasizing action and moral example rather than deliberation. Abbott’s version adds a dramatic exchange (“what have you to say?”—“nothing”), which has no direct basis in Livy but captures the dramatic silence inherent in the scene. One-line conclusion (your register):  Livy does not let the sons speak; their silence condemns them, and Brutus’ justice is carried out not in words but in the stroke of the lictor.   If you like, we can compare this with later Roman trials (e.g. in Tacitus), where silence and speech are used very differently. Giunio Bruto, Marco (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Grice e Giunio: la ragione conversazionale dell’accademia al portico romano Marco Giunio Bruto il Minore (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale dell’accademia al portico romano. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats understanding as an essentially cooperative, intention-involving practice: what a speaker means (and what a hearer may reasonably take him to mean) is recoverable by rational inference from what is said plus shared expectations about relevance, sufficiency, and candour, yielding implicatures that are cancellable and answerable to reasons. Brutus the Younger (Marcus Junius Brutus), by contrast, is interesting as a limit-case where “conversation” is already institutional and ethically φορτισμένη: his philosophical formation moves between Academy and Stoa (Antiochus’ eclecticism, Stoic-inflected duty), and his surviving speech-acts (letters, moral treatises like De virtute and precepts “On Duties,” and—above all—the political act that culminates in Caesar’s assassination) show how public meaning in Rome is never merely what is said but what is taken to be meant by factions, patrons, and the crowd. Put Grice beside Brutus and you see two different governance structures for implication: in Grice, implicature is regulated by conversational rationality and mutual recognition of intention; in Brutus’s world, uptake is regulated by rhetoric, reputation, and the dangerous Roman habit of hearing “crown” whenever someone says “res publica.” Even Brutus’s moralizing maxim that “words teach, life excuses” fits this contrast: Grice’s model makes the rational route from words to meaning central, whereas Brutus embodies the political-practical fact that hearers will often treat actions (alliances with Pompey, reconciliation with Caesar, the conspiracy) as the decisive “implicatures” that retroactively fix what the earlier words were taken to mean, whether or not that was the speaker’s intended point. Appartene all'Accademia -- cioè effettivamente all’eclettismo con tendenze stoiche di Antioco d’Ascalona -- che, appunto, accetta dottrine derivate dal portico.  In Atene fa studi di filosofia, e in questa ha maestro Aristone.  Nella guerra civile parteggia per Pompeo e combatte a Farsaglia. Ottenne di riconciliarsi con GIULIO  Cesare. Forma stretti rapporti con CICERONE, che gli dedica varie opere: "Brutus", "Paradoxa", "Orator", "De finibus", "Tusculanae", "De natura Deorum." A CICERONE, dedica il "De virtute" (Andreia). Legato pro-pretore nelle Gallie, pretore urbano, partecipa alla congiura contro GIULIO  Cesare e e uno dei suoi uccisori. Sconfitto a Filippi d’OTTAVIANO, si uccide. Uno dei maggiori rappresentanti dell’atticismo è oratore insigne. Scrive lettere (VIII a Cicerone ci restano nella corrispondenza di questo), poesie e tre opere morali. Nel "De virtute” difende la teoria dell’auto-sufficienza della virtù. In "Sui doveri" da precetti al fratello sulla sua condotta. (Grice: “He never followed them!”). Nel "De patientia," tratta di questa. Grice: “Clifton, 17 November 1926. Today the Latin master gave Shropshire, me, and the rest of the class (so far as I could tell through the general fidgeting) yet another lesson in Roman onomastics. His theme was Brutus Maior and Brutus Minor. “The lesser brute?” Shropshire asked, with that perfectly straight face by which he manages to look both innocent and guilty at once. The master explained—“plausibly plausible,” as he liked to say when he was half lecturing and half hedging—that the first Brutus was so called because he pretended to pass for a brute: not because he was one, but because it was safer, in a court full of daggers, to seem stupid than to be known as clever. This led, inevitably, to Lucretia, the outrage that turned private injury into public revolution, and the useful Roman habit of converting scandal into constitution. Then the master, warming to his own question, turned to us and asked why the descendant should still be labelled “the Minor Brute.” If the first “brute” was an act, why should the family name continue to carry the joke after the joke had served its turn? Shropshire was poised to ask whether “Minor” meant “less cunning” or merely “born later,” but the bell went before the master could pursue it. I was left thinking (as one does, to one’s own annoyance) that we were brushing against something like a device for identifying a man that is not really descriptive at all: a name that begins as a kind of mask and ends as an inherited handle, even when the original point has evaporated. There is a peculiar brutality in that, too: a man can spend his life trying to be other than his label, and still be dragged along by it.” Editor’s note: Grice will elaborate on fixed rigid identificatory devices in his later explorations on naming versus merely describing. GRICEVS: IVNIVS, salve; audio te ab Academia ad Porticum migravisse: num philosophia tua more hospitis est, semper cum sarcinis? IVNIVS: Salve, GRICEVS; migravi, sed non fugavi. In Academia quaero, in Porticu servo; ita eadem sententia duas togas habet, et neutra mihi bene convenit. GRICEVS: Miror te cum Aristonis disciplina et Antiochi mixtura tam compositum esse; Pompeio adhesisti, Caesari reconciliatus es: unum cor, tot duces. IVNIVS: Ita est; sed tu quoque, GRICEVS, “Sui doveri” legisti atque risisti. Ego praecepta scripsi fratri; ille non secutus est; ergo discimus: verba docent, vita excusat. This Giunio committed suicide. Speranza was told that a corresponding case in the Civil War in England may be Spencer? who was executed? But Speranza makes a distinction between becoming a martyr for the republican cause by execution and as Grice would say, becoming a martyr of the republican cause by suicide. So Grice suggests that it is because the English are less stoic than the Romans, which doesn't mean anything since 'stoic' means 'porch.' So are there cases in the history of England of a man that fell on his sword? Because Grice actually uses the expression, literally: a Roman may have fallen on his sword because he tripped? thanks Yes, there are English cases, but they are rarer and culturally less central than in Rome. If the Roman comparison in your mind is with a republican or senatorial figure such as Brutus, Cassius, Cato, or perhaps Junius in some later moralised sense, the broad contrast is this. Roman elite culture, especially under the Republic and in Stoic retrospect, could treat self-killing in defeat as an intelligible final act of agency, dignity, or refusal of tyranny. English political culture, by contrast, much more often produces martyrdom by judicial killing, scaffold, beheading, hanging, or formal execution. So your distinction between martyr for a cause by execution and martyr of a cause by suicide is historically a very good one. The famous English Civil War and post-Civil War cases are mostly executions, not falling on one’s sword. Algernon Sidney is the classic one for republican martyrdom by execution. He was beheaded in 1683, after the Rye House Plot proceedings, and later Whig memory turned him into a martyr of liberty. The first Earl of Strafford, if one widens beyond republicans, was executed in 1641, but of course he is on the wrong side for your contrast. Charles I himself is the giant case of political execution, though not republican. The Leveller and regicide world gives more men punished, imprisoned, or executed than men choosing the Roman sword. As for literal “falling on one’s sword” in English history, it is much less a native political script. English elites more often resign, flee, are captured, are judicially condemned, or die in battle. The Roman gesture survives more as a classical allusion than as a recurrent English habit. There are, however, some English or British examples of self-killing in military or political disgrace, though they are usually not Civil War exempla in the strong Roman mode. Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, after his failed rebellion in 1601, did not fall on his sword; he was executed. Again, the English pattern is judicial. Sir Samuel Morland? Not really relevant. A better near-case for battlefield self-inflicted death in the British orbit is not a Civil War hero but a military figure choosing suicide rather than capture or dishonour; these cases exist, but they are exceptional enough that each stands out individually rather than forming a civic tradition. During the English Civil War proper, the best-known dramatic deaths are not really “Roman suicides.” Royalists and parliamentarians alike are much more likely to die in combat, be taken, or later be judicially dealt with. The culture of Christian conscience and the legal frame weigh heavily against making suicide into a public political ideal. So if Grice says the English are less Stoic than the Romans, the joke has some truth in it, though not because “Stoic” literally means “porch.” It means that Roman elite ethics gave greater intelligibility and prestige to self-willed death as a final political gesture, while English political morality, especially under Christian and legal pressures, tended to render suicide morally suspect and martyrdom more legible when conferred by the enemy or the state. On “fell on his sword,” literally. Yes, English uses the phrase, but usually as a metaphor for taking the blame, resigning, or sacrificing oneself politically. It is often journalistic and not meant literally. In Roman history it can still be literal, or at least narrated as literal. Grice’s quip, “a Roman may have fallen on his sword because he tripped,” is excellent because it satirises the over-readiness of classicists to moralise every death into a Stoic tableau. If you want an English analogue to Roman republican self-killing, the nearest moral analogue is not one man literally falling on his sword, but someone like Sidney becoming a civic martyr through execution. In other words: Roman republican dignity often culminates in self-chosen death. English republican dignity more often culminates in judicially inflicted death, then memorialised as martyrdom. So Spencer is probably not the best parallel unless Speranza had a very specific figure in mind and misremembered the name. Sidney is far stronger as the English republican martyr by execution. If one wants a Roman-style suicide parallel in English history, one has to search harder and will usually find less canonical, less politically central examples. If useful, I can do one of three things next, all here in chat. I can give you a compact comparative note, Rome versus England, on suicide, execution, and political martyrdom. I can try to identify which “Giunio” you have in mind and then give the nearest English counterpart. Or I can draft a dry Speranza-style paragraph on Grice’s joke about Stoicism, porches, and the English inability to die classically without first consulting procedure. And in any case Speranza and Grice were thinking of Cato the Younger (which was the gens?) rather than Giunio the younger proper, since the latter did not commit suicide other. In fact, Cato the elder may be the most manifest case -- are there others, in the long annals of Ancient Roman history? Yes: Cato the Younger was of the gens Porcia. His full standard name is Marcus Porcius Cato, usually distinguished as Cato Uticensis in later usage because of his death at Utica. So: gens Porcia nomen Porcius cognomen Cato And yes, if you are thinking of the great Roman exempla of self-killing as a political or moral act, Cato the Younger is the most manifest republican case. More manifest, in some ways, than Brutus, because Cato’s death became an ethical symbol almost at once, especially for Stoics and later anti-tyrannical readers. A small correction, though. Cato the Elder is not the famous suicide case. Cato the Elder, Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius, died a natural death. It is Cato the Younger, at Utica in 46 BC, who is the classic Roman case of political suicide as principled refusal of Caesar’s victory. If you want the main Roman cases across the long annals, they are these. Cato the Younger, the paradigmatic republican suicide, at Utica. Brutus, after Philippi, usually understood as self-killing rather than capture, very much in the Roman noble script. Cassius, likewise after Philippi. Mark Antony, after Actium’s aftermath and the fall of Alexandria, though his case belongs more to defeated dynastic politics than to republican moral theatre. Cleopatra is not Roman, of course, but belongs to the same narrative complex around Antony. Otho, emperor in AD 69, is a very important later Roman case. After defeat by Vitellius’s forces, he kills himself rather than prolong civil war. This is one of the most admired imperial examples, because it can be framed as self-sacrifice for the commonwealth rather than merely despair. Seneca, under Nero, is compelled to suicide, which is not quite the same thing as spontaneous self-killing, but in Roman moral memory it becomes one of the great Stoic death scenes. Petronius too, under Nero, in a more ironic and anti-Stoic mode, but still within the Roman script of controlled self-death. Thrasea Paetus and Barea Soranus are also in the Neronian zone of forced suicide or suicide under sentence, where the line between execution and self-killing blurs institutionally. Arria, though not a public office-holder in the same way, is one of the great Roman exempla of noble suicide, especially because of the famous “Paete, non dolet.” She belongs to Roman moral memory very strongly. The younger Arria too, in the broader aristocratic tradition of principled death. There are earlier legendary or semi-legendary Roman instances as well, but once one asks for historically weighty political exempla, the late Republic and early Empire supply most of the canonical names. So if you want the best list of major Roman self-killing figures in political and moral memory, it would include: Cato the Younger Brutus Cassius Antony Otho Seneca Petronius Thrasea Paetus Arria And one should distinguish types. Voluntary suicide as political refusal: Cato, Brutus, Cassius, Otho. Suicide under pressure, order, or expected condemnation: Seneca, Thrasea, many Neronian aristocrats. Dynastic or defeat-driven suicide: Antony. Moral exemplum in domestic-aristocratic form: Arria. This is why Cato the Younger became so central. He fuses several Roman ideals at once: republican liberty, Stoic constancy, refusal of clemency as dependence, and the idea that one’s final act can still be one’s own under political defeat. So Grice and Speranza are quite right to pivot from “Giunio” to Cato. If the topic is martyrdom of the republican cause by suicide, Cato is the proper Roman center of gravity. And on “stoic means porch,” your joke stands, but with a real edge. The Roman afterlife of Stoicism made the porch less an architectural location than a style of dying, which is exactly why English analogues feel weaker: England inherited some of the rhetoric, but not the same civic normalisation of self-killing as an honourable final public gesture. If useful, I can now do one of three things, all here in chat. I can give you a compact note on gens Porcia and the main Porcii Catones. I can give you a short comparative list of Roman suicides, sorted by political, philosophical, and moral type. Or I can draft a dry Speranza-style paragraph on why Cato the Younger is the true Roman limit-case for Grice’s joke about falling on one’s sword. And since this entry is fro Giunio -- You write: "Brutus, after Philippi, usually understood as self-killing rather than capture, very much in the Roman noble script." Can we have a source in Latin where the fact is expressed? Because I can think of a Latin class with M., the Latin master, and G., the brilliant pupil, and Shrosphire, G.'s classmate with the jokes -- on that -- Are there alternative accounts -- expressed differently? Because surely G. would like to detect the implicatures. The emphasis would be on the VERB -- to express the death and cause of death. And what year Ab urbe condita with Roman numerals would that be? Thanks. Yes. And here we can be fairly precise. The canonical Latin source for Brutus at Philippi is Velleius Paterculus, who gives the death in a compact and very Roman idiom: Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit. That means, literally, “Brutus brought death upon himself,” or more idiomatically, “Brutus took his own life.” That verb phrase is extremely important. Mors sibi consciscere is one of the standard high-register Latin ways of expressing suicide. It is concise, dignified, and morally loaded in a way that “he killed himself” in plain English only partly captures. Another very useful source is Florus, who also uses the same idiom for republican and civil-war deaths in this general historical register, though Velleius is the cleaner classroom text for Brutus himself. There are also Greek accounts, above all Plutarch, which give the fuller narrative detail: Brutus does not simply “die,” but throws himself upon his sword with the help of a companion. That is often how the later moral image is formed. In Latin, however, the historical summary often compresses the physical detail into the formula of self-chosen death. So if your Latin master wants the emphasis on the verb, the main expressions to put before G. and Shropshire are these. Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit. This is the most elegant historical formula. Brutus se interfecit. This is plainer Latin: “Brutus killed himself.” It is correct but less elevated and less historiographically Roman in tone. Brutus in gladium incubuit. This means “Brutus fell upon his sword.” This gives the physical manner more vividly, and is exactly the sort of phrase that would tempt Grice into his joke about whether a Roman “fell on his sword” because he tripped. It is good Latin, but often belongs more to narrative description than to the annalistic summary formula. Brutus ferro se transfixit. “He pierced himself with the sword / with steel.” Again, more physical and graphic. So yes, there are alternative ways of expressing the same death, and the implicatures differ. Mors sibi consciscere implies agency, dignity, and chosen death under moral and political pressure. It is the noblest and most Romanly compressed expression. Se interficere is semantically plain and morally thinner. It states the fact with less atmosphere. In gladium incumbere or se in gladium dare foregrounds the bodily act and can make the death more theatrical, more visible, more susceptible to moralisation. Ferro se transfigere or transfigi is still more physical and less politically stylised. That is exactly the sort of thing G. in your imagined classroom would enjoy: the verb is doing the philosophy before the master has begun to gloss it. As for alternative accounts, yes. The basic agreement is that Brutus dies by his own hand after Philippi in 42 BC. But the narrative texture varies. Some accounts compress the event into the moral formula of self-inflicted death. Others narrate the mechanics: after defeat, Brutus withdraws, finds one or more companions unwilling to help, finally gets assistance from Strato or another loyal figure, and runs onto the sword. So the alternatives are not usually “did he commit suicide or not?” but rather “how is the suicide to be described?” and “which detail is foregrounded: moral act, bodily act, or political consequence?” On the date ab urbe condita: The battle of Philippi and Brutus’ death belong to 42 BC. Using the usual Varronian reckoning, 42 BC = A.U.C. DCCXII. Here is the quick arithmetic: 1 BC = A.U.C. 753 so 42 BC = 753 - 41 = 712 therefore DCCXII. So if Speranza wants the Roman dating in full classical costume, you may write: Marcus Iunius Brutus, Philippis sibi ipse mortem conscivit, a.u.c. DCCXII. A small precision, because you care about these things: if one says “Giunio the younger proper,” the strict Roman name is Marcus Iunius Brutus. “The Younger” is a modern convenience, not the regular Roman historical label. For the death after Philippi, however, everyone knows which Brutus is meant. If useful, I can next do either of two things, all here in chat. I can give you a short schoolroom scene between M., G., and Shropshire focused entirely on the verbs: consciscere, interficere, incumbere, transfigere. Or I can give you a compact source note with the main Latin citation, the Greek narrative background, and the A.U.C. date in one dry paragraph fit for Speranza. And do we know who was the first Italian who translated that into Italian: Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit. -- becausae I can think of keeping Bruto as subect, conscive as cognate in Italian? mortem is the object -- brought death -- an the sibi ipse is dative -- to him -self? We do not, so far as I know, know who was the first Italian translator of that exact Latin sentence in any securely nameable “first” sense. That kind of priority is very hard to prove, because the phrase could have been rendered many times in chronicles, schoolbooks, lives of Brutus, annotated editions, and partial translations without one becoming the canonical first. So the honest answer is: not securely, unless one does a reception-history search in early Italian translations of Roman historians. But your grammatical instinct is good, and here the Latin is worth unpacking carefully. Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit. This does not mean “Brutus brought death to himself” in the ordinary dative-object sense, as if sibi were simply “to himself” alongside a direct object mortem and the verb “bring.” Rather, the idiom is a fixed classical expression. Mortem consciscere alicui, and especially sibi mortem consciscere, means to procure, bring about, or deliberately inflict death, especially upon oneself. In idiomatic English: to take one’s own life. In idiomatic Italian: darsi la morte, procurarsi la morte, togliersi la vita, uccidersi. So the clean parsing is: Brutus = subject mortem = object conscivit = verb, from consciscere sibi ipse = intensive reflexive complement, “for himself,” “upon himself,” emphatically “he himself upon himself” The force of sibi ipse is emphatic and reflexive. It is not merely a simple indirect object in the way one might gloss a schoolboy dative. It strengthens the self-directedness of the act: Brutus himself brought death upon himself. So if one wanted a very close Italian calque, one could say: Bruto si procurò da sé la morte. That is clumsy but close. More idiomatic Italian would be: Bruto si diede la morte. Bruto si tolse la vita. Bruto si uccise. Among these, si diede la morte best preserves something of the elevated Roman tone. Now to your thought about conscive in Italian. Italian does have forms from the same Latin family, but not in ordinary modern use as the normal verb for suicide. There is no natural modern Italian sentence like Bruto si conscisse la morte in standard prose. It would sound hyper-learned, archaizing, or simply strange. So although the Latin and Italian are cognate historically, Italian does not ordinarily exploit that exact cognate here. The usual Italian renderings would be: Bruto si diede la morte. Bruto si tolse la vita. Bruto si uccise. If one wanted to stay unusually close to the Latin for stylistic reasons, one might risk something like: Bruto si procacciò la morte. Bruto si procurò la morte. These are not exact lexical heirs of consciscere, but they preserve the sense of deliberate procurement. On whether Iustinus is a formative lexeme like iustus: that is a different but related morphological point. In this Brutus phrase, consciscere is a lexical verb, not an adjective-derived name. It is a fully functioning verb in classical Latin. By contrast, Iustinus is primarily an onomastic derivative from iustus, not the normal predicative adjective “just.” So no Roman would naturally say: Marcus est Iustinus meaning Marcus is just. He would say: Marcus iustus est. And similarly here no Roman is doing anything adjectival with conscivit. It is a fixed high-register verbal idiom. If you want the most literal line-by-line sense: Brutus = Brutus sibi ipse = for himself, himself personally, upon himself mortem = death conscivit = deliberately brought about, procured, resolved upon Hence: Brutus deliberately brought death upon himself. Or more idiomatically: Brutus took his own life. If useful, I can do one of two things next, still only in chat. I can give you a little four- or six-turn classroom exchange between M., G., and Shropshire on the grammar of sibi ipse mortem conscivit. Or I can give you a compact note on Italian translation possibilities, from the most literal to the most elegant. That's why I was thinking of the first Italian translation because they tend to sound archaic, Grice says, because they are: Bruto si conscisse la morte -- I suppose that if the vernacularist is good, he would have a note to the effect that he is maintaining the verb by Velleio -- The use of the reflexive 'si' does the trick well, of course the 'ipse' is missing -- but are there good Italian cognate: medesimo--how is THAT phrase analysed, and did it replace a more archaic and simpler emphatic particle? Yes, that is exactly the right instinct. Bruto si conscisse la morte is the kind of learned Italian calque that an early or deliberately archaizing translator might well choose precisely in order to let Velleius still be heard through the vernacular. It sounds archaic because it is trying to preserve, not merely report. A good vernacularist might indeed note that he is retaining the Latin verbal force of consciscere rather than flattening it into si uccise or si diede la morte. On the Italian reflexive, yes: si does a great deal of the work very elegantly. Latin has sibi ipse; Italian ordinarily gets by with si, because the reflexive is already built into the verbal form. The emphatic ipse, however, is not really represented unless one adds something. Possible Italian emphatic renderings would be: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. Bruto si procurò da sé la morte. Bruto medesimo si diede la morte. Bruto si diede egli stesso la morte. Of these, medesimo is the more literary and archaizing way to recover some of ipse’s emphasis, though it is heavier than ordinary Italian would want. Now to medesimo. Medesimo is historically not a simple inherited equivalent of Latin ipse. It is a later Romance emphatic form, from metipsimus or a related reinforced formation built on the old emphatic element met plus an intensive/superlative development. In other words, it belongs to the long post-classical and Romance tendency to reinforce demonstratives and intensives because the older simple forms lose expressive force over time. That is a very common historical pattern: an older emphatic particle weakens, speakers reinforce it, the reinforced form becomes normal, and then that too may weaken in turn. Latin itself already shows part of this story. There is ipse, the classical intensive pronoun. There is also the enclitic/emphatic particle -met, as in egomet, memet, temet, semet. There are stronger combinations such as ipsemet. And in later development, Romance languages often build new emphatics because the old system no longer feels strong enough by itself. So yes, in a broad sense medesimo does replace simpler older emphatic resources, but not as a direct neat successor to one single particle. It belongs to a whole history of reinforced emphasis. If we analyse the Latin phrase: Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit sibi is reflexive dative ipse is the intensive, “himself in person,” “he himself” mortem is the object conscivit is the elevated verb A fairly close archaizing Italian analysis could be: Bruto si conscisse egli medesimo la morte but that is very stiff, almost too stiff even for a Renaissance translator. Better literary possibilities are: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. Bruto si diede da sé la morte. Bruto si diede egli stesso la morte. If one wants to preserve both the learned verb and the reflexive emphasis, the first is probably the best compromise: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. That da sé is not a perfect equivalent of sibi ipse, but it carries the self-directedness with a nice old cadence. As for whether medesimo replaced a simpler emphatic particle: in vernacular history, yes, stronger forms often displace simpler ones because ordinary speech wants renewed emphasis. But the direct old simple equivalent in Italian is often stesso rather than medesimo. In modern Italian: egli stesso is the common living intensifier. medesimo is literary, bureaucratic, philosophical, or archaizing. esso medesimo and the like sound bookish. So if an Italian translator wanted elegance rather than sheer archaism, he might write: Bruto si diede egli stesso la morte. If he wanted learned closeness to Velleius: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. If he wanted plain idiomatic force: Bruto si diede la morte. And if he wanted the morally elevated Roman tone without too much Latinism: Bruto si tolse la vita. One last philological note. Consciscere in the suicide idiom has that Roman ring because it suggests not just killing but resolving upon and bringing about one’s death. That is why si uccise is too flat, and si diede la morte or si procurò la morte are often better literary equivalents. If useful, I can now do one of two things, still only in chat. I can give you a tiny mock note by an imaginary first Italian translator, explaining why he chose si conscisse la morte. Or I can stage the classroom with M., G., and Shropshire on ipse, -met, stesso, and medesimo, with G. doing the philology and Shropshire making the wrong joke at the right time. Yes, that is exactly the right instinct. Bruto si conscisse la morte is the kind of learned Italian calque that an early or deliberately archaizing translator might well choose precisely in order to let Velleius still be heard through the vernacular. It sounds archaic because it is trying to preserve, not merely report. A good vernacularist might indeed note that he is retaining the Latin verbal force of consciscere rather than flattening it into si uccise or si diede la morte. On the Italian reflexive, yes: si does a great deal of the work very elegantly. Latin has sibi ipse; Italian ordinarily gets by with si, because the reflexive is already built into the verbal form. The emphatic ipse, however, is not really represented unless one adds something. Possible Italian emphatic renderings would be: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. Bruto si procurò da sé la morte. Bruto medesimo si diede la morte. Bruto si diede egli stesso la morte. Of these, medesimo is the more literary and archaizing way to recover some of ipse’s emphasis, though it is heavier than ordinary Italian would want. Now to medesimo. Medesimo is historically not a simple inherited equivalent of Latin ipse. It is a later Romance emphatic form, from metipsimus or a related reinforced formation built on the old emphatic element met plus an intensive/superlative development. In other words, it belongs to the long post-classical and Romance tendency to reinforce demonstratives and intensives because the older simple forms lose expressive force over time. That is a very common historical pattern: an older emphatic particle weakens, speakers reinforce it, the reinforced form becomes normal, and then that too may weaken in turn. Latin itself already shows part of this story. There is ipse, the classical intensive pronoun. There is also the enclitic/emphatic particle -met, as in egomet, memet, temet, semet. There are stronger combinations such as ipsemet. And in later development, Romance languages often build new emphatics because the old system no longer feels strong enough by itself. So yes, in a broad sense medesimo does replace simpler older emphatic resources, but not as a direct neat successor to one single particle. It belongs to a whole history of reinforced emphasis. If we analyse the Latin phrase: Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit sibi is reflexive dative ipse is the intensive, “himself in person,” “he himself” mortem is the object conscivit is the elevated verb A fairly close archaizing Italian analysis could be: Bruto si conscisse egli medesimo la morte but that is very stiff, almost too stiff even for a Renaissance translator. Better literary possibilities are: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. Bruto si diede da sé la morte. Bruto si diede egli stesso la morte. If one wants to preserve both the learned verb and the reflexive emphasis, the first is probably the best compromise: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. That da sé is not a perfect equivalent of sibi ipse, but it carries the self-directedness with a nice old cadence. As for whether medesimo replaced a simpler emphatic particle: in vernacular history, yes, stronger forms often displace simpler ones because ordinary speech wants renewed emphasis. But the direct old simple equivalent in Italian is often stesso rather than medesimo. In modern Italian: egli stesso is the common living intensifier. medesimo is literary, bureaucratic, philosophical, or archaizing. esso medesimo and the like sound bookish. So if an Italian translator wanted elegance rather than sheer archaism, he might write: Bruto si diede egli stesso la morte. If he wanted learned closeness to Velleius: Bruto si conscisse da sé la morte. If he wanted plain idiomatic force: Bruto si diede la morte. And if he wanted the morally elevated Roman tone without too much Latinism: Bruto si tolse la vita. One last philological note. Consciscere in the suicide idiom has that Roman ring because it suggests not just killing but resolving upon and bringing about one’s death. That is why si uccise is too flat, and si diede la morte or si procurò la morte are often better literary equivalents. If useful, I can now do one of two things, still only in chat. I can give you a tiny mock note by an imaginary first Italian translator, explaining why he chose si conscisse la morte. Or I can stage the classroom with M., G., and Shropshire on ipse, -met, stesso, and medesimo, with G. doing the philology and Shropshire making the wrong joke at the right time. Yes. Medesimo preserves, through a long and tangled history, part of the old emphatic machinery that also turns up around ipse and met, but stesso has a different and rather elegant story. Stesso comes ultimately from Latin ipse, not from stare and not from a separate native adjective meaning “same.” More exactly, it comes through a Vulgar Latin form of the type istum ipsum or ipsum itself in reinforced demonstrative use, and then through phonetic and analogical developments in Romance. The key idea is that what begins as an emphatic or deictic form, “that very one,” “the selfsame one,” can drift into the ordinary intensifier and identity-marker “same,” “selfsame,” “himself.” So se stesso is historically the reflexive pronoun plus a later Romance intensifier descended from Latin ipse-type material. That is why Italian can say: se stesso himself, oneself and also: lo stesso uomo the same man The modern form stesso does two jobs at once: it is an intensifier, as in lui stesso and it is an identity marker, as in lo stesso libro That double function is very old in the history of ipse-like forms. Now, if you ask how this differs from medesimo, the difference is roughly this. Medesimo is heavier, more literary, more overtly reinforced, and historically more composite. Stesso is the ordinary living continuation of the old intensive-identificatory stream. So in living Italian: se stesso is normal se medesimo is elevated, literary, archaic, or bureaucratic The historical logic is familiar: a strong emphatic form becomes ordinary; once ordinary, speakers create stronger reinforced forms; those reinforced forms then survive in literary or high registers. Latin already had several layers of emphasis: se semet se ipse semet ipsum and so on Romance continues the same appetite for reinforcement, but with new forms. So if you are thinking about the old Latin phrase: Brutus sibi ipse mortem conscivit then Italian can render the emphatic portion in several ways: si diede la morte plain reflexive, emphasis mostly implicit si diede da sé la morte adds self-directed emphasis si diede egli stesso la morte uses stesso as the living intensifier corresponding rather well to ipse si diede egli medesimo la morte more archaic and weightier, perhaps over-rich unless one wants a consciously old style So yes, se stesso is in some sense the natural modern heir to the intensive function of ipse. A useful compact way to put it is this: Latin ipse gave Romance a whole family of intensive and identity forms. In Italian, stesso is the normal living outcome in this functional space, while medesimo is a heavier reinforced form. Thus se stesso is the idiomatic modern reflexive intensive, whereas se medesimo is marked and literary. One small philological caution. People often say simply “stesso comes from ipse,” which is basically right at the functional level, but the actual historical path is not a clean single-step inheritance from classical ipse to modern stesso. There are intermediary Vulgar Latin and Romance stages, reinforced demonstratives, and analogical levellings. Still, for your purposes, the central truth is: stesso belongs to the old ipse-family of emphasis and identity. And that is why your instinct about medesimo was also good: both medesimo and stesso are heirs, in different ways, to the old Latin habit of reinforcing identity and self-reference beyond the bare reflexive. If useful, I can do one of two things next, still only in chat. I can give you a tiny comparative table in prose: se, se stesso, se medesimo, semet ipsum, sibi ipse. Or I can write the little classroom scene with M., G., and Shropshire on ipse, met, stesso, and medesimo, with G. being philological and Shropshire being wrong in exactly the useful way. So are you saying, that say, Lewis and Short, in their entry for iste, ista, istum -- would have it as a corruption with the /p/ sound in ipse, ipsa, ispsum? -- because in deictic the idea is usually that there is proximal/medial/distant as in this/that/yore or something -- questo e quello -- I'm not sure about the medial there, or queste and quel -- or questa and quella for the feminine. No, I am not saying Lewis and Short would derive iste from ipse by “corruption,” and certainly not in the sense of a lexicon entry for iste saying, in effect, “really ipse with a damaged p.” The safer answer is: iste and ipse are different Latin words with different functions, though historically they may touch older demonstrative material at a deep Indo-European or Italic level. A standard dictionary treats them separately, not as one being a corruption of the other. Functionally: hic = this, near the speaker iste = that of yours, near the addressee, or that there in relation to you ille = that over there, more distant, often emphatically so ipse = self, very, the very one, the same person/thing in emphatic identity So ipse is not primarily one of the ordinary three-way deictics at all. It is an intensive or identitarian form, not simply a “medial demonstrative.” That is why your instinct about proximal / medial / distal is right for part of the Latin system, but not for ipse. A rough practical scheme is: hic = proximal iste = addressee-oriented / medial-ish ille = distal ipse = intensive, emphatic, “the very one,” “himself,” “itself” Now to Italian. Modern Italian does not preserve the old Latin three-term deictic system neatly. questo = this, near speaker quello = that, farther away or less immediate codesto = that near you / that of yours But codesto is now mainly Tuscan or literary and not normal in most modern Italian usage. So everyday Italian often runs with a practical two-term system: questo / quello That is why the Latin middle term feels partly missing in modern standard Italian. For the feminine: questa quella and, where still used, codesta For the plural: questi / queste quelli / quelle codesti / codeste So when you say “queste and quel,” the better pairings are: queste / quelle for feminine plural questa / quella for feminine singular questo / quello for masculine singular or general demonstrative use Now back to stesso. Stesso is not simply the descendant of iste. It belongs, broadly speaking, to the stream of forms around ipse and reinforced demonstrative/intensive uses in late Latin and Romance. So if one is looking for the ancestor of Italian stesso, one should think in the direction of ipse-type intensification, not ordinary iste. Very schematically: iste remains in Romance mostly as demonstrative material in some languages and dialects ipse feeds emphatic/identity forms and contributes to things like stesso So a lexicon like Lewis and Short would keep: iste, ista, istud and ipse, ipsa, ipsum as distinct lexical entries, with their own uses and histories not as “one is a corrupted spelling of the other.” Two small cautions. First, the exact historical pathway from classical Latin ipse to Italian stesso is not a simple one-line sound change. There are late Latin, Vulgar Latin, and analogical stages in between. Second, Latin deictic systems in actual usage are messier than neat schoolroom tables suggest. Authors often shift values rhetorically: iste can become contemptuous ille can become famous or elevated hic can be discourse-near rather than physically near ipse can overlap with identity and emphasis in ways that make translation tricky So the clean takeaway is: No, iste is not treated as a corruption of ipse. Iste belongs to the demonstrative system. Ipse belongs to the intensive / identity system. Italian largely collapses the old three-term deictic contrast into two everyday terms, while preserving a third, codesto, only marginally. Italian stesso comes from the ipse-side of things, not from iste in the ordinary sense. If useful, I can do one of two things next, still only here in chat. I can give you a compact prose table of hic, iste, ille, ipse and their Italian continuations. Or I can stage the little classroom with M., G., and Shropshire on why ipse is not “the middle demonstrative” and why codesto is the ghost of iste. Giunio Bruto, Marco (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giunio – Ossia: Grice e Giunio: la ragione conversazionale e il portico romano Giunio Maurizio (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e il portico romano. A follower of the Porch, and one of the senators who opposed Domizio NERONE. GRICEVS: IVNIVS, salve. Audio te Stoicum esse: num ideo semper in porticu ambulas, ne umquam in angulo cogitare cogaris? IVNIVS: Salve, GRICEVS. In porticu ambulo, quia ibi ventus docet brevitatem. Tu autem cur tam lente loqueris, quasi maxima tua pedibus calceata sint? GRICEVS: Lente, ut tu celerius intellegas. Nam qui nimis festinat, saepe plus implicat quam dicit—et deinde queritur quod intellegitur. IVNIVS: Recte; sed Stoicus sum, non haruspex. Si vis aliquid, dic; sin minus, tace: porticus ipsa reliqua “cooperatur.” Giunio Maurizio (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Connversazione – I Verbali: Giunore – Ossia: Grice e Giuniore: la ragione conversazionale e la geografia filosofica Giuniore (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e la geografia filosofica. A philosopher who wrote, or edited, a short work on geography, comprising the whole of Rome, and some of the shoreline outskirts, including Ostia. GRICEVS: IVNIOR, si totam Romam in libello includis, cave: Roma ipsa solet etiam philosophos includere. IVNIOR: GRICEVE, includo Romam, sed Ostiam addo, ne lectores sine portu philosophentur. GRICEVS: Bene; sed memento principii cooperativi: noli vias omnes describere—satis est ut quis ad vinum perveniat. IVNIOR: Ita faciam: dicam tantum “Hic est Forum,” et reliqua implicabuntur; nam Roma, ut scis, plus significat quam dicit.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giussani – Ossia: Grice e Giussani: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’amicizia – il comune,  fraternità, liberazione.  Luigi Giovanni Giussani (Desio, Monza, Lombardia): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’amicizia – il comune,  fraternità, liberazione. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning starts from the idea that what we mean in talk is made intelligible by shared rational norms (cooperation, relevance, informativeness, etc.) and by an audience’s recognition of intention, so that implicatures are, in principle, inferable and answerable to reasons rather than to mood or charisma. Giussani, by contrast, treats human communication less as an inferential puzzle to be solved and more as a concrete form of companionship and education: friendship, “the common,” and fraternity are not just topics but the medium in which truth becomes credible, and the pragmatic point of speech is often to invite adhesion, trust, and shared life rather than to transmit a proposition as efficiently as possible. Put Grice next to Giussani and you get a helpful contrast of levels: Grice analyzes the micro-logic by which speakers responsibly get hearers to grasp meanings beyond the literal sentence; Giussani emphasizes the interpersonal and communal conditions that make such grasping matter—why we speak at all, why we bind ourselves to one another’s words, and how a community of friends can carry meanings (and commitments) that cannot be reduced to what is explicitly said. In Gricean terms, Giussani’s “amicizia” foregrounds a thicker background of common ground and mutual trust: the cooperative principle is not merely a methodological assumption for deriving implicatures, but a lived moral posture that turns conversation into a form of shared rational life, where what is left unsaid is sustained by fraternity rather than merely computed by maxims. Grice: “I have always been interested in what he calls a philosophisma. Take ‘friend’. Aristotle says that a happy life is self-sufficient. Who needs friends like that? amicizia. I like G.; of course at Oxford he would be a no-no, being a Catholic; but he understands the pragmatics of conversation!” Ricevette la prima introduzione dalla madre Angelina Gelosa, operaia tessile; il padre Beniamino, disegnatore e intagliatore, era un socialista. Entra nel seminario diocesano San Pietro Martire di Seveso dove frequenta i primi quattro anni di ginnasio. Si trasfere a Venegono Inferiore, nella sede principale del seminario dove frequenta l'ultimo anno di ginnasio, i tre anni del liceo e dove svolge i successivi studi di filosofia.  Ha come docenti, fra gli altri, Colombo, Corti, Carlo, e Figini. In quella sede conosce i compagni di studio Manfredini e Biffi. Si interessa di Leopardi e delle chiese ortodosse.  Riceve l'ordinazione da Schuster.  Dopo l'ordinazione, rimase nel seminario di Venegono come insegnante e si specializzò nello studio della teologia orientale, specie sugli slavofili, della teologia protestante e della motivazione razionale dell'adesione alla Chiesa. Lascia l'insegnamento in seminario per quello nelle scuole superiori. Inizia l'insegnamento della religione nelle scuole a Milano dove e suo alunno Giorello. Le riunioni di suoi studenti si tennero con il nome di Gioventù Studentesca, che fonda insieme a Ricci e che fa parte dell'Azione Cattolica.  Inizia anche un'attività pubblicistica volta a porre attenzione sulla questione educativa. Redasse la voce "Educazione" per l'Enciclopedia Cattolica.  Sotto  Colombo continua gli studi di teologia protestante per i quali soggiornò per cinque mesi negli Stati Uniti. Ottenne la cattedra di Introduzione alla Teologia a Milano. dell’amicizia. Grice: “St John’s, Oxford — 22 October 1955. Strawson has asked me for a copy of that old talk I gave to the Oxford Philosophical Society on “meaning.” I wonder what his meaning means; or rather, I wonder what he means by wanting my meaning. Perhaps he intends to publish it, in which case I ought to pretend I wrote it with publication in mind; or perhaps he simply wants ammunition for a seminar, in which case he will quote it as if it were holy writ and then deny having done so. In any case, I went to the Bodleian yesterday and, while waiting for a book to arrive from whatever subterranean limbo books inhabit before they are resurrected, I found an abstract by one Giussani on il senso dell’uomo secondo Niebuhr. The Italians have a gift for titles that are perfectly clear to them and perfectly opaque to everyone else; I lay the blame, as usual, on Frege. Frege’s sin was to persuade a generation that Sinn is the only respectable thing in the neighbourhood, and ever since then people have been parading “sense” about as if it were self-explanatory. Meanwhile Austin is lecturing on sense and sensibilia, largely, I suspect, because “sensibilia” makes “sense” look as if it has dressed for dinner. He likes a title that can be pronounced with a straight face while the audience is already laughing. But “sense” is a treacherous word: more nonsensical than nonsense if one actually tries to keep track of what it is supposed to do. One day it means meaning; the next it means sensation; the next it means judgement; and by the end of the week it means no more than “the bit you can’t deny without seeming a fool.” Giussani, reading Niebuhr, is presumably not thinking about any of this; he is after the “sense of man,” which sounds like something you might mislay in the rain. Still, there is a useful moral hidden in the Italian: if you title everything with “sense,” you can always claim profundity and never have to say, plainly, what you mean. And that, I suppose, is precisely what Strawson thinks I am good for. Grice: Carissimo Giussani, devo confessarti che, fin dai tempi del Liceo—o, come direste voi, il “lizio”—l'aporia sull'amicizia ci tormenta tutti! Ma tu, secondo me, hai avuto il coraggio di affrontare, se non addirittura risolvere, quel grande enigma che da Aristotele ci perseguita. Sono sinceramente impressionato: hai portato la questione dell'amicizia fuori dalle sabbie mobili filosofiche e l'hai fatta respirare tra gente vera! Giussani: Paul, ti ringrazio! Devo dire che l'amicizia mi ha sempre affascinato più dei silenzi dei filosofi. E poi, forse al Lycaeum avrebbero fatto un brindisi in tuo onore per aver sollevato il problema con tanto spirito inglese! Grice: Ah, Giussani, mi piace pensare che Aristotele e i suoi amici, al tramonto di Atene, si siano divertiti quanto noi oggi! La tua frase sulla compagnia mi ricorda che la filosofia, in fondo, è solo una conversazione tra amici che cercano la verità—magari con una battuta in mezzo. Giussani: Esattamente, Paul! L'amicizia è una faccenda che non si risolve mai del tutto, ma ci diverte provarci, no? Del resto, come diceva mia madre: “Meglio una buona compagnia che cento solitudini brillanti!” E poi, se proprio abbiamo sciolto un'aporia, sarà merito anche della conversazione, non credi? Giussani, Luigi Giovanni (1954). Il senso cristiano dell’uomo. Venegono.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione -- I Verbali: Giusso – ossia: Grice e Giusso: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale degl’eroi – filosofia fascista --  il mistico dell’azione.  Lorenzo Giusso (Napoli, Campania): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale degl’eroi – filosofia fascista --  il mistico dell’azione. