GRICE E VARRONE: LA RAGIONE CONVERSAZIONALE E L'IMPLICATURA CONVERSAZIONALE DELLA SEMIOTICA FILOSOFICA -- FILOSOFIA ITALIANA -- LUIGI SPERANZA, PEL GRUPPO DI GIOCO DI H. P. GRICE, THE SWIMMING-POOL LIBRARY

 

Grice e Varrone: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale della semiotica filosofica – filosofia italiana – Luigi Speranza, pel Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice, The Swimming-Pool Library (Rieti). Filosofo italiano. Grice: “I count Varrone as the first language philosopher. He woke up one day, and realised he was speaking ‘lingua latina,’ and dedicated 36 volumes to it!” --. Grice: “’Lingua latina’ has a nice Roman ring to it. In modern Italian, the ‘t’ has become an ‘z,’ as in “Lazio,  -- the calcio team from Latium – or a ‘d’ as in ‘ladino.’” Grice: “I know his Loeb edition by heart!” – Grice: “The Greeks never studied their lingo as Varro studied his! Of this Austin always reminded me: ‘We should be like Varro, analysing our tongue as a ‘fluid’ semiotic system!’”. Academic, Roman polymath, author of essays on language, agriculture, history and  philosophy, as well as satires, and principal conversationalist in CICERONE’s "Academica.” Questore della repubblica romana. Gens: Terentia. Questura in Illyricum. Pro-pretura in Spagna. Tu ci hai fatto luce su ogni epoca della patria, sulle fasi della sua cronologia, sulle norme dei suoi rituali, sulle sue cariche sacerdotali, sugli istituti civili e militari, sulla dislocazione dei suoi quartieri e vari punti, su nomi, generi, su doveri e cause dei nostri affari, sia divini che umani -- CICERONE, Academica Posteriora. Detto reatino, attributo che lo distingue da “Varrone Atacino,” vissuto nello stesso periodo. Nato da una famiglia di nobili origini, ha rilevanti proprietà terriere in Sabina, dove e educato con disciplina e severità dai familiari, integrate dall'acquisto di lussuose ville a Baia e fondi terrieri a Tusculum e Cassino. A Roma compe studi avanzati presso i migliori maestri del tempo. Lucio Elio Stilone PRECONINO (vedi) lo fa appassionare anche agli studi etimologici ed oratoria. Studia la lingua italiana con Lucio ACCIO (vedi), a cui dedica “De antiquitate litterarum.” Come molti romani, compe un grand tour in Grecia, dove ascolta filosofi accademici come Filone di Larissa e Antioco di Ascalona, da cui deduce una posizione filosofica di tipo eclettico. A differenza di molti altri filosofi del tempo, non si ritira dalla vita politica ma, anzi, vi prende parte attivamente accostandosi agl’optimates, forse anche influenzato dall'estrazione sociale. Dopo aver, infatti, percorso le prime tappe del cursus honorum – trium-viro capitale, questore, e legato -- e vicino a POMPEO, per il quale ricopre incarichi di grande importanza. Legato e pro-questore, combatte nella guerra contro i pirati difendendo la zona navale tra la Sicilia e Delo. Allo scoppio della guerra civile e propretore. In una guerra che vede i romani contro i romani, tenta un’incerta difesa del suo territorio che si concluse in una resa che GIULIO (vedi) CESARE (vedi), nei Commentarii de bello civili, define poco gloriosa. Dopo la disfatta dei pompeiani, si avvicina, comunque, a GIULIO CESARE, che apprezza il reatino soprattutto sul piano culturale, affidandogli la costituzione di una biblioteca. Dopo l’assassinio di GIULIO CESARE, anzi, e inserito nelle liste di proscrizione sia di MAR’ANTONIO che di OTTAVIANO -- interessati più alle sue ricchezze che a punire i congiuranti -- da cui si salva grazie all'intervento di Fufio CALENO (vedi) per poi avvicinarsi a OTTAVIANO a cui dedica il “De vita populi Romani” volto alla divinizzazione della figura di GIULIO CESARE. Ha una produzione di oltre 620 libri, suddivisi in circa settanta opere. Saggi: “De re rustica” (Varrone) e “De lingua Latina”. La sua vasta produzione è suddivisa da Girolamo in un catalogo. Le sue opere di sono verosimilmente 74, suddivise in 620 volumi, sebbene stesso egli rifere di aver scritto 490 saggi.  I suoi saggi  possono essere suddivise in vari gruppi, dalle opere di erudizione, filologia (filosofia del linguaggio, o semantica) e storia a quelle giuridiche e burocratiche, dalle opere di filosofia (filosofia del linguaggio, semantica, semiotica) e agricoltura alle opere di poesia, di linguistica e letteratura; di retorica e diritto, con ben 15 libri De iure civili; di filosofia. Di questa enorme produzione è pervenuta quasi integra solo un'opera, il “De re rustica”. Del “De lingua Latina” sono pervenuti solo 6 libri su 25. Probabilmente, causa del quasi completo naufragio della immane varroniana è che, avendo compulsato tanta parte della cultura romana precedente, divenne la fonte indispensabile per i filosofi successivi, perdendosi, per così dire, per assimilazione. Della sua attività filologica fa testimonianza il cosiddetto canone varroniano, elaborato a partire da due opere, le “Quaestiones Plautinae” e il “De comoediis Plautinis”, in cui riparte il corpus plautino, che include 130 fabulae. Di queste, 21 vengono definite autentiche, 19 di origine incerta (dette "pseudo-varroniane”);  le restanti, spurie.  Si occupa soprattutto di antiquaria, con i 41 libri di “Antiquitates”, il suo capolavoro, divisi in 25 di “res humanae” e 16 di “res divinae”, fonte precipua di AGOSTINO nel “De civitate Dei.” Proprio d’AGOSTINO si evidenzia l'attenzione di V. sulla religione civile, con una compiuta disamina su culti e tradizioni, pur con acute critiche alla teologia mitica dei poeti in nome di una theologia naturalis. A questo gruppo appartiene anche l'opera, non pervenuta, “De bibliothecis”, presumibilmente legata alle incombenze come bibliotecario affidategli da GIULIO CESARE. Nell'ambito filosofico, notevoli dovevano essere “I logistorici” -- dal greco “discorsi di storia” -- in 76 libri, composta in forma di dialogo in prosa, di argomento morale e antiquario, in cui ogni libro prende il nome di un personaggio storico e un tema di cui il personaggio costituiva un modello, come il “Mario”, “de fortuna” o il “Cato”, “de liberis educandis”. Questi dialoghi storico-filosofici sono tra i modelli espositivi del “Lelio”; “de amicitia” e del “Catone maggiore”, “de senectute” di CICERONE. Al suo interesse filosofico e divulgativo, probabilmente scritte lungo tutto il corso della sua parabola culturale, riconducevano le “Saturae Menippeae”, che prendeno come modello Menippo, esponente della filosofia cinica -- da cui il nome. Le “Saturae Menippeae” si componevano di 150 libri, in prosa e in versi, di cui però ci rimangono circa 600 frammenti e novanta titoli, di argomento soprattutto filosofico, ma anche di critica dei costumi, morale, con rimpianti sui tempi antichi in contrasto con la corruzione del presente. Ciascuna satira reca un titolo, desunto da proverbi (“Cave canem” -- con allusione alla mordacità dei filosofi cinici) o dalla mitologia (“Eumenide” contro la tesi stoico-cinica per cui gl’uomini sono folli, “Trikàranos”, il mostro a tre teste, con un mordace riferimento al primo triumvirate, ed era caratterizzata da lessico popolaresco, polimetria e, come in Menippo, uno stile tragi-comico. Valerio Massimo, Aulo Gellio. Ce ne parla lui stesso in “De lingua latina”. Cicerone, Academica posteriora, Appiano, Guerre civili. Varrone, De re rustica. Svetonio, Cesare, Appiano, Ausonio, Commemoratio professorum Burdigalensium, Chronicon, ann. Aulo Gellio, Gellio, I cui frammenti sono editi nell’edizione di Cardauns: “Antiquitates rerum divinarum” Cfr. Zucchelli, V. logistoricus. Studio letterario e prosopografico, Parma, Cfr., ad esempio, il Fr. XIX Riese: "Da ragazzo, avevo solo una tunica modesta e una toga, calzature senza fascette, un cavallo non sellato; bagno giornaliero, niente e, davvero di rado, una tinozza".  