Posts
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.