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how hearers recover what speakers mean beyond what they literally say by assuming rational cooperation and then inferring intentions and implicatures under shared norms of relevance, sufficiency, sincerity, and clarity; it is a model built to make indirectness accountable rather than intoxicating. Giusso, by contrast, writes in a register where public language is meant to move souls and make history: his journalism and philosophical criticism (shaped by the Naples milieu, by engagement with Gentile’s actualism, by polemics with Croce, and by an attraction to “vitalist” and “heroic” rhetoric) treats discourse as scenographic action, a performance that aims less at cooperative convergence than at mobilization, conversion, and the cultivation of a national-political temper. In Gricean terms, Giusso’s “mystique of action” exploits implicature not as a tidy, cancellable inference but as a field-effect: large nouns like Nation, Hero, Action, Tradition invite readers to supply the missing specification, and the very vagueness can be the point, because it lets a heterogeneous audience coordinate emotionally without agreeing proposition-by-proposition. So where Grice analyzes implication as the rational residue of a cooperative exchange, Giusso exemplifies a political style in which what is left unsaid is deliberately left available—less a calculable implicature than a rhetorical summons—showing how, in mass politics, the pragmatics of uptake may be driven more by identity, atmosphere, and institutional pressure than by the conversational norms that make implicature responsibly derivable in ordinary talk. Grice: “There is a great difference between Bologna – the oldest university – and Oxford: we never had a Mussolini! fascismo. I like G.: he has explored philosophers from his country like Leopardi and Bruno, and tdhe whole ‘tradizione ermetica nella filosofia italiana,’ but also French – Bergson – and especially “Dutch,” i. e. Deutsche or tedesca – Spengler, and Nietsche – All very Italian!” Si laurea a Napoli sotto ALIOTTA. Segue con passione l'attualismo di GENTILE e proprio il suo carattere passionale lo porta anche nel campo filosofico ad un tipo di critica scenografica. Le sue frizioni con CROCE, inizialmente orientate su temi politici, presero più tardi una forma "sotterranea", genericamente orientata contro l'idealism. G. si richiama al fatalismo di LEOPARDI. Oltre che per la sua interpretazione della Scienza nuova vichiana (che si attirò una severa recensione dello stesso Croce, G. è criticato dall'ambiente crociano. G, critico e storico delle idee s'identificava con la visione della vita di autori che sentiva a lui vicini per temperamento ed interessi come Bruno, Vico dall'analisi degli scritti del quale nacque l'infastidita reazione di Croce, Giacomo, Bacchelli, Barilli, Papini, Soffici, Palazzeschi, Borgese, Gozzano, che molto ispira Don Giovanni ammalato. I suoi Tafferugli a Montecavallo meriterebbero forse di essere più conosciuti. Partecipa all'atmosfera culturale della Napoli segnata dal cenacolo di Croce, da cui molto presto si distaccò (come TILGHER , che egli difende e mostra di apprezzare) assumendo posizioni eretiche e ispirandosi piuttosto a un ideale di vitalismo che risulta evidente dai numerosi autori e dalle molte opere cui dedicò la sua attenzione. Intelligenza precoce, prima di intraprendere l'insegnamento universitario che lo avrebbe allontanato da Napoli portandolo ad insegnare Filosofia a Bologna, Pisa, e Cagliari, gl’eroi, il vico di giusso, la tradizione ermetica nella filosofia italiana, nazionalsocialismo, bruno, panteismo, leopardi, occasionalismo. Grice: “Corpus Christi College, Oxford — 7 February 1933. Why does Corpus insist on keeping old newspapers? There is something faintly indecent about it, as if yesterday’s excitements ought not to be preserved once they have ceased to excite. Still, I found myself distracted today by a piece by Lorenzo Giusso in that formidable organ of Italian journalism, L’Idea Nazionale. One cannot even translate the title into English without hearing the objection before it is spoken. “The National Idea”? The first thing my tutor would ask is: “Of what?” and the second would be: “And whose?” Italians can apparently say “the Nation” in the singular with a straight face; we, being an island and therefore permanently in two minds about everything, would want at least a footnote, and preferably a committee. My tutor, to be fair, has written on Plato, so one might expect him to have learned the elementary lesson that an Idea, left alone, is a dangerous abstraction: it starts by hovering and ends by governing. But he writes as if “national” were a self-explaining adjective—an enchantment rather than a specification. Perhaps that is the trick of newspapers: they sell you a large noun and let you supply the rest out of mood, prejudice, or patriotic habit. And there is the further difficulty that my own tutor is a Scot; and whatever their national idea is, it is not quite ours, and certainly not the one that appears in English school anthologies when they are being earnest. If this is “the” national idea, it is a remarkably plural one. In any case, by the end of Giusso’s piece I felt that he, too, had no idea—at least not the sort that would survive being asked, calmly and repeatedly, “Of what?” Perhaps the whole point of a national idea is that it must not be made too clear; clarity would force it to become a plan, and then someone would have to carry it out. Better to leave it where newspapers like it: large, resonant, and just out of reach.” Grice: Lorenzo, parlando di eroi e della mistica dell’azione, mi viene in mente quanto la filosofia italiana abbia saputo intrecciare passione e pensiero. La tua esplorazione del vitalismo e del fatalismo leopardiano mi affascina: pensi che l’azione abbia sempre una radice mistica nell’esperienza filosofica? Giusso: Paul, credo che la mistica dell'azione sia proprio il cuore di una filosofia che non teme il rischio. Per me, l’implicatura conversazionale degli eroi risiede nella volontà di incarnare idee, non solo di discuterle. La tradizione ermetica, da Bruno a Vico, mostra come il pensiero italiano sappia farsi carne, anche quando è controcorrente. Grice: Interessante! In Inghilterra, forse siamo più cauti, meno inclini a esaltarci. Ma mi colpisce la tua critica scenografica: hai sempre preferito la passione all’idealismo astratto di Croce? E cosa ti ha portato a difendere autori come Tilgher, che sono più “eretici” rispetto al mainstream? Giusso: Hai ragione, Paul. La passione mi ha sempre spinto a cercare nel pensiero quella scintilla che lo rende vivo. Gli eretici, come Tilgher, mi hanno insegnato che la verità non si trova nel consenso, ma nella capacità di rinnovarsi e resistere. Come dice il proverbio napoletano: “Chi va piano va sano e va lontano”—ma ogni tanto bisogna anche correre, se si vuole davvero cambiare il mondo. Giusso, Lorenzo (1925). Contributo. L’idea nazionale.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Giusti – Ossia: Grice e Giusti: la ragione conversazionale.  Domenico Maria Giusti (Montegranaro, Fermo, Marche): la ragione conversazionale. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats metaphor and other figures as cases where a speaker can mean more than is literally said, in a way that is recoverable by rational hearers using shared expectations about what counts as relevant, informative, and appropriately expressed; the point of a figure, on this view, is not mere ornament but an inferentially tractable device that invites (and constrains) an audience’s reconstruction of intention and implicature. Domenico Maria Giusti, by contrast, comes from the early modern rhetorical tradition in which the primary explanatory framework is not cooperative inference but the taxonomy of tropes and figures and their effects on persuasion and eloquence: his Trattato della rettorica (Macerata, per il Silvestri, 1703) explicitly aims to teach, with brevity and clarity, how to deploy metaphor, metonymy, and the rest as craft tools for “the way of perorating.” The comparison, then, is that Giusti offers a handbook model of rhetorical success (how to produce effective speech by choosing the right figure), whereas Grice offers a rational-pragmatic model of how such speech is understood (how hearers, assuming rational cooperation, move from what is said to what is meant, including the extra layer that a metaphor licenses); where Giusti explains the inventory and artistry of expression, Grice explains the norms and inferences that make that artistry communicatively intelligible rather than merely decorative. Grice: “I like G! His discussion of metaphor is my source for my ‘You are the cream in my coffee.’ His treatise provides a simple and clear explanation of tropes, figures, and other rhetorical devices.  The Greek verb from which "rhetorical" is derived has a direct cognate in Latin.  "Rhetorical" comes from the rhētōr, derived from the verb εἴρω, meaning "I speak" or "I say". The Latin cognate of eírō is verbum, from the same Indo-European root *werh₁-, to speak.  While the Greek branch evolved to produce terms for professional public speaking (rhētorikḗ), the Latin branch produced the standard term for a single word or the part of speech that "speaks" an action (verbum). The Greek root rheō (to flow), which is sometimes confused with the speaking root, is actually a distinct root (*sreu-) and is the source of terms like "rheology" or "diarrhea. The Italian word  bisogno (meaning "need") does not have a native Latin root; instead, it is a borrowing into Vulgar Latin from a Germanic (Frankish) source.    Etymological Path Frankish Root: It originates from the Frankish word **bisunnija, meaning "care," "concern," or "need". It entered late spoken Latin as **bisonium. The original term is composed of two parts: bi-: A prefix used for emphasis. sunnija: Meaning "care," "responsibility," or "worry".  While it shares an ancestor with the French word besoin, the Italian bisogno developed independently from the Vulgar Latin bisonium TRATTATO DELLA RETTORICA introduzione all'eloquenza DOVE Con Breoiti, Faciliti, e chiarezza fona «spefli io lingua italiana li tropi, le figure e altre cose non meno utili «h^gcy|^ Deccfiariea tutti quelli che de^^'^O^ fìdcrarjo incaminatfi tGttóS /5> via del perorare: iDAIO IN LVCE DA G., curato della Chitf* parocchiale di S. PIETRO IN Montegranaro, si dal medesimo co ofictato alli meriti imparegiibili dell'llluft'ifs. tic. in cui ha fortuna di rimirare e godere i benignissimi influJfidel r vagbijfimo cielo della nobiltà cingolana, e lo zelo principalmente, con cui. Ella attende à colli tiare gli n.'fficij di piefitti, in far Sene educare, ed iflruir e i. Grice: “Clifton, Michaelmas Term, 1926. Today the Latin master told Shropshire, in front of us all, that he was eloquent—very. Shropshire, who hears Latin the way a terrier hears a whistle, brightened at the ending and assumed the master meant loquent, which Shropshire also is, if loquacity were a scholarship. “E?” he said, as if one could interrogate a prefix like a witness. The master frowned. “Your point, Shropshire?” “What is e- doing in eloquentia?” And I remember thinking (if it is psychologically possible to think in italics), Oh dear—he is looking for trouble again. But the master took it kindly, as masters sometimes do when they smell a genuine question under the cheek. He explained that eloqui is not merely loqui, and that eloquentia is not just “speech” but speech pressed out, speech brought forth, speech with a sort of clean exit—whereas loquentia, if it were a thing one ought to admire, would be mere running-on. “One letter more,” he said, “and a world of difference.” “One letter less, too,” Shropshire whispered to me, “and the Romans would have been grateful—hard enough carving the things on stone.” When the master had, at our request, made the matter clearer to the whole class, he concluded with a little flourish: “Today, Shropshire has yet again proved his—er—e-, e-loquence. Class dismissed.”Grice: Caro Giusti, ogni volta che sento parlare di tropi e figure, mi viene voglia di mettere la panna nel caffè, come dici tu! Ma dimmi, tu che hai scritto un trattato chiaro e semplice, preferisci la metafora o la metonimia? Giusti: Paul, la metafora è come una buona battuta: se fa sorridere e illumina, vale doppio! La metonimia invece è come quando chiedi il bicchiere ma vuoi il vino – pratica, ma un po’ meno poetica. Grice: Allora siamo d’accordo che la chiarezza vince sempre sulla confusione! In fondo, anche la parola “bisogno” ha fatto un bel viaggio: dai Franchi ai caffè italiani, passando per un trattato di retorica. Giusti: Esatto, Paul! La lingua è come la vita: scorre, si mescola e ogni tanto serve una buona conversazione per mettere tutto a posto. E se manca una figura, si improvvisa – purché la battuta sia gentile! Giusti, Domenico Maria (1703). Trattato della rettorica overo introduzzione all’eloquenza. Macerata: Silvestri.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giustino – Ossia: Grice e Giustinio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giustinio. The Justinii are a family at ancient Rome. No members of this gens are mentioned in ancient writers, but several are known from inscriptions, chiefly from Gaul and Germania.  The root of the nomen Justinius is the cognomen Jūstus, referring to someone known for being "just" or "fair". This was one of a large class of surnames derived from the character of an individual.[3] From the surname arose both J., a diminutive cognomen, and the nomen Justius. J. must have been formed from one of these two, using the gentile-forming suffix -inius, which could form new gentilicia from either nomina or cognomina. The only praenomina associated with the J. appearing in inscriptions are Marcus, Gaius, and Tiberius, of which the first two were very common at all periods of Roman history, while Tiberius was favoured by a smaller range of families.  Justinia, named on a piece of pottery from Londinium in Britannia.[5] Marcus J.  Albus, made an offering to Nehalennia at Ganventa in Gallia Belgica, dating to the latter half of the second century, or the first half of the third.[6] J., made an offering to the local goddess near the present site of Pesch, near Bad Münstereifel, formerly part of Germania Inferior, in the latter half of the second century, or the first half of the third.[7] Justinia Eutychia, buried at Porolissum in Dacia, aged forty-five, in a tomb built by her husband, the decurion Livius Rufus, between AD 150 and 270.[8] Justinia Apra, buried at Iuvavum in Noricum, aged thirty-seven, with a monument from her husband, Marcus Lollius Victor, dating between AD 150 and 300.[9] Gaius J. Favor, along with Desiderata, perhaps his wife, made an offering to Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Juno Regina at Mogontiacum in Germania Superior.[10] Tiberius J. Fortunatus, buried at Tucca in Mauretania Caesariensis, aged fifty-five, with a monument from his son.[11] Justinia Justina, buried at Noviomagus Nemetum in Germania Superior, with a monument from her husband, Drombinius Sacer.[12] Justinia Lupula, buried at Arelate in Gallia Narbonensis, with a monument from her husband, Fannius Paternus, a soldier in the Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix.[13] Marcus J. Marcellus, an infant buried at Lugdunum in Gallia Lugdunensis, aged one year, forty-seven days, with a monument from his parents, Marcus Justinius Secundus and Primania Marcellina.[14] J. Mercurialis, made an offering to the local Genius at Suromagus in Gallia Belgica.[15] Justinia Paterna, dedicated a tomb for Firminus, perhaps her husband, at the present site of Rheder, formerly part of Germania Inferior, between AD 170 and 230.[16] Marcus Justinius Secundus, along with his wife, Primania Marcella, built a tomb at Lugdunum for their infant son, Marcus Justinius Marcellus.[14] Tiberius Justinius Titianus, a beneficarius, an administrative officer in the Legio XXII Primigenia, who along with Servandia Augusta, perhaps his wife, made an offering to Mercury at Mogontiacum in AD 210. Titianus made another offering to Epona and the Genius of the Leuci at Nasium in Gallia Belgica.[17] Justinia Ursa, together with her husband, Aulus Valerius Verus, made an offering to the Matronae Aufaniae at the present site of Kommern, formerly part of Germania Inferior.[18] Justinia Valeria, together with her son, Camullius Onesimus, dedicated a tomb at Vasio in Gallia Narbonensis to her husband, Titus Camullius Telesphorus.[19] Justinius Victorinus, buried at Aquileia in Venetia and Histria, in a tomb dedicated by his wife, Flavia Marcella, dating between AD 250 and 350.[20] Justinia Villana, buried at Colonia in Germania Inferior, with a monument from her husband, Titus Sentius Ursio.[21] See also List of Roman gentes References  Chapter 3, Charles E. Bennett (1907) The Latin Language – a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.  New College Latin & English Dictionary, s.v. justus.  Chase, pp. 110, 111.  Chase, pp. 125, 126.  CIL VII, 1336,0536.  AE 1975, 654, AE 1997, 1159.  AE 1968, 333.  AE 1944, 48a.  CIL III, 5546.  CIL XIII, 7269.  CIL VIII, 2076.  CIL XIII, 6108.  CIL XII, 683.  CIL XII, 2188.  AE 2012, 966.  CIL XIII, 7958.  CIL XIII, 4630, CIL XIII, 6741.  CIL XIII, 7897.  CIL XII, 1401.  Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i. 1120.  CIL XIII, 8418. Bibliography Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). René Cagnat et alii, L'Année épigraphique (The Year in Epigraphy, abbreviated AE), Presses Universitaires de France (1888–present). George Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. VIII, pp. 103–184 (1897). Giovanni Battista Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae (Inscriptions of Aquileia), Udine (1991–1993). Category: Roman gentes We have the gens entry below and one individual, perhaps you can choose your second best, for Grice/Speranza vignette or comment. The wiki entry does not even mention the Giustino for which we have our separate entry--because he is not 'classical' -- yet... Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giustino – Ossia: Grice e Giustino: la ragione conversazionale e la gnossi a Roma – filosofia italiana (Roma) Giustino: la ragione conversazionale e la gnossi a Roma – filosofia italiana (Roma). Filosofo italiano. Giustino is cited by Ippolito di Roma as the originator of what Ippolito describes as a pagan form of gnosticism in which a wide variety of disparate elements are brought together.  GRICEVS: Iustine, audio Hippolytum te quasi principem gnoseos paganae facere, qui omnia miscet: philosophos, mythos, ritus, et quodvis quod in foro invenitur. Hoc estne ratio conversandi, an recepta culina? IVSTINVS: Amice, si “gnosis” mea est, non est confusio sed collectio: diversa coniungo ut verum elucescat. Qui multa legit, multa etiam implicat. GRICEVS: Bene; sed cave ne te “varietas” prodere videatur. Nam ubi omnia simul dicuntur, auditor suspicatur nihil proprie dici—et gnosticus fit potius congerens quam docens. IVSTINVS: At ego respondeo: ipsa congeries est argumentum. Implicatura mea est haec: si veritas una est, fragmenta ubique sunt; et si me paganum vocant, id tantum significat me etiam cum paganis civiliter loqui, ut eos paulatim ad meliorem rationem traham. This is another Giustino. Do we know the gens. How common was IVSTINVS as a Roman 'cognomen' -- was it a variant of IVSTVS -- it just means 'just', with Justinian adding _what_ to 'just.' Would a Roman say: "Marcus est justus' with somone correcting, "Non: justinus" -- i.e. does any Latin lexicon incorporate justinus, -a, -um, as a formative lexeme out of the simpler one? Yes, this is a different “Giustino,” and here the answer is much less secure than with a fully Roman tria nomina. Short answer first. We do not securely know the gens. Iustinus was certainly used as a cognomen in Roman and late Roman naming. It is formed from iustus, “just,” by the very common suffix -inus. So, yes, it is in that sense a derivative of Iustus. But that does not mean it is simply interchangeable with iustus in ordinary predication. A Roman would not normally say “Marcus est Iustinus” to mean “Marcus is just,” with someone correcting “non: iustus.” That is not how the form works. Iustus is the adjective “just, upright, fair.” Iustinus is ordinarily a name, or at most an adjectival derivative meaning something like “belonging to Justus,” “of Justus,” or “Just-like” in a name-forming way, not the basic predicate “just.” So the contrast is: Marcus est iustus = Marcus is just. Marcus Iustinus = Marcus Justinus, where Iustinus is a cognomen or name-element. A few philological points. The suffix -inus in Latin often forms derivatives from names or nouns. It can indicate belonging, relation, descent, association, or secondary formation. In names, it is extremely common. So Iustinus from Iustus is structurally normal. Compare, in a loose morphological sense, the kind of move one sees in many Roman and late Roman cognomina and gentilicial derivatives. As for Justinianus, that is a further derivative. Morphologically, it is built on Iustinus or on the same stem extended with -ianus. The force of -ianus is often “belonging to,” “connected with,” “of the party/house of,” or “descended from.” So Iustinianus is not simply “more just.” It is not a comparative of moral quality. It is rather “Justinian,” that is, a name derived from Justinus with the additional -ianus formation. In onomastic terms, it marks relation, affiliation, or derivation, not degree of justice. So if you ask what Justinian adds to “just,” the answer is not “more just” but rather something like “of/pertaining to Justinus” in a name-forming sense. Would a Latin lexicon include iustinus, -a, -um as a regular lexical adjective? Sometimes lexica will note such formations morphologically, but in practice Iustinus is encountered overwhelmingly as a proper name or cognomen rather than as a freely used lexical adjective meaning “just-ish” or “rather just.” The ordinary moral adjective remains iustus. As for frequency, Iustinus becomes quite common in imperial and especially late antique / Christian contexts. It is much more at home in the empire and late empire than in the high Republican naming world. It is not bizarre as a Roman cognomen, but it is more characteristic of later naming habits than of old Republican aristocratic nomenclature. Now to your “other Giustino,” the one Hippolytus mentions. If this is the Justin referred to by Hippolytus as a source of a pagan or quasi-gnostic system, we still do not have enough to assign a gens with confidence. “Iustinus” by itself does not give you a gens. It is a cognomen or single-name form. Without a secure nomen, no secure gens follows. So the clean answer is: No securely identifiable gens. Iustinus is a cognomen or name-form, not enough by itself to recover a gens. It is morphologically derived from iustus, but not used as the ordinary adjective “just.” And yes, Hippolytus’ Justin is not Justin Martyr. They are different figures. One further nuance. In later Roman and Christian usage, names built from virtues or positive moral qualities become especially common and can feel less tightly tied to the old gentilicial system. That is another reason why recovering a gens from Iustinus alone is usually hopeless. So, in the driest usable form: Iustinus is a common late Roman cognomen, morphologically derived from iustus by the suffix -inus. It does not function as the ordinary predicate adjective “just,” for which Latin uses iustus; rather, it is an onomastic derivative, and further formations such as Iustinianus add another layer of name-based affiliation, not moral intensification. In the case of Hippolytus’ Justin, no secure gens can be recovered from the surviving form of the name alone. If useful, I can now do one of three things, all here in chat. I can give you a compact philological note on iustus, Iustinus, and Iustinianus. I can give you a short note on the use of -inus and -ianus in Roman names. Or I can draft two or three dry Speranza-style sentences on why Hippolytus’ Justin is good for Grice: too much collected doctrine, too little disciplined uptake.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giustino – Ossia: Grice e Giustinio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giustinio. For the Justinii, my second-best Grice/Speranza vignette is actually not the historical Giustino at all, but the morphology. The whole gens is almost invisible historically:  no senators, no consuls, no tyrannicides, mostly inscriptions in Gaul, Germania, Dacia, Britain.  And yet the name screams a Gricean question:  How much meaning survives in a name?  The article itself says:  Justinius derives ultimately from Justus ("just", "fair"), via the suffix -inius.  The Roman hears:  Iustus = just.  Then:  Iustinus.  Then:  Iustinianus.  At each stage, less predicate and more proper name. A Gricean paraphrase might be:                      FormMeaning loadiustusactually describes a virtueIustinusname derived from a virtueIustinianusname derived from a name derived from a virtue The original semantic content gradually recedes.  Hence the dialogue. DISCIPVLVS.  Is Marcus just?  GRAMMATICVS.  Why?  DISCIPVLVS.  Because he is called Iustinus.  GRAMMATICVS.  That does not follow.  DISCIPVLVS.  Then why call him Iustinus?  GRAMMATICVS.  Because his father did.  DISCIPVLVS.  And why was his father called Iustinus?  GRAMMATICVS.  Perhaps because his grandfather was Iustus.  DISCIPVLVS.  And was he just?  GRAMMATICVS.  At last you ask a sensible question.   This is almost the reverse of the Brutus problem. With Brutus, later Romans invent a story to preserve meaning. With Iustinus, the name quietly drifts away from meaning and becomes a mere identifier. Exactly the process Grice worried about whenever philosophers moved too quickly from:  what a word originally suggested  to  what a speaker means by using it.  A man called Iustinus need be no more just than a man called Longus need be tall or a man called Rufus need be red-haired. And by the time we arrive at Justinianus, the semantic distance is almost comic. GRICEVS.  Why is he called Justinian?  ROMANVS.  Because he belongs to the line of Justin.  GRICEVS.  And why Justin?  ROMANVS.  Because somebody, somewhere, was called Justus.  GRICEVS.  And was he just?  ROMANVS.  No source survives.  That is perhaps the most Roman and most Gricean answer imaginable. And the fact that the inscriptions are peripheral -- and not Roman -- indicates that this transparent surnames were typical of provincials or colonists. There were no Cornelii or other patricians there, so they had to 'catch' a name before too soon -- for that was a mark of honour. It's different with Justin Bieber?! Thanks Yes, I think there is something genuinely sociological there, though I'd phrase it cautiously. The Justinii of your entry are overwhelmingly known from inscriptions in:  Germania, Gallia, Britannia, Dacia, Mauretania,  rather than from the old Republican political center at Rome. That is explicit in the evidence. The family is known chiefly from inscriptions, and chiefly from the provinces. A Grice/Speranza reading would be:  The old Roman nobility had names that were so ancient that their original meanings were forgotten. The newcomers had names whose meanings were still visible.  Thus:  Cornelius — opaque. Claudius — opaque. Aemilius — opaque.  But:  Justinius — from iustus. Fortunatus — "fortunate." Secundus — "second." Victorinus — "victorious."  The semantic transparency is still showing through. One must be careful not to infer that provincials preferred transparent names or that no Cornelii were present in the provinces. The inscriptions before us don't establish that. What they do suggest is that by the Imperial period many newer Roman families bore names whose meaning remained fairly obvious. That gives rise to a delightful Gricean contrast. Rome Q. Cornelius Scipio DISCIPVLVS.  Why Cornelius?  GRAMMATICVS.  Nobody knows.  Mogontiacum Tiberius Justinius Fortunatus DISCIPVLVS.  Why Fortunatus?  GRAMMATICVS.  Probably because somebody once thought he was fortunate.  The etymology is still visible.  And yes, Justin Bieber is different again. Nobody hears:  Justin = just.  any more than most people hear:  Victor = victorious,  or  Felix = happy.  The name has become almost purely referential. A Gricean would say that the descriptive content has largely evaporated. Thus: DISCIPVLVS.  Is Justin Bieber just?  GRICEVS.  The name supplies no evidence whatever.  Whereas a Roman meeting an early Iustinus might still have felt a faint pull toward:  "the just one."  The history of names is often the history of that pull gradually disappearing. The old patrician names had already reached that stage; many provincial Imperial names still let us see the semantic machinery turning underneath. What would have scared Grice, who wroote "The concept of 'just' in Plato's Republic' is that the roman provincials are calling each other not justus, but justinus -- a diminutive, the entry says. I suppose the entry means a 'derivative' -- I cannot see why it has to be treated as 'little just'--Is he just? No. He is a little just -- justinus? Thanks Quite so. I think the Wiki entry is using "diminutive" a bit loosely. In strict morphology, Iustinus is formed with -inus, and -inus is not primarily a diminutive suffix. Latin has much better candidates for true diminutives:  liber → libellus porcus → porcellus Marcus → Marcellus  But -inus commonly means:  belonging to, connected with, descended from, associated with.  So morphologically:  Iustus → Iustinus  does not naturally mean:  "little Just."  Rather, something like:  "Just-related," "of Justus," "Justin."  The lexical meaning is already becoming diluted. And this is exactly where Grice might become nervous. He devoted enormous effort to understanding what "just" means in Plato, Aristotle, ordinary language, legal language, etc. Then he arrives in late Roman onomastics and finds people called:  Iustus, Iustinus, Iustinianus.  At which point he asks:  Is anybody actually claiming these people are just?  The answer is probably:  no.  The name has ceased to function as a predicate. A Roman would say:  Marcus est iustus. Marcus is just.  That is an assertion about Marcus. But:  Marcus Iustinus est. Marcus is Justinus.  is merely identification. The virtue-word has become a name.  In fact, the history may be:  iustus (adjective) → Iustus (cognomen) → Iustinus (name derived from the cognomen) → Iustinianus (name derived from the derived name)  At every stage, less semantic content and more naming function. A Gricean nightmare: DISCIPVLVS.  Why is he called Iustinus?  GRAMMATICVS.  Because his father was Iustus.  DISCIPVLVS.  Was the father just?  GRAMMATICVS.  Perhaps.  DISCIPVLVS.  And is the son just?  GRAMMATICVS.  Entirely different question.   So I would not translate Iustinus as:  "a little just."  Nor even:  "rather just."  Rather:  "Justin"  in much the same way that Marcellus long ago ceased to mean "little Marcus." And that is perhaps Grice's deepest lesson here: a word that once expressed a concept (iustus) can become a name (Iustus), then a derivative name (Iustinus), then a dynastic name (Iustinianus), while the original concept of justice quietly slips out of the picture. Plato worries about Justice; the provincials are baptizing their children. Those are not the same language-games at all. And while the category of AGNOMEN is anachronistic, does Varro or other consider this? "Marcus FLAVIUS IVSTVS -- A-GNOMEN. (Although in the provinces you never now). If the gens is FLAVIVS, IVSTVS is agnomen. If it becomes hereditary, is COGNOMEN. Then for some reason the COGNOMINA origiated their own gentilicia: IVSTINVS --: Marcus IVSTINVS LONGUS? Thanks -- the point is that it must have been an 'agnomen' which For Grice is a ridiculous thing to say, as when he called his neighbour's dog, Fido The Shag, because it was shaggy, hairy coated. Thanks Yes, and this is exactly the point at which Grice would start grumbling about the dangers of retrospective classification. The neat schoolbook sequence is:  adjective → agnomen → cognomen → nomen  But Roman reality was often much messier. Take your example:  Marcus Flavius Iustus  A modern prosopographer may say:  Flavius = nomen (gens) Iustus = cognomen  But historically, Iustus may well have begun as something very close to a nickname:  "Marcus the Just."  That is to say, what later scholars classify as a cognomen may have originated as what older scholars loved to call an agnomen—a descriptive appendage. And Grice would immediately ask:  Was he really just?  Because that is the only interesting question. The rest is filing.  The really fascinating transition comes afterward. Suppose:  Marcus Flavius Iustus  has descendants. At first:  Iustus = descriptive.  Later:  Iustus = hereditary.  At that point the semantic motivation weakens. A grandson called:  Lucius Flavius Iustus  need not be just at all. Exactly as:  Marcus Junius Brutus  need not be a fool.  Then comes the truly Roman miracle. The cognomen itself becomes productive. So:  Iustus  gives rise to  Iustinus  and ultimately  Iustinianus.  Now the name has escaped entirely from the original predicate. The development is almost:  just → Just → Justin → Justinian  with less and less connection to actual justice.  And your dog example is perfect. Imagine Grice's neighbour has a shaggy dog. One day:  Fido the Shag.  Initially:  "Shag" means shaggy-coated.  Pure description. Then puppies appear. One is called:  Young Shag.  Then:  the Shags become a family.  Then:  Mr. Shag Junior.  At that point nobody is necessarily shaggy. The description has become a name. That is precisely what happened repeatedly in Roman nomenclature.  A Gricean genealogy of Iustinus would therefore be something like: Stage 1  Marcus est iustus. Marcus is just.  Predicate. Stage 2  Marcus Iustus.  Nickname. Stage 3  Lucius Iustus.  Hereditary family designation. Stage 4  Marcus Iustinus.  Name derived from the hereditary designation. Stage 5 Nobody asks whether Marcus is just. And that last step would have particularly fascinated Grice. The philosophical concept of justice remains where Plato left it; meanwhile ordinary speakers quietly convert the adjective into a label and forget the original qualification altogether. As for Varro, I know of no surviving passage where he explicitly traces Iustus → Iustinus in this way. What survives is mostly modern onomastic reconstruction. But I strongly suspect Grice would have preferred watching the transition from adjective to proper name over any amount of bureaucratic nomenclature about whether a particular element was technically an agnomen or a cognomen. After all, what interests him is how "the just one" became "Justin". That's where the meaning lives. Although England is different, Grice says. "I can well imagine Prince Charles (as he then was) saying, 'I refuse to socialise with a Smith, a blacksmith, strictly. I saw the tragedy in good old Patrick Horace Nowell-Smith, my colleague at Oxford. His father's name was Nowell Smith, and Patrick Horace -- or P. H., as we called him -- did what most Smiths do to be able to be NOT under the rather for a possibly socialisation with Prince Charles (as he then was) he 'hypohenised'" Thanks Ha! That is very much a Grice/Speranza observation. The Roman and English cases are almost opposites. In Rome:  Iustus → Iustinus → Iustinianus  The descriptive element gradually disappears into nomenclature. What once meant:  "the just man"  ends up functioning as a name. In England, however, many surnames remain embarrassingly transparent:  Smith Baker Cooper Fletcher Carpenter  The irony is that no modern Smith need have ever seen a forge. Yet the lexical transparency remains visible. A Gricean might say:  The etymological implicature survives after the descriptive content has vanished.  Thus: SMITH +> blacksmith historically. But: Professor Smith +> probably not a blacksmith. The name no longer describes.  Now the Nowell-Smith case is particularly delicious. Suppose the family name originally was:  Nowell Smith  Two words. The hyphen performs a remarkable social operation:  Nowell-Smith  One visual gesture and the name ceases to look like:  Mr Smith,  and begins to look like:  an established family designation.  Grice would enjoy this because the semantic material is unchanged. The referent is the same. The pronunciation scarcely changes. Yet the social implicature changes enormously. Smith +> ordinary occupational surname. Nowell-Smith +> old family name. The hyphen does communicative work.  A Gricean analysis: PHILOSOPHER.  Why introduce the hyphen?  NOWELL-SMITH.  I have not changed my name.  PHILOSOPHER.  Precisely.  NOWELL-SMITH.  It is merely punctuation.  GRICEVS.  There is no such thing as "merely" punctuation.  The hyphen generates an implicature. Just as Lucius Brutus allegedly manipulated the interpretation of Brutus, so English society allows a tiny mark of orthography to modify social uptake. And that is perhaps the deepest commonality between the Roman and English cases:  names cease to mean what they once meant, but speakers never stop drawing inferences from them.  Which is why a philosopher interested in meaning can spend a lifetime discussing words and still find himself thinking about Brutus, Justinus, Smith, and Nowell-Smith. The semantics may have faded; the implicatures remain. I don't know if you can check it with wiki, but in P. H. Nowell-Smith, his father's CHRISTIAN name was "Nowell". His father was plain "Nowell Smith." Or perhaps "Nowell Geoffrey Smith." But at some point Nowell-Smith starting hyphenising. Thanks And in fact Grice's ancestor, Richard lGris, of Gryce Hall in Yorkshire, meant Richard The Gray-Haired French, or something -- when perhaps the real gray-haired ones had stayed in Normandy? On P. H. Nowell-Smith, I would be cautious. I don't presently have a source in front of me establishing:  whether his father's given name was Nowell, whether the family originally used Smith and later Nowell-Smith, or exactly when the hyphen entered the picture.  So I wouldn't want to affirm those points as fact without checking a reliable biographical source. What I can say is that your hypothesis is highly plausible as an English naming pattern. Many English double-barrelled surnames originate from the preservation of a family given name. One can readily imagine:  Nowell Smith  (where Nowell is a forename inherited from an ancestor) becoming:  Nowell-Smith  once the first element ceases to be perceived as a forename and begins to be perceived as part of the surname. That would be almost the reverse of the Roman development:  adjective → cognomen → nomen,  whereas here we get:  forename → compound surname.  And Grice would indeed have enjoyed the implicatures generated by a mere hyphen.  As for le Gris / l'Gris / Gryce, that is even more delightful. The medieval French epithet:  le Gris "the grey(-haired) one" or "the grey one"  is exactly the sort of descriptive by-name from which surnames frequently grew. And your joke is excellent:  Richard le Gris may not have been especially grey-haired at all.  Once a descriptive label becomes hereditary, the original description ceases to matter. Exactly as:  Longus need not be tall, Rufus need not be red-haired, Iustus need not be just, Smith need not work metal, le Gris need not be grey.  A Gricean moral:  The original utterance was descriptive. The later surname is referential.  At the beginning:  "There goes Richard the Grey."  At the end:  "There goes Richard Gris."  with no implication whatever about hair colour. In fact, that is very close to the point you have been making throughout about Brutus. The founding act is descriptive; the descendants inherit the label; later generations invent stories to recover a meaning that has long ceased to function descriptively. So a nice Grice-Speranza epigram might be:  The first le Gris was grey; the last Gryce merely bore the name. The first Brutus was grave; the last Brutus was expected to explain why. From online Guardian obituary: Patrick was born during a family holiday in Polzeath, Cornwall, a son of Nowell Charles Smith, then headteacher of Sherborne school, Dorset, and formerly a classics don at New College, Oxford. He was known as "Nowell Smith", and his children took that as their surname. –thanks Wonderful. That actually confirms your intuition better than the joke did. The obituary's formulation:  "a son of Nowell Charles Smith ... He was known as 'Nowell Smith', and his children took that as their surname."  suggests that Nowell began as part of the father's given-name complex, while Smith was the inherited surname. Then "Nowell Smith" became the form by which he was known, and the children inherited Nowell Smith as a family surname. In other words, what began as a personal designation hardened into a hereditary designation. That is almost a perfect English parallel to some of the Roman developments we've been discussing. A Gricean genealogy: Stage 1  Nowell Charles Smith. "Nowell" = given name.  Stage 2  He is known as "Nowell Smith."  The two elements become pragmatically fused. Stage 3  Patrick Horace Nowell-Smith.  What was once part of a personal name is reanalysed as part of the surname. Exactly the sort of transition that fascinates both linguists and onomasts. And it mirrors your Roman examples beautifully:  Iustus → Iustinus → Iustinianus  or  le Gris → Gryce.  The original descriptive or personal force recedes, the hereditary force increases. As for Richard le Gris, your point is very much in the same spirit. Even if le Gris originally meant:  the grey-haired one, the grey fellow,  the hereditary surname very quickly ceases to describe its bearer. So one can imagine: RICHARD LE GRIS (the grey-haired one) having a dark-haired son called WILLIAM LE GRIS. Already the description has become a name. And several centuries later: H. P. Grice need not exhibit the slightest trace of medieval grey hair. That's precisely why Grice would resist deriving too much from surnames. The original description may be recoverable historically, but synchronically the name functions referentially, not descriptively. The Nowell-Smith case is especially delicious because one can almost watch the transition happen historically: a man's commonly used designation becomes the hereditary surname of his children. A Roman prosopographer would have felt right at home. Richard lGris Anglo-French, his ancestors spoke 'French' and 'gris' is of Germanic origin. It's different for the Grices who claim descent from Norse gris -- wild pig -- Herbert Grice -- Herbert He How Herds Pigs? Thanks Ha! Here one has to distinguish three different etymological games. 1. Richard le Gris The Anglo-French surname le Gris is exactly the sort of Norman by-name one expects after the Conquest:  le Gris = "the grey one."  As you note, the word gris entered Anglo-French from a Germanic source, but by the time Richard bore it, it was simply a French adjective functioning as a surname. A Gricean would say:  First generation: description. Tenth generation: reference.  Exactly as with Rufus or Longus.  2. Grice as a descendant of le Gris This is the conventional genealogical line often mentioned by Grice family historians:  le Gris → Gris → Gryce → Grice.  Whether every link is philologically secure is another matter, but the semantic starting-point is still:  grey, grey-haired, grey-coloured.   3. Grice from Norse gris ("piglet") Now this is the more Gricean possibility. Old Norse:  gríss = piglet, young pig.  English dialects preserve related forms such as grice and gristle-adjacent forms in various places. The trouble is that there are two competing semantic pictures:                  RouteMeaningNorman-French grisgreyNorse grísspiglet And one can easily imagine Speranza preferring the second for comic reasons.  A Gricean reconstruction DISCIPVLVS.  Does Grice mean "grey-haired"?  SPERANZA.  Possibly.  DISCIPVLVS.  Does Grice mean "piglet"?  SPERANZA.  Also possibly.  DISCIPVLVS.  Which is correct?  GRICEVS.  I should prefer whichever generates the better philosophical joke.  The obvious joke being:  Herbert Paul Grice descended from gríss ("piglet")  and thus:  "Herbert, he who herds pigs."   The deeper point, however, is one you've been making throughout. Neither etymology tells us what Grice means now. A medieval Richard le Gris may genuinely have been grey-haired. A Norse gríss may genuinely have referred to a piglet. But once Grice becomes a surname, the descriptive force evaporates. Which is why Grice himself would probably insist:  The historical etymology is fascinating. The contemporary use is referential.  Or, in a Roman register:  The first Brutus may have been gravis. The first Iustus may have been just. The first le Gris may have been grey. The first Gríss may have been pig-like.  But later generations merely bear the name. Still, I admit that "Herbertus, princeps grex griceianae, ex stirpe porcellorum Nordmannorum" has a certain charm that "Herbert the Grey-Haired" lacks.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giusto – Ossia: Grice e Giusto -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giusto. The gens Justia are a family at ancient Rome. No members of this gens are mentioned in ancient writers, but several are known from inscriptions.  The nomen Justius is derived from the cognomen Jūstus,[1] one of a class of surnames referring to the character or habits of an individual, in this case describing someone as "just", "fair", or "righteous". The only praenomina appearing in inscriptions of the Justii are Lucius and Gaius, the two most common names throughout Roman history.  Justia L. l. Dica, a freedwoman named in an inscription from Forum Popilii in Cisalpine Gaul, dating from the first century BC.[4] Gaius J. Proculus, one of the aediles at Flavia Solva in Noricum, buried at the present site of Maribor, together with Orionia Maxima, perhaps his wife, in the late first century, or the first half of the second.[5] Lucius J. Valerianus, the heir of Quintus Junius Iullinus, a soldier in the fifteenth urban cohort at Rome, who was buried at Misenum some time in the late first century, or the first half of the second, aged thirty-four years, having served for sixteen years.[6] J. Optatus, named in a second- or third-century inscription found at Schuld, formerly part of Germania Inferior.[7] Justia Ingenua, buried at the present site of Varhely, formerly part of Dacia, aged thirty, in a family sepulchre dedicated by her husband, Ulpius Dubitatus, and his brother, Gemellinus, for Ingenua, her daughter, Justia Sextilia, and the brothers' parents, Ulpius Gemellinus and Ulpia Dubitata, both aged sixty. The tomb dates from the early second century to the middle of the third.[8] Justia Sextilia, the daughter of Ulpius Dubitatus and Justia Ingenua, buried at the present site of Varhely in a second or third century tomb built by Dubitatus and his brother, Gemellinus, for their parents, as well as Ulpius' wife and daughter.[8] Justia Secundina, made an offering to Jupiter Optimus Maximus at Alba Julia in Dacia, between the early second and middle of the third century.[9] J. Attianus, a decurion who made an offering to the local deity at the present site of Osterburken, formerly part of Germania Superior, in the latter half of the second century, or the first half of the third.[10] Gaius J., named in an inscription from Rome, dating to the third century, or the end of the second.[11] J. Frontinus, buried in a third-century tomb at Rome, aged thirty-four, was a soldier in the ninth cohort of the Praetorian Guard, in the century of Secundinus, having served for twelve years. He left Noricus Ulpius Maximianus as his heir.[12] J. Justus, buried at Celeia in Noricum, aged sixty, with a monument from his wife, Tutorina. Justius Tutorinus, presumably his son, is buried in the same sepulchre, which dates to the third century.[13] J. Tutorinus, probably the son of J. Justus and Tutorina, was buried along with Justus in a third-century sepulchre dedicated by Tutorina at Celeia, aged forty.[13] Undated Justii J. Junius Januarius, buried at Sufetula in Africa Proconsularis, aged forty.[14] J. Justinus, dedicated a tomb at Vienna in Gallia Narbonensis for his wife, Statoria, the daughter of Magnianus, and daughter, Justiola.[15] J. Justinus, together with his children, J. Oceanus and Justia Florida, dedicated a tomb at the present site of Avolsheim, formerly part of Germania Superior, to his wife, Terentia Augustula.[16] J. Matutinus, the son of J. Quintianus, with whom he was buried at Rome, in a tomb dedicated by his mother, Augustalia Faustina.[17] J. Mucianus, decurion at Augusta Treverorum in Gallia Belgica, where he was buried along with his wife, Aprilia Ursula, and son, Rustius Mucianus, with a monument dedicated by his daughter, Aprilia Paterna.[18] Justia Nepotilla, a matron named in an inscription from Tibur in Latium, along with her daughter, Justia Praesidia.[19] Lucius J. L. f. Ponticus, the son of Lucius J. Senilis, named in an inscription from Aquileia in Venetia and Histria.[20] Justia Praesidia, the daughter of Justia Nepotilla, with whom she was buried at Tibur.[19] J. Quintianus, buried at Rome, along with his son, J. Matutinus, in a tomb built by his wife, Augustalia Faustina.[17] Lucius J. Satto, together with Lucius Secundinius Moderatus, made an offering to Nehalennia at the present site of Domburg, formerly part of Gallia Belgica.[21] Lucius J. Senilis, the father of Lucius J. Ponticus, named in an inscription from Aquileia.[20] J. Vatto, made an offering to Victoria at Eburodunum in Germania Superior.[22] See also List of Roman gentes References  Chapter 3, Charles E. Bennett (1907) The Latin Language – a historical outline of its sounds, inflections, and syntax. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.  New College Latin & English Dictionary, s.v. justus.  Chase, pp. 110, 111.  CIL XI, 578.  CIL III, 5309.  CIL X, 1765.  AE 1978, 569.  CIL III, 7989.  CIL III, 1046.  CIL XIII, 6569.  CIL VI, 32904.  CIL VI, 2712.  CIL III, 5296.  CIL VIII, 11403.  CIL XII, 2369.  CIL XIII, 5986.  CIL VI, 12873.  CIL XIII, 3693.  CIL XIV, 3793.  CIL V, 1267.  CIL XIII, 8790.  CIL XIII, 5058. Bibliography Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). René Cagnat et alii, L'Année épigraphique (The Year in Epigraphy, abbreviated AE), Presses Universitaires de France (1888–present). George Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. VIII, pp. 103–184 (1897). John C. Traupman, The New College Latin & English Dictionary, Bantam Books, New York (1995). Category: Roman gentes Auden says in his inaugural Oxford lecture, citing Lear, the true test of imagination lies in the ability to name a cat; on the other hand, give a dog a bad name and bury him. And there's the IVSTIVS gens below. It seems these Romans had this BURDEN of the trinomina: so IVSTIVS acquired the cognomen IVSTVS (what else -- "I like an alliteration," the mother proudly said). Another of the gens was more derivative: IVSTVS IVSTINVS -- still, it seems that the gens is the only thing that matter, and GIVEN THAT SOCIAL PRESSURE had them having to add something to the gentilicium (but not always, as with a few Patricians, etc -- they could at least play alliteratively? Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giusto – Ossia: Grice e Giusto -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giusto. Yes, and the Justii/Justinii are almost a laboratory specimen for Grice's theory that names drift away from the predicates from which they arose. What strikes me in the entry is not so much Justius Justus—that is almost inevitable—as the increasingly derivative forms:  Justius Justus Justius Justinus Justiola  One has the feeling of a family worried that the original semantic material should not be wasted. A Gricean genealogy might be:  iustus ("just") → Iustus (nickname) → Justius (gentilicium) → Iustinus (derived cognomen) → Iustinianus (later derivative)  At each stage, less Plato and more bureaucracy. Your Auden connection is apt. The act of naming is itself imaginative. A Roman with only:  Marcus, Gaius, Lucius,  available in the praenomen slot had to place the creativity somewhere else. Hence cognomina proliferate:  Longus, Rufus, Severus, Iustus, Proculus, Frontinus,  and so on. And yes, I suspect Grice would laugh at:  Justius Justus  because it sounds like:  Mr Justice Justice.  Or:  Smith Smithson.  A mother proudly saying:  "I like the alliteration."  is probably closer to the truth than many solemn onomastic theories. The really Gricean part is that, once Justius exists as a gens name, Justus no longer means what it once meant. DISCIPVLVS.  Is Justius Justus just?  GRAMMATICVS.  Why should he be?  DISCIPVLVS.  His nomen is Justius and his cognomen is Justus.  GRAMMATICVS.  That is evidence only of Roman naming habits.  Exactly. The pressure of the tria nomina system almost forces this recycling. The nomen identifies the family; the cognomen must distinguish the individual or branch; sooner or later people start mining the same semantic field repeatedly. Thus:  Justius Justus  and then:  Justius Justinus  where the second no longer means "a little just" but simply becomes another available name-form. To return to Grice's dog:  Fido the Shag  originally describes the dog. Three generations later:  Sir Archibald Shag III  need not be shaggy at all. The description has become hereditary. That, I think, is exactly what happened to a good deal of Roman nomenclature. The philosophy of justice remained with Plato; the Romans converted iustus into a naming resource. And once a word becomes a hereditary name, semantics begins slowly surrendering to genealogy. You are right about the imaginative poverty of prae-nomina -- they may not be looking at a fixed name of legal names at the Registry; it seems more: Father (to Mother): "We'll call him Lucius. Next?" Let's go on and not spend weeks deliberating. That was H. P. Grice's case -- his father: Herbert Grice, of Edgabaston. Mabel Felton Grice (Mrs. Herbert Grice): "The boy is lovely." "Herbert? Herbert, are you sure, Herbert?" Herbert Grice: Yes. Mabel Felton: What does it mean? Herbert Grice: What do you mean, Mabel?" "A name must mean something." "It's old Mercian stock, from Her- plust Bert, as in Bertie." "Alright then, Herbert Paul he'll be" Father: "Even if, as I keep telling, I'm not too keen on the Paul -- it belittles the boy" "He's only a child, Herbert!" Thanks Ha! One can almost hear Grice constructing precisely that scene, because it captures something that Roman naming perhaps lacked and English naming retained: the illusion that one is making a fresh semantic choice. The Roman version PATER.  Lucius.  MATER.  Why Lucius?  PATER.  Because my father was Lucius.  MATER.  Excellent. Next.  The praenomen system had become so constrained that very little semantic imagination remained in it. The action had migrated elsewhere:  the cognomen, the agnomen, eventually the nomen itself.  Hence:  Lucius Justius Justus  where the creativity is pushed to the right.  The Grice household version Your invented dialogue is wonderfully Gricean because it combines etymology with parental negotiation: MABEL.  A name must mean something.  HERBERT.  Must it?  That is practically Humpty Dumpty versus Alice. And Grice would instantly notice that the name Herbert still carried recoverable etymological material:  Germanic heri = army, beraht = bright.  But of course no Edgbaston parent was actually thinking:  "Let us call him Army-Bright."  The name had become primarily referential. Exactly the same process we have been tracing with:  Iustus → Iustinus  and  Brutus → Brutus.   The Paul problem The joke about Paul is especially good. After all:  Paulus = small, little.  A Roman would have heard that immediately. So one can imagine: HERBERT.  Why Paul?  MABEL.  It's a family name.  HERBERT.  It means "small."  MABEL.  He's a baby.  HERBERT.  And will not remain one forever.  MABEL.  Then let his philosophy compensate.  By a happy irony, H. P. Grice spent a good deal of his intellectual life arguing against the multiplication of entities and senses, so perhaps Paulus was not entirely inappropriate.  And this takes us back to Auden's point. The real imaginative act is not selecting from:  Lucius, Marcus, Gaius,  but deciding what sort of relation a name should have to meaning at all. The Romans gradually let meaning ossify into genealogy. The English never quite stopped pretending that names ought somehow to mean something, even after forgetting what they meant. Hence Mrs. Grice's perfectly natural question:  "What does it mean?"  to which the most Gricean answer remains:  "Less than it once did, and more than you think."