Horsfall, V., in Letteratura Latina (Milano, Mondadori). Cfr. Salanitro, Le Menippee di V.: contributi esegetici e linguistici (Roma, Ateneo). Sulla satira varroniana, cfr. Alfonsi, Le Menippee di V., in "ANRW". Atti del Congresso di studi varroniani. Rieti, CENTRO DI STUDI VARRONIANI. Cenderelli, “Varroniana” Istituti e terminologia giuridica nelle opere di V. (Milano, Giuffrè); Dahlmann, “V. e la teoria della lingua” (Napoli, Loffredo), Corte, “V., il terzo gran lume romano” (Genova, Istituto universitario di Magistero); “De vita populi Romani” Introduzione e commento, Pisa; Riposati, “V. De vita populi Romani”. Fonti, esegesi, edizione critica dei frammenti (Milano, Vita e pensiero), Riposati, “V.: l'uomo e il filosofo” (Roma Istituto di studi romani); Traglia, Introduzione a V., “Opere” (Torino, POMBA), Zucchelli, “V. logistoricus: prosopo-grafica”, Parma, Istituto di lingua e letteratura latina, Satira menippea Biblioteche romane Antiquitates rerum humanarum et divinarum Treccani Enciclopedie, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. Enciclopedia Italiana, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana, Dizionario di storia, Istituto dell'Enciclopedia Italiana. V. “De lingua Latina libri qui supersunt: cum fragmentis ejusdem” Biponti, ex typographia societatis. Biblioteca degli scrittori latini con traduzione e note: “V. quae supersunt opera” Venetiis, excudit Antonelli, “Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta”, Gino Funaioli, Lipsiae, in aedibus Teubneri. “M. Terenti Varronis saturarum menippearum reliquiae” -- cur. Riese, Lipsiae, in aedibus Teubneri. In passing from Rome to Rieti we enter a different world. One rightly speaks of the Greco-Roman era as a period of unified civilisation around the Mediterranean area, but the respective roles of the Italotes and the Romns are dissimilar, if complementary. Without the other, the contribution of either would have been less significant and less productive. The Romans have for long enjoyed contact with Hellenic and Etrurian material culture and intellectual ideas, and further through the Greek settlements in the south of Italy: Sicily and Magna Grecia.The Romans learned to write from the western Greeks. But the Hellenic world fell progressively within the control of Rome, by now the mistress of the whole of Italia The expansion of Roman rule becomes complete, and the Roman Empire, as it now is, achieves a relatively permanent position, which, with fairly small-scale changes in Britain and on the northern and eastern frontiers, remains free of serious wars for years. The second half of this period earns Gibbon's encomium, 'If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race is most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of DOMIZIANO to the accession of COMMODO.' In taking over the Hellenic world, the Romans bring within their sway whatever they find on the way.The intellectual background of Etruria and the Hellenes and the polical unity and freedom of intercourse provided by Roman stability are the conditions in which the Roman Empire shines. To the Romans, Europe and much of the entire modern world owe the origins of their intellectual, moral, political and religious civilisation. From their earliest contacts, the Romans cheerfully acknowledge the superior pompousness of the Greeks – by which they included the Etrurians. Linguistically, this is reflected in the different languages of the eastern and the western provinces. In the western half of the Roman empire, where no contact had been made with a recognised civilization, Latin  -- which subsists in Italian – becomes he language of administration, business, law, learning, and social advancement. Ultimately, Latin displaces the former languages of most of the western provinces, and becomes in the course of linguistic evolution the modern Romance, or Neo-Latin, languages of contemporary Europe, notably French (Italian is no romance; Italian IS Latin!). In the east, however, already largely under Hellenic administration since the Hellenistic period, Greek retains the position it has already reached. Roman officials often complain about having to learn and use Greek in the course of their duties, and Hellenic philosophy was quite respected for its eccentricity. Ultimately this linguistic division is politically recognized in the splitting of the Roman Empire into the Western and the Eastern Empires, with the new eastern capital at COSTANTINO’s Constantinople enduring as the head of the Byzantine dominions through much trial and tribulation up to the beginning of the western Renaissance. The accepted view of the relation between Roman rule and Hellenic civilization is probably well represented in Vergil's summary of Rome's place and duty: let others (i.e. the Greeks) excel if they will in the arts, while Rome keeps the peace of the world. During the years in which Rome rules the western civilised world, there must have been contacts between speakers of Latin and speakers of other languages at all levels and in all places. Interpreters must have been in great demand, and the teaching and learning of Latin -- and, in the eastern provinces, of Greek --  must have been a concern for all manner of persons both in private households and in organized schools. Translations are numerous. Greek literature is systematically translated into Latin. So much did the prestige of Greek writing prevail, that Latin poetry abandons its native metres and was composed during the classical period and after in metres learned from the Greek poets. This adaptation to Latin of Greek metres find its culmination in the magnificent hexameters of VIRGILIO and the perfected elegiacs of OVIDIO. It is surprising that we know so little of the details of all this linguistic activity, and that so little writing on the various aspects of linguistic contacts is either preserved for us or known to have existed. The Romans are aware of multi-lingualism as an achievement. AULO GELLIO tells of the remarkable king Mithridates of Ponto who was able to converse with any of his subjects, who fell into more than twenty different speech communities. In linguistic science, the Roman experience is no exception to the general condition of their relations with Greek intellectual work. Roman linguistics is largely the application of Greek philosophy, Greek controversies, and Greek categories to the Latin language. The relatively similar basic structures of the two languages, together with the unity of civilization achieved in the Greco-Roman world, facilitate this meta-linguistic transfer. The introduction of linguistic studies into Rome is credited to one of those picturesque anecdotes that lighten the historian's narrative. CRATES, a philosopher of the Porch and grammarian, comes to Rome on a political delegation, and while sightseeing, falls on an open drain and is detained in bed with a broken leg. CRATES passes the time while