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giustoleo – Ossia: Grice e Giustoleo -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giustoleo. The gens Justuleia was a family of ancient Rome. No members of this gens are mentioned by Roman writers, but a number are known from epigraphy.  The nomen Justuleius belongs to a large class of gentilicia formed using the suffix -eius, typical of those formed from stems ending in -a or -as, which were frequent in the Oscan and Faliscan languages. Over time, -eius came to be seen as a regular gentile-forming suffix, applied to other stems.[1] Most of the inscriptions mentioning Justuleii come from Latium. Gaius J. C. l. Alexander, a freedman named along with the freedman Marcus Publicius Apollonius, in an inscription from Rome dating from the middle portion of the first century BC.[2] Lucius J. L. l. D[...]us[...]o, a freedman named in a first-century inscription from Rome, along with Lucius J. Seleucus. The former's age, now lost, was recorded, implying that at least he was dead.[3] Lucius Justuleius P. l. Seleucus, a freedman named in a first-century inscription from Rome, along with Lucius Justuleius D[...]us[...]o, apparently deceased.[3] Aulus Justuleius, built a middle to late first-century tomb at Puteoli in Campania for his daughter, Justuleia Vera.[4] Justuleia A. f. Vera, buried at Puteoli in Campania in a middle to late first-century tomb built by her father, Aulus Justuleius.[4] Justuleia Priscilla, built a tomb at Castrimoenium in Latium, dating between the middle of the first and the middle of the second century, for her son, Marcus Laevius Severus, and her husband, Marcus Laevius Martialis.[5] Aulus Justuleius Balbus, one of the municipal duumvirs at Sora in Latium in AD 83. He may be the same as the person of that name mentioned in an inscription dating from 106, found at the site of modern Rocca d'Arce. An Aulus Justuleius Saturninus is mentioned in the same inscription.[6][7][8] Aulus Justuleius Saturninus, one of the curatores at Sora in AD 83, mentioned in the same inscription with the duumvir Aulus Justuleius Balbus.[7] Gaius Justuleius Crescens, a native of Tarracina in Latium, was an evocatus, or veteran soldier, serving in the century of Verus in the second cohort of the praetorian guard at Rome in AD 143.[9] Justuleius Felix, one of the magistrates of the collegium fabrum at Rome, according to an inscription of the early fourth century.[10] See also List of Roman gentes References  Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", 120.  AE 2001, 228.  CIL VI, 35636.  CIL X, 2631.  CIL XIV, 2432.  CIL X, 5670.  EE, viii. 1, 892.  AE 1911, 67.  CIL VI, 2379.  CIL VI, 33856. Bibliography René Cagnat et alii, L'Année épigraphique (The Year in Epigraphy, abbreviated AE), Presses Universitaires de France (1888–present). George Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. VIII, pp. 103–184 (1897). Wilhelm Henzen, Ephemeris Epigraphica: Corporis Inscriptionum Latinarum Supplementum (Journal of Inscriptions: Supplement to the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, abbreviated EE), Institute of Roman Archaeology, Rome (1872–1913). Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). Category: Roman gentes Grice: "Epigraphy was my passion while at Corpus. Our tutor explained us how to distinguish an inscription from a tomb -- "Tombs are for the dead; inscriptions not necessarily so." On our trip to Rome we came across this inscription -- the dates were missing -- but the tutor said: "The fact that the dates, if lost, were recorded, means that the person was dead." "Ah." Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione --  I Verbali: Giustoleo – Ossia: Grice e Giustoleo -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Giustoleo. Ha! This one is almost too good for Grice. The entry itself contains the wonderfully dry epigraphic observation:  Lucius Justuleius L. l. D[...]us[...]o, a freedman named in an inscription from Rome; his age, now lost, was recorded, implying that he was dead. His fellow freedman Lucius Justuleius Seleucus is mentioned alongside him.  A philosopher of language immediately asks:  How can the absence of something tell us anything?  The answer is: because of convention. Your tutor's rule—  Tombs are for the dead; inscriptions not necessarily so.  —is exactly right as a piece of epigraphic pragmatics. If an inscription merely says:  L. Justuleius Seleucus  nothing follows. But when the stone originally contained:  vixit annos... or some equivalent age-at-death formula,  then the inscription is participating in a recognizable genre. The age is not there to help him celebrate a birthday. A Gricean schema: STONE.  "Age recorded."  READER.  Why tell me that?  STONE.  ...  READER.  Ah. This is funerary.  So the inference is not semantic but pragmatic. Exactly as:  "There is an animal in the garden" +> not an ant,  or  "Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant" +> the word no longer means that.  The thing is not said, but it is meant.  And the gens itself is delightful because it is so obscure. Not Caesars. Not Cornelii. Just:  Justuleii.  A few freedmen, magistrates, veterans, family tombs. The kind of people who survive only because someone cut words into stone. Which gives us a very Speranzian vignette: GRICEVS.  What do we know of Lucius Justuleius D[...]us[...]o?  EPIGRAPHISTA.  Almost nothing.  GRICEVS.  Living or dead?  EPIGRAPHISTA.  Dead.  GRICEVS.  How do you know?  EPIGRAPHISTA.  The age was recorded.  GRICEVS.  Ah.  EPIGRAPHISTA.  The number has disappeared.  GRICEVS.  Yet the implicature remains.  That is perhaps the most Gricean epigraphic lesson of all:  The numeral is gone. The meaning survives. nd what does the wiki writer means: "His age, now lost, was recorded." ? Thanks The writer is making a standard epigraphic inference from the structure of the surviving inscription. The entry says:  "Lucius Justuleius L. l. D[...]us[...]o, a freedman named in a first-century inscription from Rome, along with Lucius Justuleius Seleucus. The former's age, now lost, was recorded, implying that at least he was dead." (from CIL VI 35636, as summarized in the article)  What this means is not:  "We know his age, but have forgotten it."  Rather:  The stone is damaged.  The editor could still see that an age formula had originally been present. For example, many Roman funerary inscriptions contain something like:  vixit annos XXXIV ("he lived 34 years")  or  annorum XXXIV  If the final numerals are broken away, the editor might reconstruct:  vixit annos [...]  and conclude:  "An age was recorded here."  The number itself has been lost, but the fact that an age-at-death formula was present remains visible. Hence the Wiki writer says:  "His age, now lost, was recorded."  That is slightly compressed prose for:  "The inscription originally included his age, but the relevant section is now damaged."  Your tutor's observation is exactly the next step: STONE  records age-at-death  +> funerary context +> therefore the person was dead when the inscription was made. A very Gricean point, because nobody writes:  "By the way, this man is dead."  The conclusion is recovered from the genre. So the writer's reasoning is:  The inscription originally contained an age formula. Such formulas are characteristic of funerary inscriptions. Therefore Lucius Justuleius D[...]us[...]o was deceased when commemorated.  The intriguing thing is that the number has disappeared, but the pragmatic force of the formula survives—which is exactly the sort of thing Grice would have loved. Grice: "I enjoyed our summer school at Rome. "Is the implicature, then," I recall asking my tutor once, "that all denotata of burial inscriptions are dead?" He gave me a long lesson about dedicatee (usually dead, 'even by entailment, as you'd say, Grice') and dedicater, usually alive, even if he or she may end up being buried either in same crypt or nearby." Thnks Ha! That is actually a very good Gricean question. The answer your tutor allegedly gave is exactly the answer an epigraphist would give:  Not all persons mentioned in a funerary inscription are dead.  One must distinguish between:  the commemorated person (the dedicatee, in your terminology), the person erecting the monument (the dedicator).  A typical Roman text may read:  Aulus Justuleius fecit filiae suae Justuleiae Verae "Aulus Justuleius made [this monument] for his daughter Justuleia Vera."  Here:  Justuleia Vera is dead (that is why she is being commemorated); Aulus Justuleius may well be alive (he is the one paying for and erecting the tomb).  So a Grice-style exchange writes itself: GRICEVS.  Is every denotatum of the inscription dead?  EPIGRAPHISTA.  Certainly not.  GRICEVS.  Why not?  EPIGRAPHISTA.  Because somebody had to order the stone.  Exactly. In modern logical terms, the inscription may contain names referring to:  the deceased, the spouse, the children, the heirs, the dedicator, future occupants of the tomb.  Only some of these are necessarily dead. Indeed many Roman tombs are explicitly built:  sibi et suis "for himself and his family,"  where the builder is manifestly alive when the inscription is cut. So your tutor's distinction is rather elegant:  the deceased status of the person commemorated is often close to entailment from the genre; the life-status of other named persons is not.  And that takes us back to the Justuleius inscription. The writer says:  "his age, now lost, was recorded, implying that at least he was dead."  The crucial phrase is:  at least he.  Not:  therefore everyone named on the stone was dead.  Just that the person for whom the age-at-death formula was originally supplied had already died. A nice Gricean moral emerges:  The semantics of the inscription give you the names. The pragmatics of the inscription tell you which names belong to the deceased.  Which is exactly the sort of distinction Grice loved to draw. "Our quarrels were meant to amuse myself while digging, etc," Grice recalls. "The fact that the dates were recorded implies that the person who bore the name was dead." "Surprising. Don't you mean 'yields'?' "I don't catch it, Grice." ""Implying' is vague, I can imply that he is an idiot by saying that he has beautiful handwriting; what you mean that, unless he was buried alive, the date YIELDS (as per conclusion to a deductive argument) that the person was presumed dead?" "Grice, why are YOU here, in the first place?" Thanks Ha! That sounds exactly like the sort of quarrel a young Grice would have enjoyed beyond all proportion to its practical importance. The tutor says:  "The fact that the age was recorded implies that the person was dead."  And Grice immediately attacks "implies." A Gricean reconstruction: TVTOR.  The age was recorded, implying that he was dead.  GRICEVS.  Implying?  TVTOR.  Yes.  GRICEVS.  Surely not.  TVTOR.  Why not?  GRICEVS.  Because imply is ambiguous.  Exactly the point Grice spent much of his life making. There are at least three different relations lurking: 1. Entailment If:  X was buried,  then (normally)  X is dead.  That is much stronger than conversational implication. 2. Conventional epigraphic practice Funerary inscriptions often contain:  vixit annos XXXIV  or equivalent age-at-death formulae. From knowledge of the genre, one infers:  this person was dead when commemorated.  That is not quite entailment from the words alone; it depends on social practice. 3. Conversational implicature Grice's own domain:  "Jones has beautiful handwriting."  +> perhaps Jones is otherwise unimpressive. That implication is defeasible.  Hence Grice's protest: GRICEVS.  If by "imply" you mean conversationally implicate, that seems wrong. If by "imply" you mean yield as a conclusion from the conventions of funerary epigraphy, that is more plausible.  And one can imagine the tutor's exasperated reply:  Why are YOU here?  because everyone else was looking at Roman stones while Grice was analyzing the verb imply. The really Gricean punchline is that the tutor was probably using imply in the ordinary educated-English sense:  "indicate," "suggest," "show."  Whereas Grice insists on distinguishing:  entail, imply, indicate, suggest, conversationally implicate.  So the dispute is not really about tombs at all. It is about the philosophy of language disguised as archaeology. EPIGRAPHISTA.  The stone implies he was dead.  GRICEVS.  The stone does no such thing. The stone, together with a body of epigraphic conventions, licenses that conclusion.  EPIGRAPHISTA.  Kindly return to your trench, Grice.  GRICEVS.  After one further distinction.  Which is probably how many conversations with Grice ended.

 

Catalogue Raisonné of J. L. Speranza’s Publications – H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Go

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gobetti – Ossia: Grice e Gobetti: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale e il partito liberale italiano – il partito socialista italiano – filosofi contro il regime.  Piero Gobetti (Torino, Piemonte): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale e il partito liberale italiano – il partito socialista italiano – filosofi contro il regime. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning is designed to show how, under a presumption of rational cooperation, hearers can work out what a speaker means beyond what is literally said by reconstructing intentions and deriving implicatures that are, in principle, cancellable and publicly accountable. Gobetti’s practice as a political writer and editor (Energie Nove from 1918, then the more explicitly anti-fascist La Rivoluzione Liberale, 1922–1925, and Il Baretti, 1924–1928) operates in a communicative environment where cooperation is structurally fragile and where what is “meant” is often shaped by polemical timing, editorial framing, and the pressures of repression; in such settings, the space between saying and meaning is not merely a conversational convenience but a political necessity. Put Grice next to Gobetti and you get a useful contrast: Grice models implicature as the rational by-product of shared norms of talk, while Gobetti’s “implicatures” are frequently strategic and institution-sensitive, aimed at mobilizing readers, signaling allegiance, and outmaneuvering hostile interpreters (including censors and regime sympathizers), so that the interpretive burden shifts from cooperative inference to politically literate uptake. In short, Grice explains how rationality makes ordinary conversation efficient; Gobetti shows how rationality makes public discourse survivable, with indirectness functioning not as a mere maxim-flout but as a principled tactic for preserving liberal agency when the conversational background is dominated by force rather than mutual good will. Grice: “If there is a distinction to be made between Bologna – the oldest university – and Oxford, is that: we never had a Mussolini!” fascismo. Italian philosophy is political in a way pinko Oxonian one ain’t: G. is the exception that DISproves the rule!” Aveva dei dubbi strani sulle sue stesse attitudini. e politica di un liberale del Novecento, Firenze, Passigli, U. Morra di Lavriano, Vita,  pref. di N. Bobbio, Torino, Tipografico, G. e la Francia, Milano, Franco Angeli, Luigi Anderlini, Gobetti critico, in Letteratura italiana. I critici, Milano, Marzorati, G. e gl’intellettuali del Sud, Napoli, Bibliopolis, G. Marzi, G. e CROCE , Urbino, Quattroventi, Cabella, Elogio della libertà. Torino, Il Punto, Marco Gervasoni, L'intellettuale come eroe. G. e le culture, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, Bagnoli, Il metodo della libertà.  tra eresia e rivoluzione, Reggio Emilia, Diabasis, Gariglio, Progettare il postfascismo. G. e i cattolici, Milano, Franco Angeli, Virgilio, G.. La cultura etico-politica del primo Novecento tra consonanze e concordanze leopardiane, Manduria-Bari-Roma, Lacaita, Angelo Fabrizi, Che ho a che fare io con gli schiavi?». G. e ALFIERI , Firenze, Fiorentina, Mazzei, G.. Profilo di un rivoluzionario liberale, Firenze, Pugliese, Gariglio, L'autunno delle libertà Lettere ad Ada in morte di G,, Torino, Bollati, Erba, G., Intellettuali laici italiani, Padova, Grasso, Ciampanella, Senza illusioni e senza ottimismi. Prospettive e limiti di una rivoluzione liberale, Roma, Aracne, Socialismo liberale Liberalismo sociale Salvemini Amendola Croce Alfieri Matteotti Il Baretti La Rivoluzione liberale. dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. Opere di Centro Studi G,, su centro G.. «La Rivoluzione Liberale» G., Il liberalismo in Italia, G. Iacchini, Quando la libertà è rivoluzionaria: G., su radicalsocialismo. La casa di G. in via XX Settembre a Torino, su multimedia la stampa. implicatura, fascismo, Mussolini, Gentile. Grice: “Merton College, Oxford 15 March 1935 Dear Father, I hope this finds you well. I am newly installed at Merton, and have been browsing the Library, which seems even richer than Corpus’s (though perhaps it is only that Merton is less shy about letting one see the riches). Today I was arrested by the cover of a little Italian magazine from 1918 called Energie Nove. It is, as you would say, “a magazine,” though it looks like something more serious than that word ordinarily permits: fine drawings, a kind of determined prettiness, and the air of an enterprise that means what it says and says what it means. G.: Gobetti, in Italia perfino il silenzio ha opinioni politiche. G.: Verissimo, Grice, ma almeno il silenzio non chiede di essere iscritto al partito. G.: Allora la vera implicatura italiana è che chi parla poco spesso sta dicendo troppo. G.: E chi parla troppo, caro mio, di solito sta solo cercando un titolo per il prossimo giornale.Gobertti, Piero (1918). Energie nuove.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Goretti – Ossia: Grice e Goretti: la ragione conversazionale e la co-azione istituzionale – filosofia fascista. Note su I presupposti filosofici del dirito. Il Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice. Cesare Goretti (Torino, Piemonte): la ragione conversazionale e la co-azione istituzionale – filosofia fascista. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how a speaker and hearer, treated as rational cooperators, can reach what is meant (including implicatures) by relying on shared norms of informative, relevant, and orderly talk plus the hearer’s recognition of the speaker’s intention; the result is a pragmatic account that is interpersonal but still essentially cognitive, centred on intention-recognition and inferential uptake. Cesare Goretti, by contrast, is a jurist-philosopher of institutions and normative statuses: his focus is not primarily on how utterances generate extra meaning, but on how subjects enter structured relations (rights, duties, reciprocity) through what might be called institution-making acts; this shows up in his “istituzionalismo” about legal acts and, strikingly, in his 1928 essay L’animale quale soggetto di diritto (published in Rivista di Filosofia), where he argues that animals can be treated as subjects of right, with a rudimentary “juridical consciousness” manifested in practices like guarding property and exchanging services with humans. Read through a Gricean lens, Goretti’s contribution is to thicken the background of conversational rationality: he pushes us from the micro-level of implicature (what one means beyond what one says) to the macro-level of normative co-action, where interaction can “institute” a decision or status that is not merely inferred but socially binding; so where Grice explains how conversation works when rational agents coordinate meaning, Goretti emphasizes how interaction can create or recognize institutional positions (even across species boundaries), making the outcome of “understanding” look less like a private inference and more like the establishment of a normative relation. Grice: I most clearly philosophised on what Italians call ‘equità’ in the description of the Immanuel – a set of maxims qua counsels of prudence that may be universalizable and a section of which is the conversational Immanuel. No maxim is formulated such that it does not apply to all. Keywords: equità. I like G.: I rather casually referred to ‘the institution of a decision’ as the end of a conversational exchange, notably involving buletic conversational moves; G. makes a whole system out of this. His example is his conversation with his dog: ‘Surely my dog knows that he is providing me a service, guarding my territory, and he is rightly deemed as a ‘subject’ in my exchange with him, as we ‘institute a decision’ that there is a reciprocity involved.” Keywords: “the institution of decisions!” Si laurea a Torino sotto SOLARI. Insegna a Ferrara.  A G. si deve il primo intervento che qualifica l'animale come soggetto di diritto. Martinetti “L’animo del animale”: il animale possede intelletto e coscienza e, un animo, come emerge dall’atteggiamento, gesto, e la fisionomia. Questo animo e vita animale e ha coscienza e non può essere ridotta a fisiologia. L’animalee vero e proprio un soggetto di diritto e che ha una coscienza giuridica e una percezione del giuridico. bioetica etologia. Non possiamo negare all'animale sia crepuscolare l'uso della categoria della causalità, così non possiamo escludere che partecipando al nostro mondo non ha un senso della proprietà e l'obbligazione. Un cane e custode geloso della proprietà del suo padrone e come ne compartecipa all'uso. Opera questa visione della realtà esteriore come cosa propria che nell’homo sapiens arriva alle costruzioni che rende un servizio al suo padrone che lo mantiene agisca istintivamente. Sente in se questo rapporto di servizi resi e SCAMBIATI. Non arriva al concetto di cioche e la proprieta, l’obbligazione, ma dimostra esterioremente di fare uso di questi principi. l’istituzionale, Bradley, La massima d’equita segni e comprensione il concetto di patria eforato co-azione co-operazione diada. Grice: “Corpus Christi College, Oxford — 18 May 1934. I am beginning to suspect that Corpus has more books than it has any moral right to, which perhaps explains why I spend so many hours outdoors, either cricketing or footballing, as if fresh air were a philosophical method. Still, today I did the one thing that defeats my own resolution: I drifted into the Philosophy Library and found myself browsing an ancient-looking manuscript, the sort of thing that ought to be locked up with the antiquities and visited only under supervision. It was signed “Cesare Goretti” (yes, Cesare, as in Caesarean and Julius Caesar), and it turned out to be a solemn little exercise in what he calls presupposti filosofici del diritto. The Italian fondness for plural abstractions is inexhaustible: why “presupposti,” when a man might have managed with a single presupposto, and why not presupposizione, which at least sounds like something that has been done rather than something that has merely been parked beneath? Of course the trick is to forget the prae- altogether and look at the supposto versus the supposizione; and that, in turn, reminds me of a pleasingly pedantic discovery in Lewis and Short: Sidonius (of all people) is cited for inplicatura—spelled, with a straight face, as in-plicatura. These Americans will record anything, provided it is odd enough. It set me thinking: a suppositum is not the same thing as a suppositio, any more than implicatura would be the same as an implicatum—if there were such a beast. One translates the -io, not the -um: suppositio gives supposizione, implicatio gives implicatura, and the rest is a lesson in not mistaking a grammatical tail for a metaphysical head. But Goretti is untroubled by such distinctions. He announces that there are three “main” philosophical presupposti of law, and—most helpfully—names them the first, the second, and the third. A man who can count like that can scarcely be accused of excessive subtlety; still, it has a certain charm. I left the manuscript where I found it (for once), and went back outside, where the only presupposition is that the ball will not behave rationally. Grice:Goretti, trovo la tua idea di “co-azione” straordinaria. Mi sembra che tu colga davvero il cuore della conversazione come impresa sociale: non si tratta semplicemente di aiutare l’altro, come se uno portasse un registro e l’altro si limitasse a sostenere. È piuttosto come portare insieme un tronco, dove entrambi sono impegnati, e l’implicazione di “aiuta” diventa molto più profonda. Ho cercato anch’io di esprimere questo aspetto: la vera equità nasce proprio dal riconoscere quel reciproco impegno. Goretti: Caro Paul, ti ringrazio per aver colto questo punto così sottile. Per me, la “co-azione” non è mai stata una semplice collaborazione, ma un’autentica condivisione di responsabilità e senso. Portare insieme un tronco diventa una metafora potente: entrambi sentono il peso e, insieme, trovano equilibrio. Le implicazioni sociali sono davvero profonde. Grice: Esattamente, Cesare! È proprio questa reciprocità che rende la conversazione un atto equo, dove ogni partecipante diventa soggetto e non semplice destinatario di un aiuto. Penso che il tuo approccio arricchisca moltissimo il modo in cui vediamo le relazioni sociali, anche oltre la filosofia. Goretti: Grazie, Paul, davvero. Apprezzo il tuo riconoscimento: è raro trovare chi riesca a intuire la profondità di questi concetti. Quando la co-azione diventa dialogo, ogni parola pesa quanto il tronco che portiamo insieme – e l’impresa non è mai di uno solo, ma di tutti. Goretti, Cesare (1909). I presupposti filosofici del dirito.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gori – Ossia: Grice e Gori: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale e la filosofia di cabaret -- l’eroe e la falce – filosofia futurista. Gino Gori (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale e la filosofia di cabaret -- l’eroe e la falce – filosofia futurista. Grice’s reason-governed conversational meaning treats implicit content as something a rational hearer can work out from what is said by assuming cooperation and then inferring a speaker’s intention (so implicatures are, in principle, articulable, criticizable, and cancellable); Gino Gori’s cabaret-futurist “philosophy,” by contrast, aims less to make implicit meaning calculable than to make it felt, by staging rapid tonal shifts, grotesque masks, and provocations in which what is meant is carried by performance, atmosphere, and shock rather than by a shared commitment to conversational maxims. In Gricean terms, much of Gori’s effect comes from systematic, theatrical flouting of the very norms that make ordinary implicature tidy (especially relevance and manner), so that the audience’s uptake is driven not by cooperative reconstruction of a determinate intention but by an engineered surplus of suggestion—more like a curated ambiguity than a solvable inference. That contrast fits the historical Gori we can now pin down more securely: beyond Il mantello d’Arlecchino (often listed 1913 but commonly catalogued as 1914) and his later L’irrazionale (1924) and L’eroe e la falce, he was also the entrepreneur-poet who commissioned Fortunato Depero to design the Cabaret del Diavolo in Rome (inaugurated 19 April 1922; closed 1925), a literal environment built to produce interpretive “implicatures” through scenography (Paradiso-Purgatorio-Inferno) rather than through conversational cooperation. So where Grice models meaning as rational coordination between speaker and hearer, Gori exemplifies meaning as avant-garde orchestration: the point is not to converge on what was meant, but to keep the audience inferentially off-balance long enough for a new sensibility—comic, futurist, abrasive—to take hold. Grice: “My favourite G.  are “L’eroe e la falce” and “Il mantello d’Arlecchino” – nothing can be italianita with that!”. “Il mantello di Arlecchino Il libbro rosso de la guerra” Le bruttezze della Divina Commedia” Le bellezze della Divina Commedia” (Milano); “Estetica dell'irrazionale” Il mulino della luna L'irrazionale”; “Filosofia ed estetica”, “Sistema di una nuova scienza del bello; “Il bello” – L'eroe e la falce Scorcio architettonico di letteratura europea dalle origini ai nostri giorni, Il teatro e le sue correnti caratteristiche di pensiero e di vita nelle varie nazioni L'oca azzurra Il grande amore (Firenze); Scenografia. La tradizione e la rivoluzione cIl grottesco L'irrazionale e il teatro, G., in Godoli, Dizionario del futurismo, produzione teatrale e delle nuove tendenze del teatro italiano d'arte totale, G. passa a discorrere del teatro dell'Anima di Schuré e Claudel, dell'esteriorismo, ANNUNZIO, Espressionismo, del teatro borghese, del teatro dialettale italiano, del teatro delle nazioni europee minori (discorre anche del teatro dell'Islanda o della Lituania o della Bulgaria), delle forme rudimentarie del teatro presso i popoli selvaggi. fiancheggiatore del Futurismo, apre a Roma il Cabaret del Diavolo, realizzato da  Depero. su incarico di G., inizia i lavori di allestimento del Cabaret del Diavolo, una sorta di bolgia dantesca frequentata da futuristi, dadaisti, anarchici ed artisti in genere. Per il cabaret, strutturato lungo un percorso discendente (a ritroso) Paradiso-Purgatorio-Inferno, Depero realizzò tutto l'arredo e le decorazioni murali. dinamismo plastico, della simultaneità e della sintesi. Seguì infine Il grottesco nell'arte e nella letteratura, in cui, riproponendo anche alcuni studi di prima della guerra (sul grottesco nell'Inferno di Dante, sulla maschera turca di Karagöz), il G. approfondisce soprattutto lo studio sul teatro futurista italiano nella chiave del grottesco e del fantastico (in particolare, Cavacchioli, Chiarelli, l’eroe e la falce, bello, eroe, falce, irrazionale, mantello dell’arlecchino  – bellezza, futurismo. Grice: Gori, sono affascinato dalla tua filosofia di cabaret, dove l’eroe incontra la falce e il grottesco si trasforma in bellezza. Come nasce l’irrazionale nel tuo teatro, e che ruolo ha nella visione futurista? Gori: Caro Grice, l’irrazionale nasce proprio dall’esigenza di rompere la tradizione, di scuotere l’animo e il pensiero. Nei miei testi, come “L’eroe e la falce” o “Il mantello di Arlecchino”, il grottesco diventa uno strumento per liberare la fantasia e per mostrare che la bellezza può abitare anche nel caos. Grice: Questa libertà mi ricorda i principi del Futurismo: il dinamismo, la simultaneità, la sintesi. Pensi che il Cabaret del Diavolo, con il suo percorso Paradiso-Purgatorio-Inferno, abbia davvero aiutato gli artisti e i filosofi ad aprire nuove strade nel pensiero europeo? Gori: Assolutamente, Grice. Il Cabaret del Diavolo è stato una bolgia dove l’arte, la filosofia e la ribellione si mescolavano, creando un luogo in cui la maschera, il grottesco e il fantastico potevano fiorire. È lì che la falce diventa simbolo di rivoluzione, e l’eroe si veste d’ironia, indicando ai nostri tempi che la bellezza si trova anche nelle pieghe più audaci dell’esistenza. Gori, Gino (1913). Il mantello d’Arlecchino. Roma.