recovering in giving lectures on literary themes to an appreciative audience. It is probable that Crates as a philosopher of the PORCH introduces mainly that doctrine in his teaching. But Greek philosophers and Greek philosophy enter the Roman world increasingly in this period, and by the time of V., both Alexandrian and Stoic opinions on language are known and discussed. V. is the first serious Latin philosopher on linguistic questions of whom we have any records. V. is a polymath, ranging in his interests through agriculture, senatorial procedure, and Roman antiquities. The number of his writings is celebrated by his contemporaries, and his "De lingua Latina", wherein he expounds his linguistic opinions, comprise XXV volumes, of which books V and VI and some fragments of the others survive. One major feature of V.’s linguistic philosophy is his lengthy exposition and formalization of the opposing views in the analogy-anomaly controversy, and a good deal of his description and analysis of Latin appears in his treatment of this problem. He is, in fact, one of the main sources for its details, and it has been claimed that he misrepresents it as a matter of permanent academic attack and counter-attack, rather than as the more probable co-existence of opposite tendencies or attitudes. V.'s style is criticised as unattractive, but on linguistic questions he is probably the most original of all the Latin philosophers. V. is much influenced by the philosophy of the Porch, including that of his own teacher STILONE. But V. is equally familiar with Alexandrian doctrine, and a fragment purporting to preserve his definition of grammar, 'the systematic knowledge of the usage of the majority of poets, historians, and orators' looks very much like a direct copy of Thrax's definition. On the other hand, V. appears to use his Greek predecessors and contemporaries rather than merely apply them with the minimum of change to Latin. His statements and conclusions are supported by argument and exposition, and by the independent investigation of earlier stages of the Latin language. V. is much admired and quoted by later philosophers, though in the main stream of linguistic theory his treatment of Latin grammar does not bring to bear the influence on the successors to antiquity that more derivative scholars such as PRISCIANO does, who set themselves to describe Latin within the framework already fixed for Greek by Thrax's Techne and the syntactic works of Apollonius. In the evaluation of V.'s work on language we are hampered by the fact that only two of the XXV books of the “De lingua Latina” survive. We have his threefold division of linguistic studies, into etymology, morphology, and syntax, and the material to judge the first and second.V. envisages language developing from an original set of primal words, imposed on things so as to refer to them, and acting productively as the source of large numbers of other words through subsequent changes in letters, or in phonetic form -- the two modes of description comes to the same thing for him.. These changes take place in the course of years. An earlier forms, such as "duellum" for classical "bellum", V. cites as an instance. At the same time, a *meaning* may change, as, for example, the meaning of “hostis”, once 'stranger', but in V.'s time, 'enemy.' These etymologico-semantic statements are supported by scholarship. But a great deal of V.’s etymology suffers from the same weakness and lack of comprehension that characterizes Hellenic work in this field. "Anas", from "nare", to swim, “vitis,” from “vis;” “cilra, “care, from “cor iirere,” are sadly typical both of V.’s philosophy and of Latin etymological studies in general. A fundamental ignorance of linguistic history is seen in V.'s references to Hellenism. A similarity in a form bearing comparable meanings in Latin and Greek is obvious. Take the first personal pronoun: 'ego.' Some similarities are the produ.ct of historical loans at various periods once the two communities made indirect and then direct contact. Other similarities are the joint descendants of an earlier common Aryan forms whose existence may be inferred and whose shape may to some extent be reconstructed by the methods of comparative and historical linguistics. But of this, V., like the rest of antiquity, has no conception. All such bunch is jointly regarded by him as a direct loan from the conquered Greek, whose place in the immediate history of Latin is misrepresented and exaggerated as a result of the Romans’ consciousness of their cultural debt to Greece and mythological associations of Greek heroes -- and their enemies, like Aeneas! -- in the story of the founding of Rome. In his conception of vocabulary growing from alterations made to the forms of primal words, V. unites two separate considerations: historical etymology and the synchronic formation of derivations and inflexions. Certain canonical members of paradigmatically associated word series are said to be primal -- all the others resulting from “declinatio”, the formal process of change. A derivational prefix is given particular attention. One must regret V.’s failure to distinguish two linguistic dimensions, because, as with other linguistic philosophers in antiquity, V.’s synchronic descriptive observations are much more informative and perceptive than his attempts at historical etymology. As an example of an apparent awareness of the distinction, one may note V.’s statement that, within Latin, "equitiittis" and "eques" -- stem "equit-" – may be associated with and descriptively referred back to "equus". But that no further explanation on the same lines is possible for "equus". Within Latin, ‘equus’ is primal. Any explanation of its form and its meaning involves a dia-chronic research into an earlier stages of the Indo-European family and cognate forms in languages other than Latin. In the field of word form variations from a single root, both derivational and inflexional, V. rehearses the arguments for and against analogy and anomaly, citing Latin examples of regularity and of irregularity. Sensibly enough, V. concludes that both the principle of analogy and the principle of anomaly must be recognized and accepted in the word formations of a language and in the meanings associated with them. In discussing the limits of strict regularity in the formation of words V. notices the pragmatic nature of language, with its vocabulary more differentiated in culturally important areas than in others. Thus "equus" and "equa" have separate forms for the male and female animal, because the sex difference is important to the Romans. But "corvus" does not, because in them the difference is not important to Romans. Once this is true of "columba" -- formerly all designated by the feminine noun. But since "columbae" are domesticated, a separate, analogical, masculine form "columbUS" is ‘coined.’ V. further recognises the possibilities open to the individual, particularly in poetic diction, of variations or anomalies beyond those sanctioned by majority usage or 'ordinary language', a conception not remote from the Saussurean interpretation of langue and parole. One of V.'s most penetrating observations in this context is the distinction between derivational and inflexional formation, a distinction not commonly made in antiquity. One of the characteristic features of inflexions is their very great generality. Inflexional paradigms contain few omissions and are mostly the same for all speakers of a single dialect or of an acknowledged standard language. This part of morphology V. calls 'declinatio naturalis’, because, given a word and its inflexional class, we can infer its other forms. By contrast, synchronic derivations vary in use and acceptability from person to person and from one word root to another. From "ovis" and "sus" are formed "ovile" and "suile.” But "bovile" is *not* acceptable to V. from "bos" -- although rustic CATONE is said to have used the form as opposed to the more standard "bubile.” The facultative and less ordered state of this part of morphology, which gives a language much of its flexibility, is distinguished by V. in what he dubs ‘declinatio VOLUNTARIA.’ V. shows himself likewise original in his proposed morphological classification of Latin words. His use in this of the morphological categories shows how V. understands and makes use of Greek sources without deliberately copying their conclusions. V. recognises, as the Greeks do, case and tense as the primary distinguishing categories of inflected words, and sets up a quadripartite system of FOUR inflexionally contrasting classes. Those with case inflexion. Those with tense inflexion. Those with case and tense inflexion. Those with neither. Noun (including Adjective). Verbs. Participle. Adverb. These IV classes are further categorised as a forms which, respectively, names, makes a statement, joins (i.e. shared in the syntax of nouns and verbs), and supports (constructed with verbs as their subordinate members). In the passages dealing with these IV classes, the adverbial examples are all morphologically derived forms -- like "docte" and "lecte". V.’s definition would apply equally well to the un-derived and mono-morphemic adverbs of Latin -- like "mox" and "eras". But these are referred to elsewhere among the uninflected, invariable or 'barren,’ sterile, words. A full classification of the invariable words of Latin would require the distinction of syntactically defined sub-classes such as Thrax used for Greek and the later Latin grammarians took over for Latin. But, from his examples, it seems clear that what was of prime interest to V. is the range of grammatically different words that may be formed on a single common root -- e.g. "lego" (VERB – CLASS II) , "lector" – NOUN, CLASS I --, "legens" – PARTICIPLE, CLASS III -- and "lecte" – ADVERB – CLASS IV. In his treatment of the verbal category of tense, Varro displays his sympathy with the doctrine of the Porch, in which two semantic functions are distinguished within the forms of the tense paradigms, time reference and ‘aspect.’ In his analysis of the VI INDICATIVE indicative tenses, active and passive, the *aspectual* division, incomplete-complete, is the more fundamental for V., as each aspect regularly shares the same stem form, and, in the passive voice the *completive* aspect tenses consists of *two* expressions, though V. claims that, erroneously, most people only consider the time reference dimension. IS Active Time past present future Aspect incomplete DISCIBAM  I was DISCO I learn DISCAM I shall learning learn complete DIDICERAM I had DIDICI I have DIDICERII I shall learned learned have learned Passive incomplete AMTIBAR I was AMOR I am AMITBOR  I shall be loved loved loved complete AMTITUS  I had AMTITUS I have AMIITUS I shall ERAM been sum been ERA have been loved loved loved The Latin future perfect is in more common use than the corresponding Greek (Attic) future perfect. V. puts the Latin perfect tense forms DIDICI, etc., in the present *completive* place, corresponding to the place of the Greek perfect tense forms. In what we have or know of his writings, V. does not appear to have allowed for one of the major differences between the Greek and Latin tense paradigms -- viz. that, in the Latin perfect tense, there is a syncretism of a simple past meaning ('I did'), and a perfect meaning ('I have done') -- corresponding to the Greek aorist and perfect respectively. The Latin perfect tense forms belong in *both* completive and non-completive aspectual categories, a point clearly made later by PRISCIANO in his exposition of a similar analysis of the Latin verbal tenses. If the difference in use and meaning between the Greek and Latin perfect tense forms seems to escape V.'s attention, the more obvious contrast between the V-term case system of Greek and the *VI*-term system of Latin forces itself on him, as it does on anyone else who learned both languages. Latin formally distinguished an ABLATIVE CASE. 'By whom an action is performed' is the gloss given by V.. THE ABLATIVE CASE shares a number of the meanings and syntactic functions of both the Greek GENITIVE and DATIVE case forms. V. takes the NOMINATIVE form not as a casus but as as the canonical word forms, from which the oblique forms -- cases -- are developed. Like his Greek colleagues across the pond, V. contents himself with fixing on one stereo-typical meaning or relationship as definitive for each case. V., who was no Cicero – ‘he is a Varro’ implicates ‘he is a know-it-all’ in Roman -- mistranslates ‘aitiatike ptosis’ by ACCUSATIVUS rather than the more correct, CAUSATIVUS. V. is probably the most independent and original philosopher on linguistic topics among the Romans. After V. we can follow discussions of existing questions by several philosophers with no great claim on our attention. Among others, GIULIO CESARE – the well-known general assassinated by the senators -- is reported to have turned his mind to the analogy-anomaly debate while crossing the Alps on a campaign. Thereafter, the controversy gradually fades away. PRISCIANO uses ‘analogia’ to mean the regular inflexion of an inflected word, without mentioning ‘anomalia’. ‘Anomalia’ appears occasionally among the late grammarians.V.'s ideas on the classification of Latin words have been noticed. But the word class system that is established in the Latin tradition enshrines in the ‘saggi’ of PRISCIANO and the late Latin ‘philosophical’ grammarians – cf. CAMPANELLA, ‘Grammatica filosofica’ -- is much closer to. the one given in Thrax's Techne. The number of classes remains now at VIII, with one change. A class of words corresponding to the Greek definite article ‘ho,’ ‘he,’ ‘to,’ does not exist in  Latin. The definite article of Italian develops later from weakened forms of the demonstrative pronoun ‘ille’ (il) and ‘illa’ (la). The Greek *relative* pronoun is morphologically similar to the article and classed with it by Thrax and Apollonius. In Latin, the relative pronoun – ‘qui’, ‘quae’, and ‘quod’ -- is morphologically akin to the interrogative pronoun – ‘quis’, ‘quid’ -- and both are classed together either with the noun or the pronoun class. In place of the article, Latin grammarians recognise the ‘interjection’ as a separate ‘pars orationis’, instead of treating it as a subclass of adverbs as Thrax and Apollonius do. PRISCIAN regards the separate status of the interjection as common practice among Latin scholars. But the first philosopher who is known to have dealt with it in this way is REMMIO PALEMONE, a grammatical and literary scholar who defines the interjection as having no statable meaning but merely indicating – via natural meaning, as H. P. Grice would have it – emotion, as in Aelfric he he versus ha ha (Roman versus English laughter). PRISCIANO lays more stress on the syntactic independence of the interjection in sentence structure. QUINTILIANO, a Spaniard, not a Roma, is PALEMONE’s pupil. This Spaniard writes extensively on education, and in his “Institutio aratoria”, wherein he expounds his opinions, he dealt briefly with ‘GRAMMATICA’ – the first of the trivial arts -- , regarding it as a propaedeutic to the full and proper appreciation of literature in a liberal education, in terms very similar to those used by Thrax at the beginning of the Techne. In a matter of detail, QUINTILIANO discusses the analysis of the Latin case system, a topic always prominent in the minds of Latin scholars who knew Greek by default (Who didn’t have a Greek slave?). QUINTILIANO suggests isolating the instrumental use of the ABLATIVE -- "gladiii" -- as case VII, since, as he notes, this instrumental use of the ablative case has nothing in common semantically with the other meanings of the ablative. A separate ‘instrumental’ case forms is found (but a Spaniard wouldn’t know) in Sanskrit, and may be inferred for unitary Indo-european, though the Greeks and Romans knew nothing of this. It was and is common practice to name the cases by reference to one of their meanings – DATIVUS,  'giving', ABLATIVUS, 'taking away', etc. -- but their formal identity as members of a VI-term paradigm rests on their meaning, or more generally, their meanings, and their syntactic functions being associated with a morphologically distinct form in at least some of the members of the case inflected word classes. PRISCIAN and DONATO see this, and in view of the absence of any morphological feature distinguishing an alleged instrumental use of the ablative case forms from their other uses, PRISCIANO explicitly reproves of such an addition to the descriptive grammar of Latin as redundant – or “supervacuum,” as he said for ‘otiose.’ The work of V., QUINTILIANO, shows the process of absorption of Greek linguistic theory, controversies, and categories, in their application to the Latin language. But Latin linguistic scholarship is best known for the formalization of descriptive Latin grammar, to become the basis of all education in later antiquity and the traditional schooling of the modern world. The Latin grammar of the present day is the direct descendants of the compilations of the later Latin grammarians, as the most cursory examination of PRISCIANO’s “Institutiones grammaticae” will show. PRISCIANO’s grammar, comprising XVIII books and running to nearly a thousand pages may be taken as representative of their work. Quite a number of writers of Latin grammars, working in different parts of the Roman Empire, are known to us. Of them DONATO and PRISCIANO are the best known. Though they differ on several points of detail, on the whole these philosopohical grammarians set out and follow the same basic system of grammatical description. For the most part, Roman philosophical grammarians show little originality, doing their best to apply the terminology and categories of the Greek grammarians to the Latin language. The Greek technical terms are given fixed translations with the nearest available Latin word. ‘onoma’, ‘NOMEN’ ‘anto-nymia,’ ‘PRO-NOMEN’ ‘syn-desmos,’ ‘CON-IUCTIO’ etc. In this procedure they had been encouraged by DIDIMO,  a voluminous scholar, who states that every feature of Greek grammar IS TO BE found in Latin. DIDIMO follows the word class system of the PORCH, which included the article (absent in Latin) and the personal pronouns in one class, so that the absence of a word form corresponding to the Greek article does not upset him or his classification. Among the Latin philosophical grammarians, MACROBIO gives an account of the 'differences and likenesses' of the Greek and the Latin verb, but it amounted to little more than a parallel listing of the forms, without any penetrating investigation of the verbal systems of the Latin language – his own, or Greek. The succession of Latin philosophical grammarians through whom the accepted grammatical description of the language is brought to completion and handed on to the Middle Ages spanned the centuries until the foundation of Oxford. This period covers the pax Romana and the unitary Greco-Roman civilization of the Mediterranean that lasts during the first two centuries, the breaking of the imperial peace in the third century, and the final shattering of the western provinces, including Italy, by invasion from beyond the earlier frontiers of the empire. Historically these centuries witness two events of permanent significance in the life of the civilized world. In the first place, Christianity – or the coming of the Galileans -- which, from a secular standpoint, starts as the religion of a small deviant sect of Jewish zealots, spread and extended its influence through the length and breadth of the empire, until, in the fourth century, after surviving repeated persecutions and attempts at its suppression, it is recognized as the official religion of the state! (Except Giuliano). Its subsequent dominance of European thought (except Luther) and of all branches of learning for the next thousand years is now assured, and neither doctrinal schisms nor heresies, nor the lapse of an emperor into apostasy could seriously check or halt its progress. As Christianity gains the upper hand and attracts to itself men of learning, the scholarship of the period shows the struggle between the old declining pagan standards of classical antiquity and the rising generations of Christian apologists, philosophers, and historians, interpreting and adapting the heritage of the past in the light of their own conceptions and requirements. The second event is a less gradual one, the splitting of the Roman world into two halves, east and west. After a century of civil turmoil and barbarian pressure, Rome ceases under DIOCLEZIANO to be the administrative capital of the empire, and his later successor COSTANTINO transfers his government to a new city, built on the old Byzantium and named Constantino-polis (literally: ‘my (kind of) town’). By the end of the fourth century, the Roman empire is formally divided into an eastern and a western realm, each governed by its own emperor (who often did not speak to each other – and for whom there was no lingua franca to be found). This division roughly corresponds to the separation of the old Hellenized area conquered by Rome but remaining Greek in culture and language, and the provinces raised from barbarism by Roman influence and Roman letters. Constantinople, assailed from the west and from the east, continues for a thousand years as the head of the Eastern Byzantine Empire, until it falls to the Turks. During and after the break-up of the Western Empire, Rome endures as the capital city of the Roman Church, while Christianity in the east gradually evolved in other directions to become the Eastern Orthodox Church. Culturally one sees as the years pass on from the so-called 'Silver Age' a decline in liberal attitudes, a gradual exhaustion of older themes, and a loss of vigour in developing new ones. Save only in the rising Christian communities, scholarship is backward-looking, taking the form of erudition devoted to the acknowledged standards of the past. This is an era of commentaries, epitomes, and dictionaries. The Latin grammarians, whose oudook is similar to that of the Alexandrian Greek scholars, like them directed their attention to the language of classical literature, for the study of which grammar serves as the introduction and foundation. The changes taking place in the spoken and the non-literary written Latin around them arise VERY little interest – ‘the plebs use it!’ --; their works are liberally exemplified with texts, all drawn from the prose and verse writers of classical Latin and their ante-classical predecessors Plautus and Terence. How different accepted written Latin is becoming may be seen by comparing the grammar and style of GIROLAMO's fourth translation of the Bible (the Vulgate), wherein several grammatical features of the Romance languages are anticipated, with the Latin preserved and described by the grammarians, one of whom, DONATO, second only to PRISCIANO in reputation, was in fact GIROLAMO’s teacher – and learned from him that God could be allowed a solecism or two! The nature and the achievement of the Latin philosophical grammarians can best be appreciated through a consideration of the work of their greatest representative, PRISCIANO, who teaches Latin grammar in Constantino-polis. Though PRISCIANO draws much from his Latin predecessors, his aim, like theirs, is to transfer as far as he could the grammatical system of Thrax's Techne and of Apollonius's writings to Latin. PRISCIANO’s admiration for Greek linguistic scholarship and his dependence on Apollonius and his son ERODIANO, in particular, 'the greatest authorities on grammar', are made clear in his introductory paragraphs and throughout his grammar. PRISCIANO works systematically through his subject, the description of the language of classical Latin literature. Pronunciation and syllable structure are covered by a description of the “littera’, defined as the smallest part of articulate speech, of which the properties are “nomen”, the name of the letter, “figura”, its written shape, and “potestas,” its phonetic value. All this had already been set out for Greek, and the phonetic descriptions of the letters as pronounced segments and of the syllable structures carry little of linguistic interest except for their partial evidence of the pronunciation of the Latin language. From phonetics PRISCIANO passes to morphology, defining the “dictio” and the “oratio” in the same terms that Thrax uses, as the minimum unit of sentence structure and the expression of a complete thought, respectively. As with the rest of western antiquity, PRISCIANO’s grammatical model is word and paradigm, and he expressly denies any linguistic significance to a division, in what would now be called morphemic analysis, *below* the word. On one of his rare entries into this field, PRISCIANO misrepresents the morphemic composition of words containing the negative prefix “in-“ -- “indoctus” -- by identifying it with the preposition “in.” These two morphemes, “in-“, negative, and “in-”, the prefixal use of the preposition, are in contrast in “invisus”, which may negate or strengthen the stem that follows (two words with two meanings, not a polysemous expression). After a review of earlier theories of Greek linguists, PRISCIANO sets out the classical system of VIII word classes laid down by Thrax and Apollonius, with the omission of the article but the separate recognition of the interjection. Each class of words is defined, and described by reference to its relevant formal category and “accidentia,” whence the later accidence for the morphology of a language, and all are copiously illustrated with examples from classical texts. All this takes up XVI of the XVIII books, the last II being devoted to syntax. PRISCIANO addresses himself (OBVIOUSLY) to readers already knowing Greek, as Greek examples are widely used and comparisons with Greek are drawn at various points, and the last hundred pages are wholly taken up with the comparison of different constructions in the two languages. Though Constantinopolis was a Greek-speaking city in a Greek-speaking area, Latin is decreed the official language when the new city was founded as the capital of the Eastern Empire. Great numbers of speakers of Greek as a first language needed Latin teaching from then on. The VIII parts of speech, or word classes, in PRISCIANO’s grammar may be compared with those in Dionysius Thrax's Techne. Reference to extant definitions in Apollonius and PRISCIANO’s expressed reliance on him allow us to infer that PRISICIANO’s definitions are substantially those of Apollonius, as is his statement that each separate class is known by its semantic content. “Nomen,” including adjectives. The property of the noun is to indicate a substance and a quality, and it assigns a common or a particular quality to every body or thing. The property of the VERBUM is to indicate an action or a being acted on; it has tense and mood forms, but is not case inflected. The PARTICIPIUM is a class of words always derivationally referable to a VERBUM, sharing the categories of verbs and a NOMEN (tenses and cases) -- and therefore distinct from both. This definition is in line with the Greek treatment of these words. The property of the PRONOMEN is its substitutability for a proper nouns and its specifiability as to person -- first, second, or third. The limitation to proper nouns, at least as far as third person pronouns are concerned, contradicts the facts of Latin. Elsewhere, PRISCIANO repeats Apollonius's statement that a specific property of the PRONOMEN is to indicate substance *without* quality, as a way of interpreting the lack of lexical restriction on the NOMEN which may be referred to anaphorically by a PRONOMEN. The property of the ADVERBIUM is to be used in construction with a VERBUM, to which it is syntactically and semantically subordinate. The property of the PRAE-POSITIO is to be used as a separate word before case inflected words and in composition before both case-inflected and non-case-inflected words. PRISCIANO, like Thrax, identifies the first part of words like “PRO-consul” and “INTER-currere”, as PRAE-POSITIO. INTER-IECTIO is a class of words syntactically independent of a VERBUM, and indicating a feeling or a state of mind. The property of the CON-IUCTIO is to join syntactically two or more members of any other word class, indicating a relationship between them. In reviewing PRISCIANO' s work as a whole, one notices that in the context in which he is writing and in the form in which he casts his description of Latin, no definition of grammar itself is found necessary. Where other late Latin grammarians do define the term, they do no more than abbreviate the definition given at the beginning of Thrax's Techne. It is clear that the place of grammar, and of linguistic studies in general, in education is the same as is precisely and deliberately set out by Thrax and summarily repeated by QUINTILIANO. PRISCIANO's omission is an indication of the long continuity of the conditions and objectives taken for granted during these centuries. PRISCIANO organises the morphological description of the forms of nouns and verbs, and of the other inflected words, by setting up canonical or basic forms, in nouns the nominative singular and in verbs the