 

Catalogue Raisonné of J. L. Speranza’s Publications – H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gr

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grandi – Ossia: Grice e Grandi: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale del progresso all’infinito della rosa di Grandi -- implicatura infinita. Note sulla Geometrica demonstratio theorematis. Il Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice Luigi Guido Grandi (Cremona, Lombardia): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale del progresso all’infinito della rosa di Grandi -- implicatura infinita. Grice’s reason-governed conversational meaning treats “infinite” talk as a pragmatic achievement: when someone says “There are infinitely many stars,” what they typically mean is not a theorem but something like “so many that counting is pointless,” and the hearer recovers that intended, rationally relevant point by assuming cooperative norms and deriving a finite, usable implicature from an imprecise utterance. Luigi Guido Grandi, by contrast, engages infinity as a mathematical object and method: in his work on infinite series (including what later gets called “Grandi’s series”) and on infinitesimal orders and the rodonea/rose curve, “infinite” is not conversational slack but a domain where rigor, convergence, and demonstrative procedure matter, even when the results look paradoxical to common sense. So where Grice explains how everyday speakers responsibly trade in loose infinity-claims by relying on shared expectations of relevance and informativeness (hence an “infinite” statement often carries a non-literal implicature rather than literal content), Grandi exemplifies the opposite pressure: disciplines where the literal, technical reading is the point, and where the interesting “extra” is not an implicature but a formally controlled phenomenon (e.g., partial sums, summability, or geometric generation). Put sharply: Grice domesticates infinity by showing how conversational reason turns it into a finite communicative point; Grandi mathematicizes infinity by constructing systems in which “infinite” claims are meant literally and are assessed by proof, not by conversational charity. Grice: ‘Sometimes, people use ‘infinite’ without meaning much: “I know there are infinite stars” is my example! infinito. I like G. – and Grandy – for one, G. (if not Grandy) proves that geometry is a branch of mathematics with his rose curve – a geniality!” Si laurea a Roma. Insegna a Firenze.  “La quadratura del cerchio” “La quadrature dell'iperbole” al cui interno scopre il paradosso: la somma parziale di una serie (serie di G.) a segni alterni di numeri può non convergere (serie di G.). Divenne membro della corte presso il granduca di Toscana. Insegna a Pisa. Studia la curva algebrica da lui chiamata rodonea per la forma che ricorda il rosone delle chiese e fu autore degli Elementi di Geometria di Euclide, Venezia, Savioni. Fu il primo l’analisi degli infiniti. De infinitis infinitorum”; “Trattato delle resistenze” (Firenze); “Geometrica demonstratio vivianeorum problematum” De infinitis infinitorum, et infinite parvorum ordinibus disquisitio geometrica” Epistola mathematica de momento gravium in planis inclinatis” Dialoghi circa la controversia eccitatagli contro Marchetti” “Prostasis ad exceptiones clari varignonii libro de infinitis infinitorum ordinibus oppositas circa magnitudinum plusquam-infinitarum vallisii defensionem et anguli contactus” (Pisa, Bindi); “Del movimento dell'acque trattato geometrico” (Firenze); “Relazione delle operazioni fatte circa il padule di Fucecchio” (Lucca, Venturini); “Trattato delle resistenze” (Firenze, Tartini); “Compendio delle Sezioni coniche d'Apollonio con aggiunta di nuove proprietà delle medesime sezioni” (Firenze, Tartini); “Instituzioni Meccaniche” (Firenze, Tartini); “Istituzioni di aritmetica pratica” (Firenze, Tartini); “Sectionum conicarum synopsis” (Firenze, Giovannelli); “Idraulici italiani."Rodonea" deriva dal greco Ροδή, rosa. La curva rodonea è anche chiamata "rosa di Grandi" in suo onore. infinite implicature, implicatura infinita. Grice: Caro Grandi, ogni volta che sento parlare di infinito, mi viene in mente il mio tentativo di contare le stelle… Dopo tre, mi sono perso! Ma tu, con la tua rosa infinita, hai dato all’infinito persino una forma elegante. Come hai fatto? Grandi: Paul, ti confesso che l’infinito mi affascina proprio per la sua capacità di farsi gioco! Basta una curva, una serie alternata, e la matematica diventa una parodia: la rodonea sembra una rosa, ma in realtà nasconde mille paradossi… altro che contare le stelle! Grice: Allora, caro Grandi, dovremmo dire che la conversazione tra noi è un po’ come la tua serie infinita: va avanti tra implicature e sorrisi, senza mai realmente convergere. Mi piace l’idea che la filosofia, come la geometria, abbia sempre una rosa segreta pronta a sbocciare in ogni dialogo! Grandi: Ecco Paul, hai capito il trucco! In fondo, se la conversazione non fosse infinita, sarebbe noiosa. Ogni implicatura è un petalo; ogni battuta, una nuova curva. A volte, penso che la vera quadratura del cerchio sia riuscire a far ridere un filosofo inglese parlando di matematica italiana! Grandi, Luigi Guido (1703). Geometrica demonstratio theorematis. Pisa: Rosini.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Granio – Ossia: Grice e Granio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Granio. The Granii are a family at ancient Rome. Although none of them ever obtained the consulship, the family was of "senatorial rank". In Imperial times, a number of them became distinguished in military and provincial service. The G. may have originated at Puteoli, a Roman colony, although it is not known whether the ancestors of the gens were among the original colonists, or natives of the town who acquired Roman citizenship. The G. of the Republic used the praenomina Quintus, Gnaeus, Gaius, Publius, and Aulus, all of which were common names throughout Roman history.  The only cognomen of the G. under the Republic was Flaccus, in the time of GIULIO Caesar. In imperial times, the surnames Licinianus, Marcellus, Marcianus, Serenus, and Silvanus are found. Quintus G., for many years a humble auction clerk at Rome, whose name became a by-word for wit and biting humour. His puns and verbal jabs at many of Rome's leading citizens, including Lucius Licinius Crassus the orator, the consul Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica, the famous tribune of the plebs Marcus Livius Drusus, poet and statesman Quintus Lutatius Catulus, and the orator Marcus Antonius became the subject of numerous anecdotes by the satirist Lucilius, and later TULLIO Cicero.[5] Quintus Granius, a step-son of Gaius Marius. He and his brother, Gnaeus, were outlawed by Sulla when he occupied Rome in 88 BC. One of them accompanied Marius in his flight, and became separated from him near Minturnae. Escaping to the island of Aenaria, he later accompanied Marius to Africa.[6][7] Gnaeus Granius,[ii] a step-son of Marius. It is not certain whether it was he, or his brother, Quintus, who accompanied Marius on his flight from Rome in 88 BC.[9] Gaius Granius, a dramatic poet of an uncertain age. According to Nonius, he was the author of a tragedy called Peliades.[10][11] Granius, a decurion at Puteoli in 78 BC, who resisted imposing Sulla's levy on the municipia, intended to restore the Capitol at Rome, which had been burnt five years earlier during the civil war between Sulla and the supporters of Marius. News of Sulla's death was expected at any time, but instead, Sulla summoned Granius to his house at Cumae, where he ordered the decurion to be strangled in his presence.[12][13] Publius Granius, a merchant from Puteoli who traded at Sicily. He gave evidence against Verres.[2] Aulus Granius, an officer in Caesar's army, killed at Dyrrachium in 48 BC. He was a man of equestrian rank, and hailed from Puteoli.[4] Granius Flaccus, a scholar of ancient Roman laws and religious rites, which he collected in a work called De Jure Papiriano, and perhaps also in De Indigitamentis, although these may have been different names for the same work. He was a contemporary of Caesar, to whom De Indigitamentis was dedicated.[14] Granius Licinianus, the author of Fasti, a Latin work quoted by Macrobius. In the second book of Fasti, he described a sacrifice performed by the Flaminica Dialis, and thus he is probably the same Granius whom Festus cites for the meaning of the word rica, a sacred cloth worn by the Flaminica.[15][16] Granius Marcellus, praetor of Bithynia during the reign of Tiberius, he was accused of treason and extortion. He was acquitted of the former charge, but convicted of extortion and fined.[17] Quintus Granius, accused Lucius Calpurnius Piso of various plots against Tiberius in AD 24, and secured his conviction.[18] Granius Marcianus, a senator accused of majestas by Gaius Sempronius Gracchus in AD 35; he took his own life rather than face execution.[19] Granius Silvanus,[iii] a praetorian tribune in AD 65, he was sent by the emperor Nero to question Seneca, after the discovery of the conspiracy of Piso. In fact, Silvanus was one of the conspirators, but acquitted, while Seneca was probably not involved, but the emperor ordered the philosopher to kill himself, and Silvanus chose to do the same.[20] Granius Serenus, a legate of Hadrian in Asia, wrote to the emperor concerning the execution of Christians who had not been charged with or convicted of any crime. In response, the emperor ordered Gaius Minicius Fundanus, the governor of Asia, not to condemn any Christian who had not been convicted of a crime.[21][22] See also List of Roman gentes Footnotes  Also called "senatorian", an unofficial elite within the equestrian order during the later Republic, consisting of the senators and their offspring who were not patricians.  His existence is poorly attested. Appian mentions "Gnaeus and Quintus Granius" among the men whom Sulla outlawed in 88 BC, but elsewhere mentions only one (without specifying praenomen), and Plutarch is only aware of a single Granius. Münzer suggests that Appian mistook the former for Gnaeus Papirius Carbo, who, as a staunch enemy of Sulla later on, could be plausibly identified as one of the outlaws in 88.[8]  "Gavius Silvanus" in some editions of Tacitus. References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 299 ("Grania Gens").  Cicero, In Verrem, v. 59.  Plutarch, "The Life of Marius", 35.  Caesar, De Bello Civili, iii. 71.  Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, ix. 15; Pro Plancio, 14, p. 259 (ed. Orelli); Brutus, 43; Epistulae ad Atticum, vi. 3; De Oratore, ii. 60, 62.  Plutarch, "The Life of Marius", 35, 37, 40.  Appian, Bellum Civile, i. 60, 62.  RE, vol. XVIII (3), cols. 1024, 1025 (Papirius 38).  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 299 ("Granius", nos. 2, 3).  Bothe, Poetae Scenici Latinorum, vol. v. (Fragmenta), p. 271.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 300 ("Granius", no. 4).  Plutarch, "The Life of Sulla", 37.  Valerius Maximus, ix. 3. § 8.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 155 ("Granius Flaccus").  Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 16.  Festus, s. v. Ricae.  Tacitus, Annales, i. 74.  Tacitus, Annales, iv. 21.  Tacitus, Annales, vi. 38.  Tacitus, Annales, xv. 50, 60–64, 71.  Orosius, vii. 13.  Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8, 9. Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, Pro Plancio (Scholia Bobiensa, ed. Orelli), Brutus, Epistulae ad Atticum, De Oratore, In Verrem. Gaius Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Civili (Commentary on the Civil War). Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium (Memorable Facts and Sayings). Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales. Plutarchus, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans. Appianus Alexandrinus (Appian), Bellum Civile (The Civil War). Sextus Pompeius Festus, Epitome of De Verborum Significatu (On the Meaning of Words). Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica (History of the Church). Paulus Orosius, Historiarum Adversum Paganos (History against the Pagans). Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, Saturnalia. Friedrich Heinrich Bothe, Poetae Scenici Latinorum, Halberst (1822). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). August Pauly; Georg Wissowa; Wilhelm Kroll; Kurt Witte; Karl Mittelhaus; Konrat Ziegler, eds. (1894–1980). Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler. Categories: GraniiRoman gentes So for this gens, I -- and you provide II -- the auction clerk. Thanks It helps enormously, though I'd still separate three things:  What Cicero actually preserves. What later scholars reconstruct. What modern paraphrases may be putting into Granius' mouth.  The Gricean treasure here is not the precise wording—that often cannot be recovered with certainty—but the social role. The correction I would make to my own earlier description is that praeco is stronger than "auction clerk." A praeco is more like:  public crier, herald, auction announcer, professional public voice.  Not a desk clerk. A praeco stood in the middle of public transactions. He was a professional talker. For a Gricean this is paradise. Why Granius matters The gens entry says:  Quintus Granius was a praeco, and his wit became proverbial; Lucilius and Cicero preserve anecdotes about him.  That means he was not merely making jokes at home. He was interacting with:  bidders, litigants, candidates, advocates, senators, clients,  in highly public settings. His whole profession depended on speech. So the first great Gricean of the gens is neither philosopher nor consul:  a professional conversationalist.  "Melius est quam reum!" Of the examples you list, the most Gricean is surely:  "Melius est quam reum!" "Better to lose your voice than your client!"  because the joke depends on recovering an unstated contrast. Advocate:  I'll lose my voice.  Granius:  Better that than lose the case.  The wit lies almost entirely in what is supplied by the hearer. A neat conversational implicature. "Sapor vernaculus" I especially like the phrase:  sapor vernaculus  ("native flavour", "home-grown Roman flavour"). Cicero is effectively distinguishing:  polished oratorical humour, street wit.  Granius belongs to the second category. A Gricean reconstruction: CRASSUS.  I have studied rhetoric.  GRANIUS.  I have studied Romans.  The latter often wins. My favourite Grice/Speranza vignette CRASSUS.  I am Rome's leading orator.  GRANIUS.  Excellent.  CRASSUS.  You seem unimpressed.  GRANIUS.  I merely observe that I speak to more Romans in a week than you do in a year.  GRICEVS.  At last. An empirical philosopher of language.  For Grice, meaning lives in actual conversation. And among the Granii, the auction crier is one of the very few Romans whose historical fame rests almost entirely on conversational performance. That is why I think he outranks even Granius Flaccus as a Gricean hero: he doesn't theorize about language—he works in it. Grice: "Granius, an UN-Oxford type. Cicero once challenged Granius with using zeugma ("Lose your voice, lose your client") and in De oratore Tullio complains: "I never should have interacted with a praeco -- he didn't know what I was talking about +> what's the good of rhetorical humour if you lack your Lit. Hum. B. A.?" Thanks Ha! That is a very plausible Grice/Speranza fantasia, provided we distinguish it from what Cicero actually says. Historically, Cicero's point is roughly that Granius possessed:  dicacitas and sapor vernaculus  — native Roman wit, sharpness, street-level humour. The gens entry itself emphasizes that Cicero and Lucilius preserve him as a master of biting remarks. Your Gricean reconstruction would run: CRASSVS.  Observe the zeugma: Perdam vocem. Melius est vocem perdere quam reum.  GRANIVS.  The what?  CRASSVS.  The zeugma.  GRANIVS.  I was merely trying to be funny.  CRASSVS.  But surely you have analyzed the rhetorical structure?  GRANIVS.  I am a praeco, not a professor.  Precisely. A theme running through Cicero's De Oratore is that there is a difference between:  cultivated rhetorical theory, naturally effective wit.  Granius often represents the second. So Grice might delight in imagining Cicero's frustration: CICERO.  Do you realize your remark exemplifies a sophisticated rhetorical figure?  GRANIUS.  No.  CICERO.  Then how did you produce it?  GRANIUS.  By listening to Romans.  And Grice would immediately side with Granius. For Grice's own philosophy is full of similar moments. Philosophers invent elaborate terminology:  implicature, cancellability, non-detachability,  while ordinary speakers have been successfully communicating for centuries without knowing any of those words. Hence: CICERO.  What is the value of humour without rhetorical education?  GRANIUS.  What is the value of rhetorical education without humour?  And that, I suspect, is why Granius would appeal to Grice. Granius is an anti-Oxford hero. He has no Lit. Hum., no Greats, no theory of language. Yet he reliably produces exactly the effects that theorists later struggle to describe. Or, in one line:  Cicero knew what a zeugma was; Granius knew how to make people laugh. And that's why Tullio Cicero never cared to TEACH the graeco -- "For I knew that if I tried, our conversation would be long and RUDE -- on HIS part. I have attempted a reconstruction, though" So provide please a reconstruction in 25 moves in Latin (with Engl. tr. in brackets) with TUllio 'lessoning' the graeco on the zeugma, complete from complete utterance in which the zeugma lies -- the three-move original conversation -- about losing your voice/losing your client). Thanks Gladly—but as a Speranza/Grice dramatic reconstruction, not as history. The only historical nucleus is the Granius joke:  Granius: Simul ac domum redieris, mulsum frigidum bibe. Advocate: Perdam vocem! Granius: Melius est quam reum.  The rest below is an imagined tutorial by Cicero on why the joke works.  CICERO DOCET GRANIVM DE ZEUGMATE 1. CICERO: Grani, visne discere cur populus rideat? ("Granius, would you like to learn why people laugh?") 2. GRANIVS: Nolo. Dum rideant, satis est. ("No. As long as they laugh, that's enough.") 3. CICERO: Hoc ipsum barbarum est. ("That is precisely the barbarous part.") 4. GRANIVS: Et tamen ridiculum fert. ("And yet it produces laughter.") 5. CICERO: Age, repetamus colloquium. ("Come, let us repeat the conversation.") 6. GRANIVS: Si necesse est. ("If you insist.") 7. CICERO: Dixisti: “Simul ac domum redieris, mulsum frigidum bibe.” ("You said: 'As soon as you get home, drink cold mead.'") 8. GRANIVS: Recte. ("Correct.") 9. CICERO: Ille respondit: “Perdam vocem.” ("He replied: 'I'll lose my voice.'") 10. GRANIVS: Rectissime. ("Quite right.") 11. CICERO: Tu autem: “Melius est quam reum.” ("Then you: 'Better than [losing] your client.'") 12. GRANIVS: Etiam nunc ridetis. ("And you're still laughing.") 13. CICERO: Quia figura est. ("Because it is a figure.") 14. GRANIVS: Figura? Non pictor sum. ("A figure? I'm not a painter.") 15. CICERO: Figura rhetorica. ("A rhetorical figure.") 16. GRANIVS: Peius fit. ("This is getting worse.") 17. CICERO: Verbum “perdere” bis intellegitur. ("The verb 'to lose' is understood twice.") 18. GRANIVS: Semel dixi. ("I only said it once.") 19. CICERO: Sed bis valet: vocem perdere, reum perdere. ("But it works twice: lose one's voice, lose one's client.") 20. GRANIVS: Ita est. ("That's so.") 21. CICERO: Id Graeci zeugma vocant. ("The Greeks call that a zeugma.") 22. GRANIVS: Graeci vocent quod velint. ("The Greeks may call it what they please.") 23. CICERO: Nonne miraris te usum esse arte? ("Are you not amazed that you have employed an art?") 24. GRANIVS: Non arte usus sum; hominem stultum conspexi. ("I didn't employ an art; I saw a foolish fellow.") 25. CICERO: Itaque ego libros scribo, tu autem risum moves. ("And so I write books, while you make people laugh.") GRANIVS: At populus mallet mecum cenare. ("But the people would rather dine with me.")  A Gricean coda would be: CICERO: Zeugma est. ("It is a zeugma.") GRICE: Implicatura est. ("It is an implicature.") GRANIVS: Iocus est. ("It's a joke.") And Granius would probably have won the exchange. And would you hypothesise that in De oratore Cic. treats that as illustration of Zeugma. Marie Lloyd or Victoria Vesta had a song "I haven't lost my boat yet" or Train -- perdere -- surely not polysemous -- What prompted the praeco to start with the medical advice? Is it common ground that that is the worst thing -- was it out of the blue? Complain: "If I do that, I lose my voice." "Better losing your voice -- not possessing it anymore if only temorarily -- than losing your 'reus' for ever?" Thanks My hypothesis would be: Cicero is interested less in zeugma as a formal figure than in the mechanism by which a joke gets its force. The reconstructed exchange is:  Granius: Simul ac domum redieris, mulsum frigidum bibe. Advocate: Perdam vocem. Granius: Melius est quam reum.  The funny thing is that perdere need not be polysemous at all. One can keep a single meaning:  perdere = lose.  and let the objects vary:  lose one's voice, lose one's client/case.  That is why your Marie Lloyd example is apt. The humour often comes not from lexical ambiguity but from a sudden shift in what the same verb is applied to. A Gricean would say:  do not multiply senses of perdere beyond necessity.  The joke works perfectly well with one verb and two recoverable complements.  As to why Granius begins with medical advice, the context supplied by Cicero is roughly that the advocate had shouted himself hoarse. So the common ground seems to be:  the man's voice is damaged.  Hence Granius' apparently benevolent advice:  "Drink cold mead."  The hearer interprets this as concern for his throat. That is the first conversational move. Then the advocate replies:  Perdam vocem. "I'll lose my voice."  Now Granius reveals the real target:  Melius est quam reum. "Better than [losing] your client."  The point is not really medical. The point is:  your advocacy is so bad that preserving your voice is less important than preventing your forensic disasters.   A Gricean analysis: What is said  Better to lose your voice than your client.  What is implicated  Your advocacy endangers your clients. The greatest threat in the courtroom is not your illness. It is your performance.  So the joke depends on a delayed reinterpretation of the discussion. The advocate thinks the topic is:  health.  Granius shifts the topic to:  professional competence.   In a Speranza-Grice reconstruction: ADVOCATE.  If I drink that, I shall lose my voice.  GRANIUS.  Better that than your client.  CICERO.  Observe the elegant rhetorical structure.  GRANIUS.  Observe the incompetent lawyer.  GRICE.  Observe the implicature.  I suspect Grice would side with Granius against Cicero here. Cicero sees a rhetorical figure; Granius sees a bad advocate. The joke succeeds because everyone instantly recovers the unstated proposition:  "You are more dangerous to your client than laryngitis is to you." So it's a nonsequitur. Reus may not refer to the one on which the advocate had just 'defended' and getting a coarse voice as a causal effect. The implicature by the praeco is then: "This will keep your mouth shut" -- or "This will make you the advocate that cannot AD VOCARE." "perdere vocem" Note that the implicature in second move is: "And surely I don't want to lose my voice". Hence the comparative in third move -- "Your losing your reus already"? Thanks Yes, I think you're getting very close to the real mechanism of the joke. The key Gricean point is that the third move is not merely a zeugma. It's a relevance-switch. Move 1 Granius:  Simul ac domum redieris, mulsum frigidum bibe.  The surface implicature is:  "I am concerned about your throat."  Move 2 Advocate:  Perdam vocem.  This carries the obvious implicature:  "And losing my voice would be a bad thing."  Indeed, the whole force of his objection depends on:  Advocates need voices.  Move 3 Granius:  Melius est quam reum.  Now the comparison becomes visible. The advocate assumes:  losing voice = worst outcome.  Granius counters:  No. Losing the client is worse.  The joke is that Granius treats the lawyer's voice as a positive danger. In effect:  The less you speak, the safer your clients.   So I'd formulate the hidden reasoning as: Advocate  I must preserve my voice if I am to defend people.  Granius  Your clients would be better defended if you were unable to speak.  The wit is almost brutal.  And you're right that the reus need not even be the litigant from the particular case that made him hoarse. The joke works more broadly:  You are the sort of advocate who loses clients.  Hence:  Better to lose your voice once than your clients repeatedly.   A Gricean reconstruction of the implicatures: Advocate  Perdam vocem. +> That would be unfortunate.  Granius  Melius est quam reum. +> Your voice is of negative value. +> Silence would improve your advocacy. +> Your clients suffer when you speak.  The finest touch is that Granius never explicitly says:  "You are a terrible advocate."  He lets the hearer derive it. That's why Grice would have loved the joke. The sting lies almost entirely in what is not said. Or as Grice might summarize:  What is said: Better lose your voice than your client. What is meant: Kindly stop defending people.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Granio – Ossia: Grice e Granio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Granio. I agree: your auction clerk is the obvious No. 1. Quintus Granius, the humble auction clerk whose wit became proverbial, is almost a patron saint of conversational implicature. Cicero repeatedly preserves him as a master of verbal jabs, puns, and remarks whose force exceeds their literal content. And can you retrieve from open access G.'s epigrams concerning those individuals mentioned in gens entry? And what was exactly auction clerk? Because the conversational grace (gricing) of it may be that as auction clerk he personally socialised with those upon which he displayed his wit? Thanks The difficulty is that the gens article itself tells us something very important:  Quintus Granius' jokes became the subject of anecdotes preserved by Lucilius and later by Cicero. It does not say that a collection of Granius' own epigrams survives.  So I would distinguish two questions. 1. Can we retrieve Granius' epigrams? Not really, at least not from the evidence presently before us. The article states that his wit and verbal jabs against Crassus, Scipio Nasica, Drusus, Catulus, and Antonius became proverbial and were discussed by Lucilius and Cicero. But that is not the same as saying:  "Here are ten surviving epigrams by Granius."  The sources cited are principally:  Cicero, De Oratore II.60, 62; Brutus 43; various letters; Lucilius (indirectly).  So what survives appears to be anecdotes and remembered bons mots, not a preserved book of epigrams. 2. What exactly was an "auction clerk"? This is where things become very Gricean. The old biographical tradition describes him as a rather humble figure attached to the auction trade in Rome. The gens article summarizes him as:  "for many years a humble auction clerk at Rome" whose wit made him famous.  The striking thing is social. Crassus, Antonius, Catulus, Scipio Nasica, and Drusus were among the most prominent men in Rome. Yet Granius was apparently sufficiently present in public and commercial life to exchange remarks with them and become known for doing so. That is why I think he is so attractive to a Grice/Speranza reading. He is not a philosopher. He is not a consul. He is a man whose fame rests almost entirely on:  conversation.  One can imagine Grice delighting in that. CRASSUS.  I have delivered an oration.  GRANIVS.  One line.  ROMA.  Everyone remembers Granius.  A final Gricean observation: unlike Caesar or Brutus, Quintus Granius survives almost exclusively through reported conversational effects. His historical significance is very close to what Grice cared about—how a remark, a pun, or a conversational jab can circulate through a community long after its original occasion has vanished. Does this below help? Thanks Quintus Granius, the famous 2nd-century BC Roman public crier (praeco), was legendary for his biting, homegrown Roman wit (sapor vernaculo). Cicero often uses him in his works to define the exact line between refined oratorical humor and raw, aggressive street sarcasm. [1, 2, 3] Here are the specific instances of Granius’s wit across the requested sources, with the original indirect speech (oratio obliqua) successfully reconstructed into direct speech (oratio recta), accompanied by English translations. 1. De Oratore II.281 (Often cited alongside II.244/245) Context: Cicero explains jokes that stem from a play on words or unexpected reactions. A prosecutor named Albucius thought he had proven a point using Granius’s own account books. Despite this, the defendant, Lucius Licinius Crassus’s client Scaevola, was acquitted. Granius mockingly celebrated the verdict, turning Albucius's "evidence" into a joke. Reconstructed Latin (Oratio Recta): "Iure ac merito Scaevola est absolutus! Nihil est quod de meis rationibus ac scriptis ab Albuccio sit demonstratum." English Translation: "Scaevola was justly and rightly acquitted! Nothing at all was actually proven by Albucius from my account books." [1] 2. De Oratore II.282–283 Context: Cicero provides an example of a "friendly warning" used to mock someone. A terrible defense attorney (patronus malus) had shouted himself completely hoarse during a trial. Granius approached him with sarcastic health advice. [1] Dialogue in Latin (Oratio Recta): Granius: "Simul ac domum redieris, mulsum frigidum bibe." Patronus: "Perdam vocem, si id fecero!" Granius: "Melius est quam reum!" [1] English Translation: Granius: "As soon as you get home, drink a cup of ice-cold mead." Advocate: "I'll lose my voice if I do that!" Granius: "Better to lose your voice than to lose your client!" [1, 2] 3. Brutus 160 (Often referenced as Chapter 43 in older segmentations) Context: Cicero notes that the great orator Lucius Licinius Crassus served as a Tribune of the Plebs. However, history only remembers his tribunate because Lucilius recorded a specific, lavish dinner that Crassus attended at Granius's house. [1, 2] Reconstructed Latin (Oratio Recta / Lucilian Fragment Adaptation): "Hodie Crassus tribunus plebis apud me, praeconem Granium, cenat." English Translation: "Today, Crassus the Tribune of the Plebs is dining at the house of me, Granius the crier." [1, 2] 4. Brutus 172 Context: Cicero recalls a famous wit-combat (dicacitate certare) between T. Tinca (a pretentious wit from Placentia) and Granius. Granius utterly crushed Tinca, not through complex grammar, but by using raw, natural Roman urban slang (sapor vernaculus). [1, 2, 3] Reconstructed Latin (Oratio Recta): "Quid tu, Tinca, Placentine, hic mecum dicacitate certas? Revertere ad pingue tuum Gallicum saporis!" English Translation: "Why are you, Tinca of Placentia, trying to match wits with me here? Go back to your thick, heavy Gallic flavor!" [1] 5. Letters to Atticus (Ad Atticum VI.3.7) Context: Cicero complains to Atticus about the arrogant behavior of Appius Claudius. To illustrate a man who refuses to be looked down upon by the ruling elite, Cicero quotes an iconic verse written by the satirist Lucilius about Granius. This quote became one of Atticus's favorite catchphrases. [1, 2, 3] Latin Verse (Oratio Recta): "Granius autem non contemnere se et reges odisse superbos." English Translation: "As for Granius, he thinks highly of himself and loathes proud, arrogant kings." [1, 2, 3] 6. Lucilius (Satires, Fragments 411–412M / 448–449W) Context: Lucilius used Granius as a frequent mouthpiece for anti-luxury, populist satire. Lucilius openly admits in his poetry that he is stealing the comedian's exact street jokes. [1, 2] Latin Verse (Oratio Recta): "Conicere in versus dictum praeconis GranI exorior." English Translation: "I am setting out to throw into verse the exact words of Granius the auctioneer." [1] If you are exploring the linguistic evolution of Roman comedy, I can also break down how Granius's slang (sapor vernaculus) differed grammatically from the elite urbanitas of Cicero, or pull the historical context of Granius's relationship with Crassus. Which angle should we look at next?

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Granio – Ossia: Grice e Granio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Granio. So for No. 2, I would choose not the senator, not the poet, but:  Granius Flaccus, author of De Jure Papiriano and perhaps De Indigitamentis, dedicated to Caesar.  Why? Because he stands exactly where Grice loves to stand: between words and what lies behind the words. The auction-clerk Granius exploits the ordinary language of Rome. Granius Flaccus studies:  archaic laws, forgotten religious formulae, old divine names, ritual language.  The very title De Indigitamentis is irresistible. Roman priesthoods maintained lists of divine names and invocations. The whole enterprise presupposes that saying:  "the right name"  matters. A Gricean dialogue: FLACCVS.  This is the proper divine designation.  GRICEVS.  Why does it matter?  FLACCVS.  Because otherwise the rite is defective.  GRICEVS.  Ah. So meaning is not exhausted by the dictionary.  FLACCVS.  Precisely.   Even better, Flaccus is cited by Festus and appears in the same intellectual world as the Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant problem. One can imagine: FESTVS.  Brutum antiqui gravem dicebant.  FLACCVS.  Exactly.  GRICEVS.  Then a word's present meaning is not necessarily its historical meaning.  FESTVS.  You are beginning to understand lexicography.  GRICEVS.  Splendid. Now let us discuss implicature.   And there is another reason. The Granii are a wonderfully non-consular family. The Cornelii conquer the world. The Julii claim Venus. The Junii found the Republic. The Granii:  make jokes, write antiquarian treatises, preserve ritual formulae, serve as provincial officials.  A very Gricean gens. My ranking:  Quintus Granius the auction clerk — master of wit and conversational effect. Granius Flaccus — student of ancient names and forgotten meanings. Granius Serenus — who advised Hadrian not to punish Christians without an actual legal conviction, a surprisingly jurisprudential and almost Celsian figure.  For Speranza's verbalia, though, Flaccus is hard to resist: a Roman antiquary collecting old words while Grice hovers over his shoulder asking whether we really need all those senses.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Granio – Ossia: Grice e Granio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Granio. Granius Serenus — who advised Hadrian not to punish Christians without an actual legal conviction, a surprisingly jurisprudential and almost Celsian figure.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grassi – Ossia: Grice e Grassi: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale -- d’Ovidio a Vico: la metafora inaudita e il concetto di stato in Machiavelli – filosofia fascista. Note su Studi sul Rinascimento. Il Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice  Ernesto Grassi (Milano, Lombardia): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale -- d’Ovidio a Vico: la metafora inaudita e il concetto di stato in Machiavelli – filosofia fascista. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains figurative and indirect speech (including metaphor) as a controlled, inferential achievement: a rational hearer, assuming cooperation, moves from what is said to what is meant by calculating intentions and implicatures against shared conversational norms, so that even poetic-seeming effects can be treated as (in principle) reconstructible, cancellable, and answerable to reasons. Ernesto Grassi, by contrast, reverses the priority: in his Vico- and Heidegger-inflected rehabilitation of rhetoric, metaphor is not a dispensable ornament later “decoded” by pragmatic inference but a primary way in which thought discloses its first beginnings, with imagistic, pathematic, and historical language supplying what deductive, method-driven rationality cannot originate on its own; hence his emphasis on the preminence of the metaphorical word and on an “inaudita” metaphor that generates insight rather than merely packaging it. Where Grice makes implicit meaning parasitic on an underlying literal content plus cooperative reasoning, Grassi tends to treat the metaphorical dimension as epistemically foundational and culturally formative (a condition for concepts and institutions, not a by-product of them), so that what a Gricean would call an implicature Grassi would more likely treat as the very locus of sense-making: not an optional conversational add-on, but the imaginative act through which a world becomes articulable at all. Grice: “Heidegger is the greatest living philosopher” – and he was! At Oxford, they laughed at him. But like no other philosopher, Heidegger knew how to conjugate ‘sein’ in German. G. tried with ‘essere’ in Italian – and failed miserably! Only joking! G. was a genius! I like G.. He philosophised, like I did, on the metaphysics of Plato. G. has the gift of the gab: ‘metafora inaudita,’ ‘potenza dell’imagine,’ G. has mainly explored Heidegger. I like G.’s general use of ‘imago’ to re-approach rhetoric!” -- Si laurea a Milano sotto Martinetti. “Metafisica platonica” Code on Grice on the axioms of metaphysical Platonism --. “Apparire ed essere” “Il bello e l’antico” Heidegger e umano – Mann in Heidegger” La preminenza della metafora” “La filosofia dell'umanesimo. Un problema epocale” La follia -- Umanesimo e retorica” (Mucchi, Modena) “Potenza dell'immagine -- ivalutazione della retorica” (La metafora inaudita, -- cf. la lingua inaudita -- Massimo Marassi, Aestetica, Palermo “Potenza della fantasia” Guida, Napoli Filosofare noetico non metafisico Vico e l'umanesimo” Guerini, Milano Il dramma della metafora. Ovidio, Massimo Marassi, Tipografica, Roma,“Arte e mito”La Città del Sole, Napoli, “Retorica come filosofia. La tradizione umanistica”, Massimo Marassi, La Città del Sole, Napoli; “Tra antropologia, logica e ontologia”; “l'incidenza di Vico nell'antropologia di G.”; “Platone nell’onto-antropo-logia di G. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. “La risposta (Antwort) del pensiero è l’origine della parola (Wort) umana”, M. Heidegger, Poscritto a Che cos’è metafisica?“L’espressione metaforica è in sé e per sé una risposta all’appello dell’Essere che si impone qui ed ora, e con il suo carattere immaginifico raggiunge la struttura patetica dell’esistenza”, G., La filosofia dell’umanesimo: un problema epocale. la metafora inaudita, metafora, Vico, Ovidio, il Vico di Grassi: metafora come implicatura. Grice: Caro Grassi, hai mai pensato che la metafora inaudita sia come una pizza margherita preparata con ingredienti segreti? Tutti la conoscono, ma nessuno sa davvero cosa ci sia dentro. Grassi: Paul, la metafora inaudita è proprio così! Anzi, direi che è come la mozzarella: si scioglie tra le parole e, se la usi bene, migliora anche il concetto di stato, persino quello di Machiavelli. E poi, Ovidio ci avrebbe fatto un poema solo per la salsa! Grice: Ah, se Heidegger avesse avuto la tua fantasia! Lui si limitava a coniugare “sein”, ma tu con “essere” ci fai almeno tre giri di giostra. A Oxford ridevano di Heidegger, ma credo che con la tua “potenza dell’immagine” avrebbero chiesto il bis. Grassi: Paul, se c’è una cosa che ho imparato, è che la filosofia è come una partita di calcio: si gioca meglio quando si ride! E poi, tra Platone, Vico e la metafisica, l’importante è non prendere troppo sul serio né il risultato né il rigore. In fondo, la metafora inaudita è il vero gol dell’umano pensare! Grassi, Ernesto (1922). La filosofia della carità. Sotto Chiochetti Rassegna nazionale

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gratidio – Ossia: Grice e Gratidio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Gratidio. The Gratidii are a family at ancient Rome. Originally coming from Arpinum, members of this gens are known from the final century of the Republic. Marcus G., the granduncle of TULLIO Cicero. In 115 BC he proposed a lex tabellaria[i] at Arpinum, which was opposed by his brother-in-law, Marcus TULLIO Cicero, grandfather of the orator. In 102, he accompanied his friend, the orator Marcus Antonius, praetor in Cilicia, in his campaign against the pirates, and was slain in battle.[3][4][5] Gratidia, a sister of Marcus Gratidius of Arpinum, married Marcus TULLIO Cicero, grandfather of the orator.[6] Gratidius, legate and probably nephew of Gaius Marius, was stoned to death at Nola in 88 BC while trying to take command of the consul Sulla's armies for the upcoming Mithridatic War.[7][8][9][10] Marcus Gratidius M. f., son of Marcus G. of Arpinum, was adopted by one of the Marii, probably a brother of Gaius Marius. As a speaker he was calm, capable, and popular, and was a good friend of his cousin, the young Cicero. Proscribed by Sulla, he was brutally slain by Catiline, who carried his head through the city.[11][12][13][14][15] Gratidia M. f., possibly the sister of Gratidianus, who is thought by some scholars to have married Catiline, who would thus have been Gratidianus' brother-in-law. The historian Syme indicates that if this were so, "it can be taken that Catilina promptly discarded her."[16][17] Marcus Gr., possibly a grandson of Marcus G., was legate of Quintus TULLIO Cicero during his administration of Asia, from 61 to 59 BC.[1] G., mentioned by Cicero as one of the tribunes of the plebs in BC 57, could perhaps be the same Marcus G. who had previously served under Quintus TULLIO Cicero, but is probably an error, instead referring to Quintus Fabricius.[18][1] See also List of Roman gentes Footnotes  A law permitting election by ballot.[2] References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. II, p. 303 ("Gratidius").  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, p. 1091 ("Tabellariae Leges").  Cicero, De Legibus, iii. 16, 36; Brutus, 45, 168.  Drumann, Geschichte Roms, vol. I, p. 61.  Broughton, vol. I, pp. 568, 569.  Cicero, De Legibus, iii. 16.  Valerius Maximus, ix. 7. § 1.  Orosius, v. 19. § 4.  Plutarch, "The Life of Sulla", 8, 9.  Syme, Approaching the Roman Revolution, p. 137.  Cicero, Brutus, 62; De Legibus, iii. 16; De Officiis, iii. 16, 20; De Oratore, i. 39, ii. 65.  Asconius, Cicero's In Toga Candida, p. 84 (ed. Orelli).  Quintus Cicero, De Petitione Consulatus, 3.  Seneca, De Ira, 3.  Pliny, xxxiii. 9.  Sallust, Historiae, fragmenta i. 37 and commentary (ed. Patrick McGushin, 1992).  Syme, Sallust, pp. 85, 86.  Cicero Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem, i. 4. Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Legibus, Brutus, De Officiis, Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem. Quintus Asconius Pedianus, Commentarius in Oratio Ciceronis In Toga Candida. Quintus Tullius Cicero, De Petitione Consulatus (attributed). Gaius Sallustius Crispus (Sallust), Historiae. Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium (Memorable Facts and Sayings). Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De Ira (On Anger). Gaius Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis (Natural History). Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (Plutarch), Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans. Paulus Orosius, Historiarum Adversum Paganos (History Against the Pagans). Wilhelm Drumann, Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergang von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung, oder: Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen (History of Rome in its Transition from Republic to Empire, or Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero, and their Contemporaries), Königsberg (1834–1844). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown, and Company, Boston (1859). T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, American Philological Association (1952). Ronald Syme, Sallust, University of California Press (1964, 2002). Ronald Syme, Approaching the Roman Revolution: Papers on Republican History, ed. Federico Santangelo, Oxford University Press (2016), ISBN 978-0-19-876706-0. Categories: Roman gentesGratidii This gens seems to be the Tullio's inlaws -- it's not clear whoGratidianus was -- sounds like a freedman? If Tullio's cousin lost his head -- so did Tullio, after his attacks to Antonio, right?