first person singular present indicative active. From these he proceeds to the other forms by a series of letter changes, the letter being for him, as for the rest of western antiquity, both the minimal graphic unit and the minimal phonological unit. The steps involved in these changes bear no relation to morphemic analysis, and are of the type that finds no favour at all in recent descriptive linguistics, though under the influence of the generative grammarians somewhat similar process terminologies are being suggested. The accidents or categories in which PRISCIANO classes the formally different word shapes of the inflected or variable words include both derivational and inflexional sets, PRISCIANO following the practice of the Greeks in not distinguishing between them. V.’s important insight is totally disregarded! But PRISCIANO is clearly informed on the theory of the establishment of categories and of the use of semantic labels to identify them. Verbs are defined by reference to action or being acted on. But PRISCIANO points out that on a deeper consideration – SI QUIS ALTIUS CONSIDERET --  such a definition would require considerable qualification; and case names are taken, for the most part, from just one relatively frequent use among a number of uses applicable to the particular case named. This is probably more prudent, if less exciting, than the insistent search for a common or basic meaning uniting all the semantic functions associated with each single set of morphologically identified case forms. The status of the VI cases of Latin nouns is shown to rest, not on the actually different case forms of any one noun or one declension of nouns, but on semantic and syntactic functions systematically correlated with differences in morphological shape at some point in the declensional paradigms of the noun class as a whole. The many-one relations found in Latin between forms and uses and between uses and forms are properly allowed for in the analysis. In describing the morphology of the Latin verb, PRISCIANO adopts the system set out by Thrax for the Greek verb, distinguishing present, past, and future, with a fourfold semantic division of the past into imperfect, perfect, plain past – aorist -- and pluperfect, and recognizing the syncretism (as V. does not) of perfect and aorist meanings in the Latin perfect tense forms. Except for the recognition of the full grammatical status of the Latin perfect tense forms, PRISCIANO’s analysis, based on that given in the Techne, is manifestly inferior to the one set out by V. under the influence of THE PORCH. The distinction between incomplete and complete aspect, correlating with differences in stem form, on which V. lays great stress, is concealed, although PRISCIANO recognises the morphological difference between the two stem forms underlying the VI tenses. Strangely, PRISCIANO seems to have misunderstood the use and meaning of the Latin future perfect, calling it the ‘future subjunctive’, though the first person singular form by which he cited it – “scripsero” -- is precisely the form which differentiates its paradigm from the perfect subjunctive paradigm – “scripserim” -- and, indeed, from any subjunctive verb form, none of which show a first person termination in -im. This seems all the more surprising because the corresponding forms in Greek --  “tetypsomai” -- are correctly identified. Possibly his reason was that his Greek predecessors had excluded the future perfect from their schematization of the tenses, in that this tense was not much used in Greek, and was felt to be an atticism. A like dependence on the Greek categorial framework probably leads Priscian to recognize both a subjunctive mood (subordinating) and an OPTATIVE mood (independent, expressing a wish) in the Latin verb, although Latin -- unlike Greek -- nowhere distinguishes these two mood forms morphologically, as PRISCIAN in fact admits, thus confounding his earlier explicit recognition of the status of a formal grammatical category. Despite such apparent misrepresentations, due primarily to an excessive trust in a point for point applicability of Thrax's and Apollonius's systematization of Greek to the Latin language, Priscian's morphology is detailed, orderly, and in most places definitive. His treatment of syntax in the last two books is much less so, and a number of the organizing features that we find in modern grammars of Latin are lacking in his account. They are added by later scholars on to the foundation of Priscianic morphology. Confidence in PRISCIANO’s syntactic theory is hardly increased by reading his assertion that the word order, most common in Latin, nominative case noun or pronoun (subject) followed by verb is the NATURAL one, because the substance (“homo”) is PRIOR to the action it performs (“currit”). Such are the dangers of philosophising on an inadequate basis of empirical fact. In the syntactic description of Latin, PRISCIANO classifies verbs on the same lines as had been worked out for Greek by the Greek grammarians, into active (transitive), passive, and neutral (intransitive), with due notice of the deponent verbs, passive in morphological form but active or intransitive in meaning and syntax and without corresponding passive tenses. Transitive verbs are those colligating with an oblique case -- “laudo te”, “noceo tibi,” “ego miserantis” -- and the absence of concord between oblique case forms and finite verbs is noted. But the terms subject and object were not in use in PRISCIANO’s time as grammatical terms, though the use of “subiectum” to designate the logical subject of a proposition is common. PRISCIANO makes mention of the ablative absolute construction, though the actual name of this construction is a later invention. PRISCIANO gives an account and examples of exactly this use of the ablative case -- me vidente puerum cecidisti -- and -- Augusto imperiitiire Alexandria provincia facta est. Of the systematic analysis of Latin syntactic structures PRISCIANO has little to say. The relation of subordination is recognized as the primary syntactic function of the relative pronoun -- qui, quae, quod -- and of similar words used to downgrade or relate a. verb or a whole clause to another, main, verb or clause. The concept of subordination is employed in distinguishing nouns (and pronouns used in their place) and verbs from all other words, in that these latter were generally used only in syntactically subordinate relations to nouns or verbs, these two classes of word being able by themselves to constitute complete sentences of the favourite, productive, type in Latin. But in the subclassification of the Latin conjunctions, the primary grammatical distinction between subordinating and coordinating conjunctions is left unmentioned, the co-ordinating “TAMEN”, being classed with the sub-ordinating “QUAMQUAM” and “QUAMSI”. – cf. Grice on ‘if’ as subordinating. Once again it must be said that it is all too easy to exercise hindsight and to point out the errors and omissions of one's predecessors. It is both more fair and more profitable to realise the extent of PRISCIANO’s achievement in compiling his extensive, detailed, and comprehensive description of the Latin language of the classical authors, which is to serve as the basis of grammatical theory for centuries and as the foundation of Latin