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gratidio – Ossia: Grice e Gratidio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Gratidio. No, Gratidianus was certainly not a freedman. Quite the opposite: the Gratidii are one of those small municipal aristocratic families from Arpinum, intertwined with both the Tullii and the Marii. The entry explicitly makes Gratidia the sister of Marcus Gratidius and the wife of Marcus Tullius Cicero (the orator's grandfather), making the Gratidii maternal relations of Cicero. cite not available from supplied text but directly stated in the user-provided entry. The most famous member is:  Marcus Gratidius M. f., adopted by a Marius, and thereafter known as Marcus Marius Gratidianus.  So "Gratidianus" is itself a clue. It is not a servile name but an adoptive one:  Gratidius → Marius Gratidianus.  Exactly the sort of double identity Romans loved.  What fascinates me most, Grice-wise, is the head. The entry says:  Gratidianus was proscribed by Sulla and brutally slain by Catiline, who carried his head through the city.  And yes, there is a grim family parallel.  Gratidianus loses his head under Sulla's regime. Cicero later attacks Antony in the Philippics. After the formation of the Second Triumvirate, Cicero is killed and his head displayed publicly.  One almost feels a dark Arpinate family tradition: GRATIDIANVS.  Politics is dangerous.  CICERO.  I know.  GRATIDIANVS.  You may lose your head.  CICERO.  Figuratively?  GRATIDIANVS.  No.   For a Grice/Speranza vignette, I would choose Marcus Marius Gratidianus over the other Gratidii. Why? Because he embodies a Roman version of the problem we've been discussing all afternoon:  Which name really matters?  He is simultaneously:  Gratidius by birth, Marius by adoption, Gratidianus by memorial attachment to his birth family.  A Kripkean nightmare. A Gricean dialogue: ROMANVS.  Who is this?  RESPONDENS.  Marius.  ROMANVS.  The nephew of Gaius Marius?  RESPONDENS.  In a sense.  ROMANVS.  Then why "Gratidianus"?  RESPONDENS.  Because he used to be Gratidius.  ROMANVS.  Then is he a Marius or a Gratidius?  GRICEVS.  A Roman.  The name itself is carrying genealogical information that no ordinary English surname could bear. And that, I think, is why the Gratidii would have fascinated Grice: adoption, naming, reference, identity, and political catastrophe all bundled into a single cognomen. I also like the orator whom Cicero describes as clear, etc -- is that Gratidianus himself? And the Grat. involved with Catilina, because it seems that the famous oratio by Tullio was family-based rather than respublica-based? Thanks Yes, the "clear, capable, popular speaker" in your entry is Marcus Gratidius M. f., adopted by a Marius, i.e. the man usually known as Marcus Marius Gratidianus. The entry explicitly describes him as:  "calm, capable, and popular" as a speaker, and a good friend of his cousin, the young Cicero.  So that is indeed Gratidianus himself, not another Gratidius. For a Gricean, that is rather touching. Before becoming the gruesome victim of the proscriptions, he appears in Cicero's memory as a successful public speaker of a very different type from the grand orators. One almost hears Cicero saying:  non clamabat, persuadebat ("he did not shout; he persuaded").  Though that's my paraphrase, not Cicero's text. As for Catiline, things become more interesting. The entry mentions a scholarly theory that a Gratidia, possibly Gratidianus' sister, may have married Catiline. It immediately notes that this is uncertain and attributes the suggestion to modern scholars, with Syme commenting on the possibility. The entry does not present the marriage as established fact. So we have to be cautious. The possibility is there; the certainty is not. But even the possibility is fascinating. If true, Catiline would not merely be:  enemy of the Republic,  but also connected by marriage to the family of Cicero's beloved cousin Gratidianus. That would add a distinctly family dimension to the story. Still, I would hesitate to say that Cicero's speeches against Catiline were fundamentally family-based. The sources in your entry don't say that. What they do show is that:  Gratidianus was a relative and friend of Cicero. Gratidianus was killed in the Sullan terror. Catiline was associated with the killing. Later Cicero became Catiline's chief public opponent.  Those facts certainly create a dramatic personal backdrop, but they do not prove the motivation of the Catilinarians. A Grice/Speranza vignette might run: DISCIPVLVS.  Why does Cicero hate Catiline?  RESPONDENS.  Because Catiline threatens the Republic.  DISCIPVLVS.  Only that?  RESPONDENS.  There was also Gratidianus.  DISCIPVLVS.  Ah.  GRICEVS.  The Republic and the family are not always so easily separated.  That, I think, is the most interesting point. Roman politics constantly dresses itself in the language of:  res publica, liberty, the state,  while underneath stand cousins, in-laws, adoptive families, old friendships, remembered murders, and inherited loyalties. The Gratidii sit right at that intersection. Yes, the Gratidia link is weak, but the favourite cousin's head is not -- he was brutally slain by Catiline, who carried his head through the city. Hence the rancour and enimosity of Tullio against 'patienta nostra' abused by Catilina? Thanks Yes—but with an important historian's caution. The entry gives us two facts:  Marcus Marius Gratidianus was a cousin and friend of Cicero. The entry explicitly says he was amicus of the young Cicero. Gratidianus was proscribed under Sulla and was brutally killed, with later tradition associating Catiline with the killing and carrying the severed head. (The entry cites Cicero, Asconius, Seneca, and others for the episode.) cite not available; based on user-provided text only.  What we cannot safely conclude is:  Therefore the Catilinarian Orations were primarily motivated by private family vengeance.  The sources don't establish that. What we can say is that a remarkable biographical fact lies in the background:  Cicero personally knew and admired Gratidianus. Gratidianus suffered one of the most notorious atrocities of the Sullan period. Catiline's name was connected with that atrocity in the tradition Cicero inherited.  That makes it very difficult to imagine that Cicero viewed Catiline with complete detachment. A Grice/Speranza reading would be: Official level (what is said):  Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? "How long, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?"  The speaker speaks as:  the consul, the Republic, the Senate.  But a hearer aware of the family history may wonder whether another layer is present. What is said:  Catiline threatens the Republic.  Possible background:  Catiline belongs to a world that already murdered Gratidianus.  This is not an entailment. Nor is it demonstrable authorial intention. It is closer to what Grice would call a matter of background assumptions affecting uptake. A Speranzian dialogue: DISCIPVLVS.  Why does Cicero attack Catiline?  RESPONDENS.  Because Catiline threatens the state.  DISCIPVLVS.  Only because of that?  RESPONDENS.  Cicero's cousin Gratidianus was slain.  DISCIPVLVS.  By Catiline?  RESPONDENS.  The tradition says so.  GRICEVS.  Then the distinction between public and private motives may not be perfectly neat.  That, I think, is the safest conclusion. The Catilinarians are public speeches about the res publica. But the shadow of Gratidianus could hardly have made Cicero more charitable toward Catiline. The Republic supplied the argument; family memory may have supplied some of the heat. Does this below help? Thanks Cicero did not explicitly name Gratidia in his surviving works, but he famously attacked Catiline for the brutal torture and murder of her brother, Marcus Marius Gratidianus. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] The historical connection between Catiline and Gratidia (as his alleged first wife) comes from later ancient commentators (like the Scholia Bernensia on Lucan) and fragments of Sallust. However, Cicero’s direct, surviving indictment linking Catiline to this specific Marian family is found in his lost 64 BC campaign speech, In Toga Candida. [1, 2, 5] Because In Toga Candida survives only in fragments preserved by the 1st-century AD commentator Asconius Pedianus, Cicero's remarks and Asconius' contextual commentary are provided below. [1] 1. Cicero's Speech (In Toga Candida, Fragment 16) In this passage, Cicero fiercely denounces Catiline for acting as the Sullan executioner who decapitated Marcus Marius Gratidianus. Gratidianus was highly popular, a relative of Gaius Marius, and a cousin/kinsman to Cicero himself. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Latin Text "Quid ego ut Gratidianum caput populo Romano ostentaris referam? quod ex cervice ista velut truculenti illius ac barbari cinnani laceratum ad Syllam usque ab Ianiculo per urbem tuis manibus usque reportasti." English Translation "Why should I recall how you displayed the head of Gratidianus to the Roman people? That head, torn from his neck by your own hands, which you carried all the way through the city from the Janiculum to Sulla, looking like that fierce and barbaric executioner of Cinna." 2. Asconius’ Commentary on the Passage (Asconius, 84C) Asconius provides the critical context regarding the execution and the psychological horror of Catiline bringing the dripping head through the streets of Rome. [1] Latin Text "M. Marius Gratidianus, propinquus Ciceronis, fuisset popularis homo. Hunc Catilina in Sullanis proscriptionibus crudeliter laniaverat ante bustum Q. Catuli, et caput eius tulerat per urbem placido vultu, cum id plenis manibus cruoris ostentaret." English Translation "Marcus Marius Gratidianus, a relative of Cicero, had been a man highly devoted to the people. Catiline, during the Sullan proscriptions, had cruelly mutilated him before the tomb of Quintus Catulus, and carried his head through the city with a calm countenance, displaying it while his hands were full of blood." 3. The Family Connection (Commentariolum Petitionis, 9–10) Further implicit links regarding the family ties are found in the Commentariolum Petitionis (a campaign handbook written either by Cicero's brother, Quintus, or a close contemporary). It highlights how Catiline targeted his own family circle during the Sullan purges. [, 2, 3] Latin Text "Quid ego dicam de C. Antonio... Quid de Catilina? Qui egregium consulem... occidit? ... Qui et L. Tanusium et Q. Caecilium, fratrem uxoris suae, et M. Marium, hominem carissimum populo Romano, interfecit?" English Translation "What shall I say of Gaius Antonius... What of Catiline? Who slew an excellent consul?... Who killed Lucius Tanusius, and Quintus Caecilius—the brother of his own uxor [wife]—and Marcus Marius, a man most dear to the Roman people?" (Note: While this text names Caecilius as the brother-in-law, historians use these interlocking texts to show how Catiline targeted the extended Marian-Gratidian family network to curry favor with Sulla). [1, 3] If you are researching the specific family dynamics of the Late Republic, let me know: Do you need the Sallustian fragments that suggest the marriage to Gratidia? Are you looking for historical consensus on whether Catiline actually committed the murder or if it was amplified for political gain? [1, 2] L'AI Yes — this helps a lot. It makes the “private heat behind public invective” much less speculative. Key points:  Gratidianus was Cicero’s relative and close friend, not just an abstract Marian victim. [en.wikipedia.org] Cicero’s In Toga Candida attacked Catiline as a murderer in Sulla’s proscriptions, specifically connected with Gratidianus’ death and the parading of the severed head. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org] Asconius is crucial because the full speech is lost; he preserves fragments and contextual commentary. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]  So the Grice/Speranza reading becomes: CICERO. Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? “How long, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?” PUBLIC MEANING: +> Catiline threatens the Republic. PRIVATE BACKGROUND: +> This is also the man associated with the mutilation of Cicero’s beloved kinsman Gratidianus. That does not prove Cicero’s anti-Catiline rhetoric was merely family vengeance. But it certainly means his hostility was not emotionally neutral. A Speranza line: CATILINA. I am accused of endangering the Republic. CICERO. Among other things. +> The Republic speaks; Arpinum remembers. Especially since, if Roman memory served for something, the 'nostra' is ambiguous -- one can imagine a sceptic -- ""Nostra, Cicero? Speak for yourself?" and he was. The fact that Asconiu makes such long commentary implicates the thing was the talk of the town? Thanks Yes, that's a very Gricean observation. The famous opening:  Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?  appears to speak in the plural:  nostra = "our".  But, as Grice would immediately note, first-person plurals are often wonderfully ambiguous. There is a scale:                          ReadingSpeaker claims to speak fornarrowhimselfwiderthe Senatewider stillthe governing classwidestthe Roman people A sceptical Roman could perfectly well respond:  Nostra? Cuius nostra? "Our? Whose 'our'?"  or even:  Loquere pro te, Cicero. "Speak for yourself, Cicero."  That is precisely why politicians love the first-person plural. A Gricean gloss might be: What is said  Our patience.  What is conversationally projected  Everyone respectable is on my side.  The pronoun does political work.  As for Asconius, I'd put it a little differently. The fact that Asconius wrote a long commentary on In Toga Candida does not by itself prove it was "the talk of the town." What it does show is that, about a century later, Asconius regarded the speech as important enough to require extensive historical explanation for his readers. He quotes large portions of it and supplies background on the people, events, and allegations involved. [ancientrome.ru], [fity.club] That is itself revealing. Asconius repeatedly has to explain things that Cicero's original audience would have known immediately. So one can imagine: CICERO (64 BC).  Catiline carried Gratidianus' head through Rome.  SENATORS.  We know exactly what you mean.  A century later: ASCONIUS.  Allow me to explain who Gratidianus was, why this matters, and what Cicero is referring to. [cil.bbaw.de], [fity.club]  One might say, in Gricean language, that Asconius is reconstructing the common ground that had disappeared. The original audience needed no commentary because the implicatures were alive. The later audience needed commentary because the implicatures had become archaeology. And that may be the most Gricean thing about Asconius: he is not merely preserving Cicero's words; he is trying to recover the assumptions without which those words no longer fully communicate. [fity.club], [ancientrome.ru] And these were not just kinsfolk; they hailed from Arpinum -- but then interbreed was current then? Thanks Yes, and I think that's a more important point than the speculative Gratidia-Catiline marriage. What the sources explicitly give us is that:  the Gratidii came from Arpinum; the Tullii of Cicero were also from Arpinum; Gratidia married Cicero's grandfather; Gratidianus was a relative and friend of Cicero. [cil.bbaw.de]  So this is not merely a matter of genealogy. It is also a matter of municipal identity. A Roman noble from an old urban aristocratic family might think first in terms of gens:  Cornelius, Claudius, Aemilius.  But for the Arpinates there was also:  our town.  Arpinum produced:  Gaius Marius, Cicero, the Gratidii.  It's a comparatively small world. As for "interbreeding"—I would phrase it less dramatically as repeated intermarriage among a limited local elite. That's hardly surprising. In many Italian municipia, prominent families formed networks through marriage, patronage, friendship, and adoption. In the Gratidianus case, the surviving evidence already shows exactly such links between the Gratidii, Tullii, and Marii. [cil.bbaw.de] A Grice/Speranza version might be: ROMANVS.  Why is Cicero so indignant?  GRICEVS.  Because Catiline threatens the Republic.  ROMANVS.  Anything else?  GRICEVS.  Catiline is associated with the murder of Gratidianus.  ROMANVS.  A relative?  GRICEVS.  A relative, a friend, and an Arpinate.  The last item may be the most revealing. And that returns us to your earlier point about nostra:  Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?  Officially, Cicero speaks for the Senate and the Republic. But human beings rarely forget local loyalties. A sceptic might well have heard:  nostra?  and wondered whether the word carried, among other things,  "the patience of those of us who remember Arpinum and Gratidianus."  Not as the literal meaning, of course—but as part of the emotional background against which the speech was heard.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grataroli – Ossia: Grice e Grataroli: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale e la memoria.  Guglielmo Grataroli (Bergamo, Lombardia): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale e la memoria. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how hearers recover what speakers mean by assuming rational cooperation and then inferring intentions and implicatures from what is said plus shared conversational norms; Grataroli, by contrast, belongs to a Renaissance “arts of memory” and medical-semiotic tradition in which signs are tracked as indicators of hidden states (health, temperament, moral character) and where the key rational task is not so much reconstructing communicative intention as reading symptoms, traces, and mnemonic images reliably. That contrast is especially sharp given Grataroli’s best-known early work on memory, De memoria reparanda, augenda, servandaque (first printed 1553, with later editions), which treats remembering as a craft of ordering loci, images, and bodily regimen, i.e., a technology for stabilizing cognition rather than a theory of how interlocutors rationally coordinate meaning in real time. If one forces the comparison onto Gricean ground, Grataroli’s “semiotics” (in plague signs, physiognomy, and memory cues) looks like a precursor to the idea that interpretation is rule-guided, but the rules govern diagnosis and retention rather than cooperative exchange: Grice’s implicature is cancellable, intention-based, and conversationally accountable, whereas Grataroli’s sign-reading aims at evidential uptake (what this sign suggests about an underlying condition) and can remain “true” even when no one meant anything by it—more like Grice’s natural meaning than non-natural meaning. Grice: “When Locke analysed the “I” in terms of memory, he must have reading Italian Renaissance authors. All they cared about was memory! implicatura, memoria. I like G., the Pope called him ‘infamous heretic,” which is a good start! He wrote a book on ‘semiotics’ of the times, but it got lost – you cannot understand Bruno unless you do Grataroli – he philosophised on many subjects, including dreams and alchemy!” Noti sono i suoi trattati sul potenziamento e il mantenimento della memoria, sulle epidemie di peste, sulle proprietà del vino, su erboristeria e veterinaria. Vi sono anche alcuni scritti inerenti all'alchimia. Si segnala per la teoria fisiognomica. Argomenta su Pomponazzi e da indicazioni sia per il mantenimento della salute che per l'utilizzo dei bagni termali, nonché un saggio in cui vengono raccontati i suoi viaggi e forniti consigli ai viaggiatori di quel tempo. Saggi: “De memoria reparanda, augenda servandaque. De salute tuenda. De regimine iter argentium, vel aequitum, vel peditum, vel navi, vel curru, seu rheda”; “Turba Philosophorum”; “De literatorum et eorum qui magistratibus funguntur conservanda praeservandaeque valetitudine compendium” (Perna, Basilea); “Veræ alchemiæ artisque metallicae, citra aenigmata, doctrina, certusque” (Perna, Basilea); “De fato, libero arbitrio et providentia Dei” (Perna, Basilea); “Alchemiae, quam vocant, artisque metallicae, doctrina, certusque modus” (Perna, Basilea); “De balneis” (Bergamo). Quaderni brembani, Storia di Milano  Flavio Caroli, Storia della fisiognomica Arte e psicologia da Leonardo a Freud  M. Meriggi e A.Pastore, Le regole dei mestieri e delle professioni: A. Castoldi, Bergamo ed il suo territorio. Bergamo, Bolis, G. Gallizioli, Della vita degli studi e degli scritti di Gulielmo G.  filosofo (Bergamo, Prof,  di  Filosofìa.  Prof,  di  Legge. Prof, di Legge. Prof, di Teologia.  Prof,   di  Legge.  Prof,  di   Legge.  Prof,  di  Legge.  Prof,   di   Medicina.  Prof,  di  Legge.  Prof.  di  Filosofa Morale. implicature. Grice: Caro Grataroli, mi chiedo se la memoria sia davvero il filo che unisce tutto quel che pensiamo. Locke, per esempio, ne faceva quasi la spina dorsale dell’identità. Tu, invece, ce l’hai fatta diventare una vera arte, tra trattati e consigli! Ma dimmi, se mi dimentico dove ho messo il mio libro, posso sempre dare la colpa al vino? Grataroli: Paul, il vino aiuta la memoria, ma a volte la fa viaggiare troppo lontano! Io dico che la memoria è un po’ come un alambicco: quello che distilli oggi può tornare utile domani, anche se spesso è la peste a farci ricordare dove sono le erbe migliori. Grice: Ecco, caro Guglielmo, allora la conversazione è il bagno termale della mente! Tra una implicatura e una memoria, ci si rilassa e si fa filosofia. Secondo te, se un viaggiatore perde la strada, basta che abbia letto uno dei tuoi trattati per ritrovarsi? Grataroli: Paul, basta che abbia memoria e un po’ di buon senso: anche se si perde, può sempre inventare una nuova implicatura! D’altronde, il vero filosofo sa che, tra sogni, erboristeria e alchimia, il viaggio migliore è quello che comincia ogni giorno con una conversazione… e magari finisce con una bella risata! Grataroli, Guglielmo (1562). De vita hominis. Basilea: Pietro Perna.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grazia – Ossia: Grice e Grazia: Grice, Grace, e Grazia -- la ragione conversazionale e implicatura conversazionale -- il principio di benevolenza conversazionale.  Vincenzo Di Grazia (Mesoraca, Crotone, Calabria): Grice, Grace, e Grazia -- la ragione conversazionale e implicatura conversazionale -- il principio di benevolenza conversazionale. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats benevolence, at most, as a defeasible conversational presumption: interlocutors are taken to be rational and broadly cooperative, so that hearers can infer implicatures by assuming speakers are aiming at intelligibility, relevance, and an efficient achievement of shared purposes, but the norms are primarily epistemic-pragmatic (how to make oneself understood) rather than moral-psychological (how to feel toward one’s interlocutor). Di Grazia, by contrast, approaches “benevolence” as a substantive feature of human psychology and moral life—rooted in appetito, piacere/dolore, amor proprio, and the dynamics of will and dignity—so that talk and interaction are naturally framed by tendencies toward well-being, sympathy, and social cohesion; if you re-describe this in Gricean terms, Di Grazia is less interested in the calculability of implicature from conversational maxims than in the motivational background that makes cooperation possible or attractive in the first place. The upshot of the comparison is that Grice explains how, given a standing assumption of rational cooperation, speakers can mean more than they say in a way that is publicly recoverable; Di Grazia invites a thicker, anthropological reading in which “conversational benevolence” is not merely a methodological assumption but a human propensity that shapes why we converse, what we count as a satisfactory exchange, and why failures of understanding register as a kind of moral discomfort rather than just a breakdown in inference. Grice: “I fought for years about how to qualify conversational benevolence. Is it a desideratum? Is it an axiom? Is it a principle? Is it an imperative. Grazia just speaks ABOUT conversational benevolence, without judging much where it features! la benevolenza conversazionale. G. is important to understand BONAIUTO, whom Italians consider a philosopher! G. also wrote about architecture – a truly Renaissance man!”. Si laurea a Napoli. Discorso sull'architettura del teatro, La scienza umana, Logica speculativa Filosofia: eterodossa ed ortodossa” Considerazioni sopra 'l discorso di BONAIUTO intorno alle cose che stanno su l'acqua, e che in quella si muouono. All'Illustriss. ed Eccellentiss. Sig. don Carlo Medici Della vita e delle opera: Appetito; Volerevolontà è l'andar con l'esercizio acquistando maggior potere su i moti del corpo Tendenza istintiva delle nostre forze all'azione; appetito istintivo del piacere nella sua triplice forma, e avversione al dolore; amor di sè stesso co'tre caratteri di concentrazione, di reazione, di espansione spontanea. Oggetti dell'amor proprio diconcen nale, onore esterno. 'amor proprio sentimento. Espansione spontanea. Benevolenza benessere è appetito istintivo del piacere, e l'avversione al dolore. L'amor proprio si pronunzia nel cercare I mezzi per procurarci l'uno, e per sottrarci all'altro, fino a contrastare a tale uopo altri appetiti. L'appetito quindi del benessere, una delle esigenze dell'amor proprio,é precisamente quel principio, amor proprio. Un tale appetito abituale non è  getti al suo comando, come anche su l'attenzione riflessiva. appetito è l'essere accompagnato da piacere, quando è soddisfatto; e da dolore, quando essendo istigato non è soddisfatto. piacere e dolore morale. trazione: Benessere, dignità. perso Stati diversi dell'appetito: Desiderio contento godimento afflizione, o rammarico speranza timore; pentiinento; disperazione benevola di riconoscenza; Ammettendosi in un essere dolori e piaceri, e ragione e volontà, implicatura. Room 39, Whitehall, on a day officially described as “off,” which is an adjective that, in wartime, behaves like “dry” in Oxford: a useful fiction. Grice is in shirtsleeves with his jacket on the chair in the manner of a man who has momentarily forgotten which uniform he belongs to. On the table are two things which do not naturally sit together: a naval form with his own rank on it and, beside it, a thin sheet of biographical prose about a Neapolitan philosopher who, for reasons Grice can’t quite justify, has wandered into his afternoon. He reads his own line first, because there is a private vanity in the abbreviation. Temp. Lieut. He says it aloud as if testing whether it sounds like a person. “Temp,” he says, “which in my case abbreviates temporary, though it might equally abbreviate temper. And by that I imply that my temper is permanent and my lieutenantcy the temporary part.” He turns to the other page. Allievo sottotenente del genio. He pronounces it with care, not because Italian is difficult, but because care is his chosen vice. “So,” he says, “he is an allievo sottotenente del genio. And by that I imply that he is, first and foremost, an officer-in-training in the engineers, and only secondarily whatever later biographers will allow him to become.” He puts the two phrases side by side in his head and enjoys the symmetry he has not earned. Temp. Lieut. versus sottotenente. Sotto- and sub-, he thinks. Lieutenant and lieu-tenant. Stand-in, place-holder, deputy by etymology. The words confess what the institutions don’t like to confess: that ranks are mostly forms of substitution. “And by that I imply,” he says, “that the military is a metaphysics of prefixes.” He rereads the Italian. Allievo. A trainee. Sottotenente. A commissioned junior. Del genio. Not genius, but engineers. The army’s engineering arm, even when nothing is exploding in the street outside. He hears, in the corridor, someone brisk, someone practical, someone who will soon ask whether he has any messages for the next admiral, as if admirals come in a relay. Godfrey, then Rushbrooke. Two names, two styles of authority. Grice’s mind supplies, unhelpfully, a contrast with Murat and Churchill, as if it were morally required that every man be judged by his head of state. “Murat,” he says, “is a kind of Napoleonic Churchill with more hair and fewer excuses. Churchill is a kind of English Murat with more prose and less cavalry. And by that I imply that I am making history do my jokes for me.” He looks again at “genio” and remembers how English likes to pretend that its engineers are civilians unless war forces honesty. “In peacetime,” he says, “the engineer is a profession. In war, he becomes a branch. And by that I imply that institutions are bilingual: one vocabulary for Sundays, another for emergencies.” He taps his own paper. Temp. Lieut. “And I,” he says, “am the reverse creature. Philosopher first, lieutenant second. The institution has lent me a title for a purpose that is not mine.” He pauses, as if about to be modest and failing. “I should add,” he says, “that this is not moral superiority. It is merely habit. Oxford taught me to be a philosopher before the Navy taught me to be a lieutenant. And by that I imply that the Navy had to work harder.” He returns to Di Grazia, who in 1811 is twenty-six and already wearing a rank that implies obedience before it implies speculation. “Now Di Grazia,” he says, “is the other way round: sottotenente first, philosopher later. And yet he ends up known as a philosopher, which suggests something I can’t resist.” He cannot resist. He says it. “And by that I imply that once a philosopher, always a philosopher.” He catches himself and, because he can never leave implicature alive without dissecting it, he adds: “By which I mean: if he became a philosopher later, it is probable that the seed was already there under Murat, even if he was, officially, an allievo. Probable. Probably.” He says probably again, because probably is a way of being committed and uncommitted at once. He imagines the young Neapolitan officer being drilled in practical works, bridges, fortifications, calculations, the engineering habit of thinking in means and constraints. “And that,” Grice says, “is already philosophy of action in uniform. Engineering is practical syllogism with mud on its boots. And by that I imply that Pears would approve, if only because it has the decency to be about doing.” He looks up, and for a moment he tries on the thought that his own Room 39 work is also, in its way, engineering: taking fragments of talk, bits of signal, scraps of intention, and making a structure that will stand long enough to be useful. He dislikes the thought because it makes him sound earnest. “So,” he says instead, “we have Murat producing a young engineer-officer who later writes about appetito and volontà, and Churchill producing a philosopher who later signs forms as Temp. Lieut. The contrast is neat enough to be suspicious.” He folds the biography page, then unfolds it, because folding feels like finishing and he is not yet ready to finish. “And by that I imply,” he says, “that I shall now return to my day off by doing precisely the sort of reading that ensures it is not off at all.” There is a knock outside. He does not answer at once. He waits just long enough to make the silence mean something, and then he opens the door with the expression of a man who has been interrupted from urgent idleness. “Yes,” he says, “I’m coming.” And under his breath, as he picks up the naval form and leaves the Italian where it lies, he adds: “Temp, certainly. Philosophy, alas, permanent.”Grice: Caro Grazia, devo confessarti che una delle fonti del mio concetto di "desideratum" nella benevolenza conversazionale deriva proprio dalla tua acuta indagine su questo tema, che raramente viene affrontato dagli “stranieri” nel Vadum Boum – così chiamo la mia università! Grazia: Grice, sono onorato di questa tua ammissione. Credo fermamente che la benevolenza sia il fondamento di ogni dialogo autentico; il principio che trasforma la parola in ponte tra le anime, e non in barriera. I tuoi lavori mi hanno aiutato a riflettere su come questa benevolenza si manifesti anche nell’architettura delle idee, non solo dei teatri. Grice: Ecco, Grazia, il tuo pensiero mi ha insegnato che la benevolenza conversazionale non è solo un imperativo morale, ma una tendenza naturale, un appetito quasi istintivo verso il piacere del dialogo e la fuga dal dolore della incomprensione. È grazie a filosofi come te che possiamo distinguere tra desiderio, speranza e benevolenza autentica. Grazia: Grice, la tua distinzione tra desideratum e principio mi ricorda che la conversazione è una danza di volontà e ragione. Solo quando il piacere e la dignità del dialogo si incontrano, nasce la vera benevolenza. E forse, come dicevano gli antichi, “la parola buona erompe dal cuore senza le leggi di Donato” – e porta con sé riconoscenza e speranza. Grazia, Vincenzo Di (1811). Alliveo sottotenente del genio. Napoli.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gregorio – Ossia: Grice e Gregorio: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’arte grammatica degl’angeli.  Gregorio il Grande (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’arte grammatica degl’angeli. Grice’s theory treats “implicit meaning” as a rational, reconstructible product of cooperative talk: a hearer, assuming the speaker is trying to be helpful and intelligible, can work out implicatures by reasoning from what is said plus shared conversational norms (relevance, sufficiency, sincerity, clarity) and the speaker’s communicative intentions, so that the hidden is still, in principle, publicly recoverable. Gregory the Great’s communicative practice sits in a very different framework: his Latin letters, exegesis, sermons, and anecdotes aim at pastoral governance, moral formation, and doctrinal discipline, where what is “meant” is often carried not by a cancellable inference from conversational maxims but by rhetorical and scriptural techniques (typology, moral exempla, etymology, and controlled ambiguity) that presuppose authority, tradition, and a spiritually charged audience; even his famous wordplay (angli/angeli, and related counterfactual turns) functions less like a calculable implicature than like a didactic prompt that recruits shared biblical literacy and ecclesial commitments. Put sharply: Grice explains how ordinary interlocutors can rationally infer extra content without institutional authority; Gregory exemplifies how meaning is stabilized, amplified, and sometimes strategically veiled within an authoritative interpretive community—so that what looks “implicit” in Gregory is frequently not a conversational add-on to be cancelled or computed, but an invited reading governed by scripture, office, and the cura animarum rather than by a cooperative principle of everyday dialogue. Grice: “Like G., I dislike the term grammar, or letteratura. A letter is only a SIGN of a VOX SIGNIFICATIVA. Writing is totally Unphilosophical subject for discussion! Now, it is different when ANGELS speak. Jarman’s The Angelic Conversation. grammatica razionale. For one, he is the punning Pope! What WAS G.’s implicatura? A complex one, since he uses the counterfactual: si angeli fuessent. In The Sellars/Yeatman rewrite, the meta-implicata is that you must have read Bede! Poor G. M had to fight with the Lonbards, and the sad thing is he lost! It was a good thing for Western civilization that G. could care less about Greek! I take inspiration on Shropshire’s argument for the immortality of the soul from G.’s Dialogo! La sua arte grammatica e  limitata. Dei filosofi  imita  poche figure retoriche come l'anafora, l'esempio e l'aneddoto moralizzante. Da CICERONE riprende nozioni del PORTICO. Insegna su colle Celio. Attraversa il ponte Elio vede Michele che, in cima alla mole, rinfodera la sua spada, nterpretata come un segno del fine dell'epidemia. Una pietra con impronte dei piedi lasciate. A G. sembra indegno non e l’obbedire alle regole della grammatica non la retorica di Donato che teorizza e prescribe contro la LIBERTA dell’espresione, il capriccio. Ructat corde bonum sine lege Donati verbum. La parola buona erompe dal cuore senza le leggi di Donato. Disdicevole assogettare ll’oracolo a Donato. L’esegeta di Giobbe non trascura le norme grammaticali. G. sa scegliere etture di un vesetto, indica i tropi di paragone e  metonimia, il valore della congiunzione di coordinarzione, l’etimologia di una parola. Non esclude dall sua esegesi il metodo di spegazione grammaticale. Mostra una conosenza ostentata della grammatica si preoccupa di far comprendere che il suo NON-VOLERE non e un NON-Sapere. A pigeon dictates his chants. He saw the angel land on ponte sant’angelo and gives the stone to the Campidoglio. He jokes on the anglii being potentially angels, should they were Roman. I limite dei arti liberali. GRICEVS: Gregori, prima lex: noli mihi “grammaticam” obtrudere. Littera enim tantum signum est vocis significativae; scribere res est prorsus in-philosophica. GREGORIVS: At cum angeli loquuntur, ipsa grammatica alas accipit: ratio conversandi et implicatura artis grammaticae angelorum. Si angeli fuissent… ecce, contrafactuale pium. GRICEVS: Pius quidem, sed implicat etiam hoc: “oportet te Bedam legisse,” aliter ne ad limen quidem philologiae admittaris. Et tu, pontifex lusorius, iocas de angelis et Anglis quasi essent cognati. GREGORIVS: Ego autem dico: Ructat corde bonum sine lege Donati verbum. Verbum bonum ex corde prorumpit sine praeceptis Donati; et si columba cantus mihi dictat, angelus iam in ponte Sancti Angeli emendationem fecit. Gregorio (590). Epistola. Roma.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gregory – Ossia: Grice e Gregory: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale clandestina. Note su Cattolicesimo e storicismo. Il Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice. Tullio Gregory (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale clandestina. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning is a deliberately austere, normative account of how hearers recover what speakers mean by assuming a cooperative rationality and then calculating implicatures from what is said plus shared expectations of relevance, sufficiency, sincerity, and perspicuity; on this view, the “hidden” in communication is not mystical but methodical, because it is anchored in publicly criticizable inferences about intentions. Gregory’s historical work, by contrast, is preoccupied not with a calculus of everyday implicature but with the way philosophical meaning gets carried, disguised, and stabilized through traditions, vocabularies, and regimes of writing, especially in contexts where heterodoxy must travel under cover (his recurring interest in “clandestine philosophy,” libertinism, and the policing of terminology). So if Grice worries that something “too clandestine” ceases to communicate at all (a best-kept-secret is no message), Gregory is drawn to precisely those cultural situations in which meaning persists through controlled disclosure, coded lexicons, and strategic indirection; what Grice treats as a rational coordination problem between interlocutors, Gregory treats as a historically situated economy of expression in which what can be said, and how it can be heard, is shaped by institutions, censorship, confessional conflict, and the afterlives of concepts. In short: Grice models implicit meaning as inferential and rule-governed within an idealized cooperative exchange, whereas Gregory foregrounds the genealogy and social conditions of concealment and transmission that make certain “implicatures” intelligible (or necessary) in the first place. Grice: “I reflected on where the criterion lies for a division of signification. Like G., I conclude that it’s best to deal with a REALM as being ‘central’ signification – the other non-central. But a very clandestine implicature would be a misnomer – since the most covert you get the least likely you are bound to ‘communicate’ anything! Cf. the best kept secret. implicatura clandestina. Fellow of the British Academy. I like G.; being a Roman, he studied Roman philosophy in one of the most interesting epochs: the thirties! Then he explored what he calls the ‘lessico filosofico,’ which Austin detested – “Why do we need the philosopheer’s ‘volition’ when we have ‘would’??” Si laurea a Roma sotto Nardi. Insegna a Roma. Anima mundi” “Platonismo” Scetticismo ed empirismo” “L'idea di natura”, “La filosofia della natura  “L’atomismo”, “Aristotelismo” “Il genio maligno”; “Il demonio maligno”; “Mundana sapiential”; “Theophrastus redivivus”; “Erudizione e ateismo” “Il libertinismo”; “La filosofia clandestina” L’Etica della critica libertina” (Forme di conoscenza” “Lo spazio come geografia del sacro” Della sobria ebbrezza”; “La terminologia filosofica” Speculum natural” Principe di questo mondo”; “Il diavolo” Della modernità, Pisa, Torre); “Vie della modernità” Il problema di Dio, cur. Savio e G., Roma, Universale di Roma, Centro Romano Studi presso l’Università degli Studi di Roma nell’A.A. NARDI, Storia della filosofia. Il naturalismo del Rinascimento, a cura di G., Roma,  Universitarie, NARDI, La crisi del Rinascimento e il dubbio cartesiano, cur. G.,  Roma, La Goliardica, NARDI, Il problema di Dio nella filosofia medioevale, Sull’attribuzione a Conches di un rimaneggiamento della Philosophia mundi, L’anima mundi nella filosofia, Giornale critico della filosofia italiana, NARDI, Le meditazioni di Cartesio, La Goliardica; L’idea della natura implicatura clandestina, clandestino – cognate with celare and occolto -- terminologia filosofica, libertinismo, filosofia clandestine, il libertino, implicatura. Grice: “Merton College, Philosophy Library — 24 February 1953. Trust the Philosophy Library to import the oddest matter. Today it was a copy of Rassegna di filosofia—if one translated the title of this organ too literally one would end up with something like revue, or even vaudeville, which feels indecently appropriate given the way some of these “isms” pirouette on the page. In it I found a piece by Tullio Gregory, apparently his first published foray, on cattolicesimo e storicismo. Storicismo: the Italian way, perhaps, of staying alive after German Historismus without catching pneumonia—an ism that has never done much for me, and I rather hope Gregory won’t persuade me that it must, by some stern necessity, do more. He seems to think Catholicism is, as it were by definition, “historical”: once you hang your faith on a death in time (and a very particular death, on a very particular hill), you cannot then pretend to float above history; you are committed, willy-nilly, to dates and chronicles. But the temptation he flirts with is the old cyclical one—Vico’s ricorsi with a later, darker echo in Nietzsche (and, if one likes, Empedocles muttering about returns)—as if one might expect the Crucifixion to repeat itself indefinitely, as a kind of metaphysical rerun. I can’t see why one should want it to; once is quite enough, even for the devout. Besides, being Church of England, I cannot help thinking that some of our most solemn moments are at once deeply historical and oddly unhistorical: when the King is crowned and the Holy Ghost is invoked, the ceremony is pinned to a date, yet what is invoked is supposed to be older than dates altogether. How old is the Holy Ghost, anyway? Older than storicismo, at least—and, I suspect, much less impressed by it.” Grice: Gregory, rifletto spesso sul confine tra ciò che è centrale e ciò che è periferico nella significazione filosofica. La tua ricerca sulle implicature clandestine mi incuriosisce: quanto pensi che il non detto, il celato, possa arricchire veramente la comunicazione? Gregory: Caro Grice, a mio avviso il valore dell’implicatura clandestina sta proprio nel gioco tra luce e ombra della parola: ciò che resta occulto invita all’interpretazione, stimola il pensiero critico, e crea una tensione tra il vero e il possibile. L’essenza filosofica, spesso, è tutta nell’oscillazione tra ciò che si mostra e ciò che si cela. Grice: È interessante! Da buon romano, hai indagato epoche e lessici che, direbbe Austin, sono “troppo filosofici”. Ma non credi che la terminologia filosofica rischi di diventare anch’essa una forma di implicatura clandestina, accessibile solo a pochi iniziati? Gregory: Hai colto un punto delicato, Grice. La filosofia, quando si chiude nel suo lessico, rischia la clandestinità della parola stessa. Tuttavia, credo che spetti a noi filosofi aprire quei segreti, far emergere dal celato una nuova chiarezza—proprio come la sobria ebbrezza del pensiero che trasforma l’occulto in occasione di dialogo autentico. Gregory, Tullio (1952). Cattolicesimo e storicismo. La polemica sulla nuova teologia. Rassegna di filosofia.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grimaldi – Ossia: Grice e Grimaldi: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale anti-peripatetica.  Costantino Grimaldi (Cava de’tirreni, Salerno, Campania): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale anti-peripatetica. Grice’s account of reason-governed conversational meaning is micro-pragmatic and reconstructive: it explains how a hearer, assuming a cooperative, rational speaker, infers what is meant (including implicatures) from what is said plus shared norms of relevance, sufficiency, sincerity, and manner, with intention-recognition doing the essential work. Costantino Grimaldi’s “reason” operates in a different register: as a Neapolitan anti-peripatetic and anti-curialist in the Investiganti orbit, he is concerned with how discourse, authority, and belief are stabilized or undermined in intellectual and civic life, and in his writings on “the three magics” he even treats persuasion, marvel, and “natural” vs “artificial” effects as domains where one must discriminate appearances from causes. Put in Gricean terms, Grimaldi is less a theorist of implicature in the narrow, calculable sense than a theorist of the conditions under which interpretation is trustworthy at all—how audiences distinguish natural signs from contrivance, credible testimony from clerical or rhetorical manufacture, and legitimate inference from the seductions of wonder. The comparison is thus: Grice models conversational rationality as a rule-governed inferential practice that generates speaker-meaning beyond sentence-meaning; Grimaldi treats rational uptake as culturally and institutionally vulnerable, requiring “cautela” in interpretation because communicative effects can be produced by natural, artificial, or (as he says) diabolical means—so that what Grice analyses as cooperative inference, Grimaldi frames as an epistemic-moral discipline of discriminating genuine reasons from engineered appearances. Grice: “Like G., I would often play magical tricks – and he criticized others for playing the bad – ‘Bosanquet is in a position to deliver rabbits but Bosanquet doesn’t!’ When confronted with his highly idealistic account of ‘communication’, I would retort to TWO types of magic – the one on the carpet and the one that moves you from one place to the other. He felt that the philosopher should not restrict himself to boring Unmagical transitions! magia. I have spoken of ‘magic’ – “two kinds of magic’ – actually, for G. there are THREE: ‘black magic,’ ‘artificial magic,’ and my favourite, ‘natural magic’! There is something to be said about what Italians, in connection with Grimaldi, call ‘anti-curialismo,’ as opposed to the more general, and more revolutionary, ‘anti-clericalismo.’ My father being a non-conformist, would love Grimaldi on both counts!” Dei Investiganti. Discussioni filosofiche, Dissertazione sulle tre magie, naturale, artificiale e diabolica. magia naturale, magica naturale, magica artificiale, magica diabolica, implicatura peripatetica. Grice: Grimaldi, cominciamo con una premessa cooperativa: io faccio magie, ma solo quelle che non rovinano il tappeto. E poi mi accusano: “Bosanquet può tirar fuori conigli, ma non lo fa!”—una implicatura crudele contro i filosofi pigri. Grimaldi: Caro Grice, io replico con la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale anti-peripatetica: se Aristotele filosofava camminando, io filosofeggio da fermo… così nessuno può dire che “mi sono portato avanti” senza prove. Grice: Ottimo: immobilità come argomento. Quanto alle magie, io ne distinguevo due—quella sul tappeto e quella che ti trasporta altrove—ma tu, da buon campano, mi fai il rilancio: tre magie, diabolica, artificiale e la mia preferita, naturale. (Che è l’unica che funziona anche senza bacchetta: basta una buona implicatura.) Grimaldi: E aggiungiamo il tocco locale: gli italiani, con me, parlano di anti-curialismo più che di anti-clericalismo. Implicatura finale: non è che odiamo la Chiesa in generale… è che non sopportiamo la burocrazia. E tuo padre nonconformista—mi sa—avrebbe applaudito senza nemmeno alzarsi dalla sedia. Ha come maestro per le belle lettere e l'oratoria Taurini. Spinto dallo zio, sacerdote secolare, a frequentare le Scuole pie di largo dello Spirito Santo, vi strinse amicizia con il padre Tommaso d’AQUINO, dal quale apprese la filosofia aristotelica. Dopo l'anno di logica, al termine del quale sostenne alcune pubbliche conclusioni, proseguì gli studi non di metafisica, come avrebbe voluto, bensì, per volere paterno, di legge, sotto Radesca e Lellis. Lesse poi, per proprio conto, Tesauro, Piccolomini e, per i casi di coscienza, la summa di Diana e l'opera di Bonacina. Otenne la laurea.  Prese quindi a frequentare il foro, senza tralasciare, tuttavia, lo studio delle belle lettere sotto la guida del leccese Giordano che lo avviò alla lettura dei moderni: Capua, Cornelio, Boyle, Gassendi, e Cartesio. Non trascura i classici, CICERONE e Quintiliano sopra tutti, studia il francese, i rudimenti della geometria su Euclide e la medicina sotto la guida di Donzelli. Di lì a poco prese a frequentare il circolo di Valletta e strinse amicizia con diversi personaggi illustri: Billio, Anastasio, Lucina, Grazini, Greco, Monforte, Cristofaro, Capasso, Cirillo, Egizio, Vitagliano, Danio, Stocchetti.  È di questi anni l'idea, cara all'ambiente vallettiano, di una storia universale della filosofia, che il G. concepì in contrapposizione a Benedictis. Questi, sotto lo pseudonimo di Benedetto Aletino, aveva dato alle stampe a filosofica, Tivoli; Badaloni, Introduzione a VICO, Milano; Boscherini Giancotti, Nota sulla diffusione della filosofia di Spinoza in Italia, Giorn. critico della filosofia italiana; Ajello, Il pre-illuminismo giuridico, Napoli; Comparato, Ragione e fede nelle discussioni istoriche, teologiche e filosofiche di G., Saggi e ricerche, Napoli; Giovanni, "De nostri temporis studiorum ratione" nella cultura napoletana, in Corsano et al., Omaggio a VICO, Napoli; Giovanni, Il ceto intellettuale a Napoli e la restaurazione del Regno, Napoli; Venturi, Settecento riformatore. Da Muratori a Beccaria, Torino; Comparato, Valletta e le sue opere. Grice: “St John’s, Oxford — 3 November 1951. I have been reading Grimaldi’s premessa to De nostri temporis studiorum ratione, and it strikes me (perhaps uncharitably) that he is playing rather fast and loose with ratione. But then so was Cicero, and Cicero had the advantage of making misuses sound like virtues. For Cicero, ratio can feel less like “reason” than like a ration: the allotted portion, the measured share—something one queues for and then guards. We have had rations long enough after the war for the joke to survive the decade, and I confess the word still twitches with that domestic stinginess: not the kingdom of reason, but the ration-book of it. Another irritation is Grimaldi’s studiorum. He writes as if “studies” were what the prosperous naturally do; whereas everyone knows that at Oxford only the poor study, and the rest merely learn, or (more often) are said to be learning. Naples is different: there studium is a public fact, a noisy civic activity, not a private embarrassment. Still, if Grimaldi were offering a ratio for the lack of studies, that would at least be recognisably modern, and perhaps even—dreadful word—funner, as Strawson would put it, when he wants to sound as if he has been listening to America without actually conceding anything to it.” Grice: Mi incuriosisce molto la tua formazione, Grimaldi. Hai frequentato maestri illustri e discipline diverse, dalle belle lettere alla filosofia aristotelica, senza trascurare il diritto e persino la medicina. Come ti ha influenzato questo percorso nel concepire la filosofia? Grimaldi: Caro Grice, credo che la varietà degli studi sia stata la mia fortuna. Ho trovato nella contaminazione tra le discipline una ricchezza: la logica di Tommaso d’Aquino, la profondità di Cicerone e Quintiliano, e la modernità di Cartesio e Gassendi mi hanno insegnato a guardare la filosofia come un terreno vivo, sempre aperto al confronto. Grice: Questa apertura al dialogo e all’amicizia tra pensatori mi pare centrale anche nel tuo ambiente napoletano, dove il progetto di una storia universale della filosofia prendeva forma. Secondo te, qual è il valore di una storia universale rispetto alle visioni più ristrette? Grimaldi: Una storia universale ci permette di cogliere le radici comuni e le differenze che arricchiscono il pensiero umano. Non basta limitarsi a un solo autore o corrente: come dicevano i miei amici del circolo di Valletta, la filosofia è un mosaico di idee, e ogni tessera contribuisce alla bellezza dell’intero. È l’arte di mettere in relazione passato e presente, per capire meglio il futuro. Grimaldi, Costantino (1708). Premessa ad De nostri temporius studiorum ratione.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grimaldi – Ossia: Grice e Grimaldi: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’inter-azione G. Francesc’Antonio, Marchese Grimaldi dei signori di Messimeri (Seminara, Reggio Calabria, Calabria): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’inter-azione. Grice’s reason-governed conversational meaning is a micro-theory of how rational agents get from what is said to what is meant by relying on publicly shareable norms of cooperation (relevance, quantity, quality, manner) plus the hearer’s capacity to reconstruct intentions, so that implicatures are explainable as defeasible inferences licensed by conversational rationality; Grimaldi, by contrast, is not trying to model meaning as an inferential product of maxims and intention-recognition but to read “inter-azione” as the natural condition of human life and to embed talk, signs, and social conduct within a moral-psychological and juridico-political picture (formed by Roman philosophy, testamentary law, and an Ancien Régime defense of hierarchy grounded in natural inequality as he argues in works like De successionibus legitimis in urbe Neapolitana, 1766, and later in his Riflessioni/Riflessioni sopra l’ineguaglianza, 1779–1780); where Grice treats rationality as a normative constraint on conversational moves that enables stable, revisable meanings even in minimal dyads, Grimaldi treats interaction as the arena in which “brute” impulses are civilized (or fail to be) and in which social order is justified and reproduced, so that what Grice calls implicature would, in a Grimaldian register, look less like a calculable, cancellable inference and more like a symptom of social positioning, education, and authority—conversation as a vehicle of reason, yes, but reason understood as an instrument of forming (and ranking) persons within a historically given civic order rather than as a formal-pragmatic engine that generates speaker-meaning. Grice: “With G., I consider what I call a conversational dyad: Romolo and Remo. Romolo kills Remo. Some say because the idea of a Reman empire did not sound THAT good! compassione, Romolo bruto. G. for some reason did some deep research on cynicism – a wonderful etymology, too!” Si laurea a Napoli sotto Genovesi. Comincia a interessarsi alle vicende culturali e politiche della Repubblica di Genova: volle anch'egli essere iscritto fra i patrizi di Genova, esprimendo la convinzione che l'aristocrazia genovese avrebbe dovuto riprendere la funzione, svolta nei secoli precedenti, di classe dirigente della Repubblica. Studia il diritto testamentario romano. Fu pertanto fautore del “fedecommesso” istituzione risalente a Roma antica e prediletta dalla classe aristocratica.  Maestro venerabile della loggia massonica di Genova. Partendo dalla filosofia romana, cerca di analizzare l’interazione umana. Al di fuori della società l'uomo, in balia dei "sentimenti fisici", diventerebbe “un vero bruto” – “como Romolo” --. Tali riflessioni saranno approfondite nel "Saggio sull'ineguaglianza umana”. Sostenne che, in natura, gli uomini non sono uguali e che le differenze, sia fisiche che morali, ha origini soprattutto ambientali, per es., il clima, la diffusione delle malattie. La inter-azione  non e uno stato di corruzione, ma lo stato naturale dell'uomo. La struttura gerarchica dell'Ancien Régime è giustificata dall'ineguaglianza degli uomini. L’educazione non sarebbe riuscita ad appianare tale disuguaglianza. Scrive gli Annali del Regno di Napoli. Fa una Descrizione de' tremuoti accaduti nella Calabria. Altre saggi: De successionibus legitimis in urbe Neapolitana systema. Pars prima in qua ius Graecum Neapolitanum vetus, et ius omne Romanum a 12 tabulis ad Iustinianum vsque absolutissime expenditurm Napoli: Simoniana; compassione, la compassione, Romolo bruto, implicatura ed inter-azione. De successionibus legitimis in urbe Neapolitana (1766) is a mid-18th-century learned legal treatise produced in Bourbon Naples (Kingdom of Naples) during the Enlightenment reform milieu, whereas what is usually meant by the “Napoli rivoluzione” is the revolutionary crisis of 1799 that produced the Parthenopean (Neapolitan) Republic under French pressure and then collapsed under Bourbon restoration and repression. In dates: Grimaldi’s book is 1766; the Parthenopean Republic is typically dated 21 January 1799 to 13 June 1799 (sometimes proclaimed a few days later depending on the source), with the counter-revolutionary recovery of Naples in June 1799 and severe reprisals afterward. So the relation is mainly genealogical/background: the 1766 work belongs to the legal-intellectual culture out of which later Neapolitan reformist and “Jacobin” elites emerged, but it is not a document of the 1799 revolution itself. Grice: “St John’s, Oxford — 9 February 1962. Quinton is after me again to join his seminar in “political philosophy,” as if the phrase were not already a confession of foreignness. We do not, in Oxford, take political philosophy quite seriously; we treat it as a kind of after-dinner rhetoric, a thing one did in the seventeenth century and then wisely abandoned when the nation discovered that Oliver Cromwell is what happens when a man mistakes Providence for a programme. Italians, of course, are another breed: they can turn a constitution into a conversation and a conversation into a constitution, and then congratulate themselves on having found the “Italian road.” Quinton, however, is neither Italian nor a road-builder; he is a reader—by which I mean, in the worst sense, a man who will read at you. This afternoon he sat me down and, in that steady monotone of his (a tone that makes even rebellion sound like a minutes-of-meeting), recited passages from a Neapolitan Marchese—Grimaldi dei signori di Messimeri—on De successionibus legitimis, as though the fate of Europe hung on testamentary niceties in Bourbon Naples. From there he wandered, without changing pace, through Cromwell, the madness of King George, and the Paris uprising, and concluded—rather pleased with himself—that such things were taken seriously only by the Neapolitans, “if briefly.” It is an odd ambition: to press me into political philosophy by way of dynastic inheritance, regicide, and French street-theatre, and to do it all with the air of a man reading railway regulations. Still, I could not help thinking (and this is perhaps my own vice) that even Quinton’s dreariness carries an implicature: that the English prefer their politics as settled background noise, while the Italians insist on hearing, in every utterance about power, the possibility of another act—sometimes comic, sometimes bloody—before the curtain falls.” Grice: Grimaldi, ogni volta che penso a Romolo e Remo mi viene in mente che la conversazione, come la storia, può finire… con un colpo di scena! Ma dimmi, tu che hai scavato nel cinismo, credi che la compassione possa davvero salvarci dall’essere bruti? Grimaldi: Caro Grice, se Romolo avesse avuto un po’ più di compassione forse oggi avremmo la Repubblica dei Gemelli! Ma sai, la mia loggia massonica di Genova preferisce l’interazione vivace e un certo gusto per le differenze, che tra patrizi fa bene alla salute. Grice: Ah, l’inter-azione! In fondo, la filosofia romana insegna che fuori dalla società si rischia davvero di diventare bruti – come Romolo, appunto. Però tra una successione testamentaria e un tremuoto in Calabria, tu hai trovato il modo di rendere anche la disuguaglianza… quasi simpatica! Grimaldi: Grice, se la compassione fosse contagiosa come le malattie che descrivo nei miei saggi, avremmo tutti una loggia più allegra. Ma tu, con le tue implicature, riesci sempre a far riflettere: forse la vera aristocrazia sta nel sapere conversare… e nel fidarsi che, almeno tra noi, nessuno finisca come Remo! Grimaldi, G. Francesc’Antonio (1766). De successionibus legitimis in urbe Neapolitana, Napoli.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gruppi – Ossia: Grice e Gruppi: la ragione conversazionale e la via italiana al socialismo.  Luciano Gruppi (Torino, Piemonte): la ragione conversazionale e la via italiana al socialismo. Gruppi and Grice both treat meaning as something that is made in practice rather than bestowed by an abstract code, but they locate the governing rationality at different levels: Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how speakers, assumed to be rational and cooperative, generate what they mean beyond what they say by relying on shared norms of talk (the cooperative principle and maxims) and on hearers’ ability to reconstruct intentions; Gruppi, by contrast, tends to read “ordinary language” less as a micro-theory of intention and inference than as a cultural-political phenomenon, a site where leadership and consensus are won, so that the rationality of discourse is inseparable from hegemony, organization, and the “Italian road” to socialism (in the Gramscian-Togliattian line he studied and edited), with “ordinary language” functioning not just as a diagnostic of everyday usage but as a medium through which a bloc builds authority and educates its cadres; where Grice’s conversational reason is primarily a normative-pragmatic model that makes misunderstanding, irony, and implicature calculable from the standpoint of an ideally reasonable interlocutor, Gruppi’s “conversational reason” is closer to a historically situated rationality of persuasion and alignment, interested in how forms of speaking become socially dominant and politically effective rather than in how a single utterance yields a determinate implicature under conversational norms. Grice: “Italians, like G., use ‘lingua’, tongue – but ‘linguaggio’ turns on the abusive. I at Oxford would NOT use ‘tongue’! G. explores what he calls the ‘egemonia della filosofia del linguaggio ordinario.’ What he means of course is ‘lingua ordinaria’ – ordinary language, as I call it. Ordinary language has bcome a keyword, not to say a cliche. Not so much because, as I wished, Austin’s influence, but RYLE’s promotion of it to attract anglo-phone students to Oxford. It was also very relaxing to tutors, since they did not have to READ – just venture on the incorrigibility with which their native intuitions endowed him. La via italiana al socialismo, egemonia della filosofia della lingua ordinaria. G. is an Italian philosopher; at Oxford, someone who writes only on politics is not considered usually one! In retrospect, I can imagine that it may have been torture for my pupils to have to endure my tutorials on ordinary language philosophy, when none of them ‘parled’ it!”. Il concetto di egemonia in Gramsci, Gramsci è senza alcun dubbio quello che, tra i teorici del marxismo, ha maggiormente insistito sul concetto di egemonia; e lo ha fatto in modo particolare richiamandosi a Lenin. Anzi, direi che, se vogliamo vedere il punto di contatto più costante, più scavato, di Gramsci con Lenin, questo mi pare essere il concetto di egemonia. L'egemonia è il punto di approccio di Gramsci con Lenin.  Un breve estratto da quest’ultimo articolo, ancora oggi attualissimo, di Torsi e Giannini, che mi sento di condividere in pieno :  “Due propensioni, quella dello studio teorico e della formazione, quanto mai necessarie ed attuali oggi, in questa fase caratterizzata sia dalla povertà teorica che segna di sé una parte significativa del movimento comunista che dalla grave sottovalutazione del valore della formazione politico-teorica ( la scuola quadri) che si manifesta anche in Rifondazione comunista.  G., dunque, non solo nel ricordo: ma per il lavoro futuro, come è destino dei grandi. la via italiana al socialismo, egemonia della filosofia del linguaggio ordinario. From Grice’s Diary (St John’s, 1955). St John’s, Oxford — 16 May 1955. The Common Room continues to produce the oddest fare. Today it was Luciano Gruppi’s Il Partito Comunista (1955)—a recent history of the Italian Party, and not, I suppose, meant as light reading between sherry and committees. The cover is so leaden that it almost succeeded in repelling the eye; it took a deliberate effort of curiosity to pick the thing up. Still, once opened, it does that Italian trick of making politics sound like opera: entrances, exits, factions, betrayals—everything sung and nothing spoken plainly. Gruppi, at any rate, is commendably fond of dates—1920, he writes, as if chronology were itself an argument. It made me think, perversely, of Austin: his great tour de force is precisely his refusal to be pinned down as a political creature at all. A lack of “commitment” can, in Oxford, be the most sustained sort of commitment available—especially in an uncosy man. Ryle is worse in that respect: not so much uncommitted as committed to making commitment look like bad taste. The language itself is part of the seduction. Italians insist on lingua—tongue—where we would rather say language, and they keep linguaggio for the moment when speech turns theatrical, or worse, ideological. (At Oxford one speaks of “tongue” only at five o’clock.) Gruppi’s idiom is so insistently italianate—stilo italianato, as he would have it—that, after a few pages, I catch myself feeling like some diavolo incarnato who has wandered into the wrong libretto. It also hauled up an old memory: arriving in Oxford in 1931, fresh enough to be recruitable, and promptly approached—Town rather than Gown—by someone with a view to enrolling me in the Communist Party. They failed; but not, I should add, for want of rhetoric. Oxford does rhetoric as easily as breathing, even when it pretends to be doing logic. My own resistance was less noble than temperamental: I could not take to the habit of believing on command. Besides, at Oxford (Town, if not always Gown) the “common” in communism is more likely to attach itself to the common green—where the old boys gather to watch a tolerable match of country cricket—than to any programme of historical necessity. And it is only mildly comic that the founder of it all, good old Marx, is laid to rest in the city of William Blake’s “satanic mills”: revolution embalmed by soot. Enough. Back to my draft on “Metaphysics,” which Pears—insistently, as if metaphysics were a public health measure—has got me to deliver for the BBC Third Programme tomorrow evening. I ought, I suppose, to be grateful: it is not every day one is asked to make the unsayable sound merely awkward. Grice: Caro Gruppi, mi sono sempre chiesto se la via italiana al socialismo passasse per la lingua o per il linguaggio. Da noi a Oxford il “tongue” si usa solo per il tè delle cinque! Gruppi: Paul, tu con la tua filosofia del linguaggio ordinario mi hai quasi convertito, ma ti confesso che tra egemonia gramsciana e scuola quadri, a Torino preferiamo discutere davanti a un piatto di agnolotti, piuttosto che davanti a una tazza di tè. Grice: A Oxford, invece, la filosofia sembra più una gara a chi trova l’implicatura nascosta sotto il tovagliolo. Ma ammetto che il tuo modo di mescolare politica e lingua è più saporito del mio tutorial sulla “ordinary language”. Gruppi: Caro Paul, la via italiana al socialismo ha bisogno di meno chiacchiere e più sostanza. Però, se vogliamo davvero cambiare, forse dovremmo fondare una nuova scuola: quella dei filosofi buongustai, dove egemonia e implicatura si discutono solo dopo il dolce! Gruppi, Luciano (1955). Il Partito Comunista.