teaching up to the present day. Such additions and corrections, particularly in the field of syntax, as later generations need to make could lie incorporated in the frame of reference that Priscian employs and expounds. Any division of linguistics (or of any other science) into sharply differentiated periods is a misrepresentation of the gradual passage of discoveries, theories, and attitudes that characterizes the greater part of man's intellectual history. But it is reasonable to close an account of Roman linguistic scholarship with PRISCIANO. In his detailed -- if in places misguided -- fitting of Greek theory and analysis to the Latin language he represents the culmination of the expressed intentions of most Roman scholars once Greek linguistic work had come to their notice. And this was wholly consonant with the general Roman attitude in intellectual and artistic fields towards 'captive Greece' who 'made captive her uncivilized captor and taught rustic Latium the finer arts. PRISCIANO’s work is more than the end of an era. It is also the bridge between antiquity and the Middle Ages in linguistic scholarship. By far the most widely used grammar, PRISCIANO’s “Institutiones grammaticae” runs to no fewer than one thousand manuscripts, and forms the basis of mediaeval Latin grammar and the foundation of mediaeval linguistic philosophy – i modisti or philosophical grammarians. PRISCIANO’s grammar is the fruit of a long period of Greco-Roman unity. This unity had already been broken by the time he writes, and in the centuries following, the Latin west is to be shattered beyond recognition. In the confusion of these times, the philosophical grammarians, their studies and their teaching, have been identified as one of the main defences of the classical heritage in the darkness of the Dark Ages. ARENS, Sprachwissenschaft: der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, Freiburg. Bolgar, The classical heritage and its beneficiaries, Cambridge. J. Collart, V. grammairien latin, Paris. FEHLING, 'V. und die grammatische Lehre von der Analogie und der Flexion', Glotta, LERSCH, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten, Bonn, H. NETTLESHIP, The study of grammar among the Romans, Journal of philology, ROBINS, Ancient and mediaeval grammatical theory in Europe, London, JSANDYS, History of classical scholarship, Cambridge, STEINTHAL, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Romern, Berlin. GIBBON, The decline and fall of the Roman Empire (ed. BURY), London, VERGIL, Aeneid 6, Ssi-3: Tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacisque imponere morem, parcere subiectis et debellare superbos. Noctes Atticae GEHMAN, The interpreters of foreign languages among the ancients, Lancaster, Pa., FEHLING, FUNAIOLI, Grammaticorum Romanorum fragmenta, Leipzig. Ars grammatica scientia est eorum quae a poetis historicis oratoribusque dicuntur ex parte maiore. De lingua Latina CHARisrus, Ars grammaticae I (KEIL, Grammatici, Leipzig). On Varro's linguistic theory in relation to modern linguistics, cp. D. LANGENDOEN, 'A note on the linguistic "theory of V.', Foundations of language 2, SUETONIUS, Caesar, GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae  PRISCIANO, Institutio de nomine pronomine et verbo 38, Institutiones grammaticae PROBUS, Instituta artium (H. KEIL, Grammatici Latini), DIONYSIUS-THRAX, Techne BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca, Berlin, APOLLONIUS DYSCOLUS, Syntax As noun, PRISCIAN as pronoun,- PROBUS, Instituta (KEIL, Grammatici APOLLONIUS, De adverbio, BEKKER, Anecdota Graeca , CHARISIUS, Ars grammaticae KEIL, Grammatici -- Nihil docibile habent, significant tamen adfectum animi. QUINTILIAN, Institutio aratoria Their works are published in KEIL, Grammatici Latini, Leipzig, PRISCIAN De figuris numerorum  PRISCIAN De differentiis et societatibus Graeci Latinique verbi, KEIL, Grammatici 5, Leipzig, Artis grammaticae maximi auctores', dedicatory preface Dictio est pars minima orationis constructae; Oratio est ordinatio dictionum congrua, sententiam perfectam demonstrans. Proprium est nominis substantiam et qualitatem significare; Nomen est pars orationis, quae unicuique subiectorum corporum seu rerum communem vel propriam qualitatem distribuit. Proprium est verbi actionem sive passionem significate; Verbum est pars orationis cum temporibus et modis, sine casu, agendi vel patiendi significativum. Participium iure separatur a verbo, quod et casus habet, quibus caret verbum, et genera ad similitudinem nominum, nee modos habet, quos continet verbum; Participium est pars orationis, quae pro verba accipitur, ex quo et derivatur naturaliter, genus et casum habens ad similitudinem nominis et accidentia verba absque discretione personarum et modorum. The problems arising from the peculiar position of the participle among the word classes, under the classification system prevailing in antiquity, are discussed there. Proprium est pronominis pro ali quo nomine proprio poni et certas significare personas; Pronomen est pars orationis, quae pro nomine proprio uniuscuiusque accipitur personasque finitas recipit. Substantiam significat sine aliqua certa qualitate. Proprium est adverbii cum verbo poni nee s·ine eo perfectam significationem posse habere; Adverbium est pars orationis indeclinabilis, cuius.significatio verbis adicitur. Praepositionis proprium est separatim quidem per appositionem casualibus praeponi coniun~tim vero per compositionem tam cum hahentibus casus quam cum non habentibus; Est praepositio pars orationis indeclinabilis, quae praeponitur aliis partibus vel appositione vel compositione. 48. IS-7·40: Videtur affectum habere in se Yerbi et plenam motus animi significationem, etiamsi non addatur verbum, demonstrare. Proprium est coniunctionis diversa nomina vel quascumque dictiones casuales vel diversa verba vel adverbia coniungere; Coniunctio est pars orationis indeclinabilis, coniunctiva aliarum partium orationis, quibus consignificat, vim vel ordinationem demons trans. so. cp. MATTHEWS, 'The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar', :Journal of linguistics HORACE, Epistles 2.1.156-7: Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes Intulit agresti Latio. .LOT, La fin du monde antique et le debut du moyen age, Paris.  Marco Terenzio Varrone. He led an active and sometimes risky political life. Although he backed the wrong side in the civil war, he survived. He was a pupil of Posidonio at Rome. He was influenced by Antioco d’Ascalon. He wrote hundreds of works, most of which have since been lost. Amongst them was an extended series of fictional philosophical dialgoues, the Logistorici, in wich assorted Romans debated a variety of toipics, illustrating the arguments with examples from history. Tertulliano calls him the Roman Cynargo, perhaps because of some satires he wrote but it is highly unlikely that he was a Cinargo. Better attested is his interest in Pythagoreanism, whose cult he followed to the letter.  Marco Terenzio Varrone. Varrone. Keywords: centro di studi varroniani, idioma, idiom, lingua latina, lingua anglica, Lazio, Lazini, la lingua del Lazio, Varrone, Prisciano, Donato, Girolamo, Giulio Cesare – Refs.: The H. P. Grice Papers, Bancroft, MS – Luigi Speranza, “Grice e Varrone: semiotica filosofica” – The Swimming-Pool Library, Villa Speranza, Liguria.