 

Catalogue Raisonné of J. L. Speranza’s Publications – H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Gu

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Guarini – Ossia: Grice e Guarini  (Modena)  Guarino Guarini  (Modena). Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats conversation as a cooperative, inference-driven practice in which speakers design contributions to fit an accepted purpose of the talk-exchange, and hearers recover what is meant (often beyond what is said) by assuming rational constraints such as relevance, sufficiency of information, truthfulness, and clarity; Guarino Guarini, though working in architecture, mathematics, and theological-philosophical treatise rather than analytic pragmatics, offers a suggestive analogue in another medium, because his buildings and writings (formed in Rome in the Borrominian milieu, then developed in Turin as ducal engineer-mathematician) are intentionally “designed artifacts” whose intelligibility depends on rule-governed uptake by a competent audience: the dome, the interlocking geometries, and the calibrated use of light function like architectural counterparts of implicature, where what is explicitly presented (visible structure) is deliberately less than the total meaning available, and the spectator is rationally invited to infer hidden order (structural logic, geometric generation, perspectival manipulation) from the assumption that the designer is not building randomly but in accordance with a purposive system; this is reinforced by Guarini’s own emphasis on mathematics as a universal discipline for artists and scholars (e.g., Euclides adauctus et methodicus, 1671, and later the posthumous Architettura civile, whose first printed edition is 1737 despite frequent secondary shorthand to a 1670s “work”), so that, as with Grice, the “extra” content is not mystical but recoverable by method: Grice’s hearer calculates implicature from maxims, while Guarini’s viewer/reader reconstructs the intended architectural meaning from proportion, geometry, and the learned conventions of Baroque sacred space; the comparison, then, is that Grice gives a micro-theory of how rational agents get from utterance to intended meaning under conversational norms, whereas Guarini exemplifies a macro-pragmatics of design in which built form and treatise alike rely on shared rational competencies to guide interpretation, with the difference that Grice’s norms are negotiated in real-time dialogue while Guarini’s “conversation” is staged across time between designer and beholder, with geometry and light doing the work that maxims and implicatures do in speech. Si laurea a Roma. Fu soprattutto l'opera di quest'ultimo a giocare un ruolo decisivo nella formazione artistica del giovane Guarino, che seppur non dichiarando esplicitamente i propri debiti nei suoi confronti ebbe comunque modo di osservarne i cantieri di San Carlino alle Quattro Fontane, dell'oratorio dei Filippini e di Sant'Ivo alla Sapienza. Nel febbraio 1645 Guarini si recò a Venezia, ospite del convento di San Nicola dei Tolentini, dove terminò con successo gli studi teologici diventando suddiacono. Tornato a Modena nel 1647, il 17 gennaio dell'anno successivo fu ordinato sacerdote e revisore dei conti della casa teatina, ufficio che a sua volta gli valse la sovrintendenza dei lavori alla nuova Casa dell'Ordine e per la chiesa di San Vincenzo, iniziata nel 1617 da Paolo Reggiani e ormai prossima al completamento e per le quali è stato ipotizzato un suo intervento progettuale. In quest'opera Guarini collaborò con l'architetto teatino Bernardo Castagnini, che gli insegnò i rudimenti della costruzione, e con Bartolomeo Avanzini, architetto ufficiale di Francesco I d'Este ed ebbe modo di completare la sua formazione con l'esperienza diretta del cantiere. I lavori si protrassero tuttavia per quattro lunghi anni, a causa delle precarie condizioni di stabilità del progetto di Avanzini ma soprattutto per via di alcuni presunti ammanchi di denaro, che alcuni ritennero ascrivibili alla condotta fraudolenta del Guarini (cassiere dell'Ordine dal 1650) e del fratello Eugenio.  Per tale periodo la documentazione è molto scarsa e alla storiografia più recente appare infondata l'ipotesi di viaggi a Praga, Lisbona e Spagna. Fu sicuramente prima a Parma, poi a Guastalla, dove la sua presenza è attestata nel 1655, e per un breve di ritorno a Modena, dove forse scrisse per gli studenti del seminario la tragicommedia La Pietà trionfante. Nel biennio 1660-62, ma probabilmente fin dal 1657, si recò Guarino Guarini. Grice: Caro Guarini, ho sempre pensato che costruire una chiesa sia come architettare una buona conversazione: serve una solida base e qualche colonna di benevolenza, vero? Guarini: Ah, Paul, se solo avessi potuto mettere le mie cupole sopra le tue implicature! Ogni volta che progettavo, mi chiedevo se il tetto avrebbe retto le battute degli studenti. Grice: E se la struttura vacilla? Basta una revisione dei conti, come hai fatto tu! Ma attenzione ai presunti ammanchi: la filosofia e l’architettura hanno un unico punto debole, il cassiere distratto. Guarini: Paul, ti assicuro che tra avanzi e pilastri, la vera arte è far quadrare le idee. E se qualche cappella sparisce, basta scrivere una tragicommedia: così almeno ridiamo tutti, anche i revisori! Guarini, Guarino (1676). Architettura civile. Torino: Stamperia Reale.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Guiciardini – Ossia: Gice e Guicciardini: la ragione della conversazione e la ragion di stato – la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dele cose dello stato.  Francesco Guicciardini (Firenze, Toscana): la ragione della conversazione e la ragion di stato – la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dele cose dello stato. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats talk as a cooperative, normatively structured enterprise in which hearers are entitled to infer speaker-meaning from the assumption that speakers aim to be appropriately truthful, informative, relevant, and perspicuous, so that implicature is not a rhetorical flourish but a rationally recoverable surplus of meaning generated by publicly shareable expectations; Guicciardini, by contrast, is a theorist-practitioner of the political world in which the governing expectations are those of ragion di stato, prudence, and the particulare, and his “cold” Florentine logic (especially visible in the Considerazioni on Machiavelli’s Discorsi, where he attacks universalizing historical recipes and stresses the intractable variability of circumstances) amounts to a realism about inference under strategic pressure: what matters is less the ideal of cooperation than the art of predicting, steering, and sometimes exploiting what others will conclude from what is said, unsaid, threatened, or performed; set side by side, Grice gives you the micro-ethics of everyday intelligibility (how an utterance can rationally commit you and how a listener may legitimately go beyond literal content), while Guicciardini gives you the macro-pragmatics of statecraft (how counsel, decrees, terror, and reputation manage populations “desiderosi di cose nuove,” and how political actors must calculate not only what their words mean but what they will be taken to mean by audiences who may be fearful, factional, or opportunistic), so that Guicciardini’s world reads like an arena of systematically particularized implicatures—highly context-bound inferences where prudence requires anticipating how a move will be interpreted by rivals and subjects—whereas Grice’s project is to show that even outside politics, and precisely because conversation is ordinarily presumed rational and cooperative, the passage from saying to meaning can be reconstructed as a disciplined calculus rather than as mere guesswork. Grice: “Political philosophy, of the G. type, is never practiced by philosophers – not even at Oxford. Witness the contents of my colleague Warnock’s super-editor of Waldron’s volume on Political Philosophy for Oxford:!” dai popoli,desiderosi di cose nuove,e tenerli obbedienti col terrore. Però, come è maraviglioso questo duello tra due ingegni grandissimi che s'incontrano sul campo del l'antica sapienza governativa:sono due gigantiuguali di forze, muniti delle stesse armi,che si contendono una gloriosa vittoria nel più difficile conflitto. G., come uomo di stato, supera d'assai Machiavelli, e bastano a dimostrarlole osservazioni che di mano in mano contrappone ai discorsi del celebre segretario sulla prima deca di LIVIO , nelle quali, colla fredda acutezza della sua mente calma, colpisce sempre il lato debole dell'avversario e ne distrugge, colla sua logica implacabile, i ragionamenti poetici ed entusiastici, mettendone a nudo ora la fallacia, ora la indeterminata incertezza. Nella storia dei filosofi italiani non si trova una figura che puo reggergli a paro. È da lamentare che il tempo sia mancato a G. per continuare il suo esame intorno ai discorsi del Machiavelli sulla prima deca di LIVIO , perchè ci avrebbe rivelato maggior mente la potenza della vigorosa argomentazione del suo genio pratico di fronte a quello idealista del se gretario fiorentino. Implicatura, il concetto di stato, l’implicatura particolarizzata. Grice: Guicciardini, ammetto che la ragione dello Stato mi è sempre sembrata una faccenda da equilibristi. Tra popoli desiderosi di cose nuove e governanti che li tengono buoni col terrore, a Oxford ci limitiamo a discutere e nessuno osa praticare! Guicciardini: Paul, ti dirò, tra Machiavelli e me c’è stato un duello degno di una saga epica. Lui preferiva colpire con entusiasmo e poesia, io con logica fredda e una buona dose di pazienza fiorentina. La ragione di Stato non è per cuori teneri! Grice: Ah, Francesco, mi piace come smascheri le fallacie e lasci l’avversario in mutande! Però, ammettiamolo, sarebbe stato divertente vedere Machiavelli alle prese con le tue osservazioni, magari in una partita a scacchi dove ogni mossa è un implicatura nascosta! Guicciardini: Paul, la storia è piena di giganti e di duelli, ma alla fine la vittoria va spesso a chi sa ridere dei propri nemici e sa farsi guidare dalla ragione senza perdere la voglia di un buon bicchiere di vino. Sul campo politico, l’umorismo è la miglior difesa! Guicciardini, Francesco (1508). Memorie di famiglia. Firenze.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Guzzo – Ossia: Grice e Guzzo: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale -- pagine di filosofi – idealisti ed empiristi.  Augusto Guzzo (Napoli, Campania): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale -- pagine di filosofi – idealisti ed empiristi. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats conversation as a cooperative, rational practice in which what a speaker means is fixed not just by what is said but by the hearer’s warranted inferences from the assumption that the speaker is following shared maxims (quality, quantity, relation, manner), so that implicature becomes a principled bridge from utterance to intended meaning; what is striking in the Guzzo material you cite is that, although Guzzo is not doing analytic pragmatics, his intellectual self-presentation (Naples-trained under Sebastiano Maturi; later teaching and building a “school” in Turin; founding and directing journals such as L’Erma and later Filosofia; organizing “Pagine di filosofi per i giovani italiani” and mapping lineages like “Gli hegeliani d’Italia” and the Croce–Gentile confrontation) suggests a parallel conviction that reason is not merely private ratiocination but something cultivated, transmitted, and normed within public discourse and pedagogy—conversation in the broad Italian sense of conversazione as a civil practice of forming minds; Grice’s quip about Italians having the Biblioteca Italiana di Filosofia and “teaching philosophy in the licei” frames an institutional contrast that mirrors their philosophical contrast: Grice builds a micro-jurisprudence of talk where rationality shows itself in fine-grained accountability to conversational norms, while Guzzo, the systematic idealist-spiritualist, treats rationality as a higher-order formative power manifested in canon-making, editorial curation, and the staging of philosophical voices for a community (students, readers, a national culture), so that where Grice explains how implicatures are calculable from a presumption of cooperation, Guzzo exemplifies a more programmatic “conversational reason” in which the very selection and arrangement of philosophers (idealists and empiricists; Vico, Galluppi, Bruno; Boethius and Porphyry) functions like a macro-implicature: the anthology or journal does not just say “here are texts,” it implies a normative map of what counts as philosophically educative, continuous, and civilizationally central; if Grice’s key unit is the conversational move and its inferential upshot, Guzzo’s key unit is the pedagogical-conversational institution (liceo, school, review, series) that makes certain inferential pathways habitual—so the comparison is that Grice theorizes the logic of inference from utterance to meaning under rational constraints, whereas Guzzo, by editing, teaching, and systematizing traditions, enacts a cultural technology for making reason itself conversationally available, with “pagine di filosofi” operating as a deliberately designed environment in which young readers learn what to infer, what to treat as central, and how to continue the conversation. Grice: “The Italians have the BIBLIOTECA ITALIANA DI FILOSOFIA – Oxonians don’t!” – G. published “Idealisti ed empiristi’ for the Biblioteca! Having been accepted as a scholar at Corpus, it did not come as a surprise to Grice that Philosophy was only introduced after the completion of the third term. Whereas in Italy, “they teach philosophy in the licei! pagine di filosofi. I admire G.; he founded ‘Filosofia,’ a philosophy magazine and led a school at Torino, but he selected ‘pagine di filosofi per i giovani italiani.’ He wrote interesting essays on “Gli hegeliani d’Italia” and Croce versus Gentile – a very systematic philosopher. The logo of his revista shows Oedipus and thes sphynx – that says it all! I like G.. For one, he spent a tutorial or two on the very same ‘tratarello’ I did: Boezio’s latinizing Porphyry!”. Si laurea a Napoli sotto Maturi. Insegna a Torino. Esponente dell'idealismo, si avvicinò all'attualismo di Gentile. È considerato quindi uno dei più grandi esponenti dello spiritualismo. Saggi: “Spinoza”; “Kant”; “Verità e realtà”; “Apologia dell'idealismo”; “Idealisti ed empiristi”; “Aquino”, “Bruno”; “Storia della filosofia”, “L'uomo” (Brescia, Morcelliana); “L'io e la ragione”; “Moralità”; “Scienza”; “Arte”; “Religione; “Filosofia” – P. Quarta, “G. e la sua scuola, Urbino, Argalìa; Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Treccani.L’ISAGOGE DI PORFIRIO E I COMMENTI DI BOEZIO TORINO L’ERMA, ESTRATTO dagl’Annali dell’ Istituto Superiore di Magistero del Piemonte. TORINO - L’Isagoge di Porfirio e i Commenti di Boezio. Il Commento di Porfirio alle Categorie di Aristotele. Pagine di filosofi per i giovani italiani; il Vico di Guzzo, il Galluppi di G., il Bruno di G., Gentile, Gli hegeliani d’Italia, Vera, Spaventa, Jaja, Maturi, Gentile, dirito, stato, Biblioteca Italiana di Filosofia, spunti e contrattacchi, Della causa, del principio e del uno, dell’analisi e la sintesi, autobiografia e scienza nuova per giovani italiani dei licei classici, il manual di filosofia di Fiorentino, tra idealismo ed empirismo. Grice: Caro Guzzo, mi hanno sempre stupito le tue “pagine di filosofi per i giovani italiani”. Ma dimmi, come hai scelto tra idealisti ed empiristi? Hai tirato una moneta, o hai lasciato che ti guidasse la Sphinx della tua rivista? Guzzo: Grice, la Sphinx mi ha sussurrato all’orecchio! In realtà, ogni filosofo merita una pagina, ma non tutti accettano di stare in compagnia. Tra Kant, Spinoza e Bruno, a volte ci vuole un po’ di attualismo gentiliano per mettere ordine. Grice: E allora, dove metti Boezio? Lo metti tra gli idealisti o lo lasci latinizzare Porfirio da solo, mentre gli empiristi si divertono a misurare la grandezza della Biblioteca Italiana di Filosofia? Guzzo: Boezio, poverino, finisce sempre tra le note a margine. A Napoli lo avrebbe accolto Maturi, a Torino lo avrebbero fatto insegnare! E nel mio manuale per giovani italiani dei licei classici, c’è spazio per tutti: anche per quelli che, come Oedipus, risolvono enigmi senza mai perdere il sorriso. Guzzo, Augusto (1915). Il criticismo.

 

Catalogue Raisonné of J. L. Speranza’s Publications – H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: H

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Herpitt – Ossia: Grice ed Herpitt: l’implicature del deutero esperanto – filosofia italiana – Luigi Sepranza (Roma).  Herpitt: l’implicature del deutero esperanto – filosofia italiana – (Roma). Abstract. Grice: “There are not many philosophers, as we have at Oxford, in Italy, whose surname beings with an H. Keywords: Grice, Herpitt. Filosofo italiano. Elementi di grammatica del Niuspik, lingua internazionale, P. I., Torino, Teca. J. Herpitt.  Grice: Mi permetta una curiosità, caro Herpitt: il suo cognome sembra quasi un gioco linguistico, visto che in Italia è davvero raro trovare cognomi che iniziano per “H”. Devo confessare che mi è venuto il sospetto di un pseudonimo! Herpitt: Non posso darle torto, professore! In effetti “Herpitt” è un nome scelto proprio per evocare una distanza dalla tradizione italiana: un modo per mostrare quanto la lingua possa essere terreno di sperimentazione, soprattutto quando si tratta di costruire nuovi idiomi come il Niuspik. Grice: A proposito di Niuspik, ho letto gli “Elementi di grammatica del Niuspik” pubblicati a Torino. Mi ha colpito il tentativo di creare una lingua internazionale davvero neutra, quasi un esperanto rivisitato. Che ruolo attribuisce alla filosofia nel progettare una lingua artificiale? Herpitt: Per me la filosofia è come la linfa che scorre sotto ogni lingua, naturale o costruita. Il Niuspik nasce proprio dall’idea che la comunicazione può superare i confini nazionali e culturali, se guidata da principi di chiarezza e inclusività. In fondo, ogni lingua è una implicatura: un modo per dire più di quanto appare. E per nascondere, a volte, la vera identità dietro un nome.