GRICE ITALO A-Z F FRI

 

Grice e Frixione: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura metrica di Lucrezio – la scuola di Genova – filosofia genovese – filosofia ligure -- filosofia italiana – Luigi Speranza (Genova). Filosofo genovese. Filosofo ligure. Filosofo italiano. Genova, Liguria. Grice: “The Grecians were pretty clear – and Cicero followed suit – surely if I say ‘He made it,’ there is no implicature that he is a poet, even if ‘poeien’ is strictly, ‘make’!” -- Grice: “Poetry is a good place to apply the idea of implicature, as in Donne – Nowell-Smith’s favourite obscure poet, and Blake – mine!” Insegna a Salerno, Milano, e Genova. I suoi interessi di ricerca includono il linguaggio. Le sue ricerche riguardano il ruolo delle forme di ragionamento non monotòno nell'ambito e il rapporto tra l’illusione del perceptum ed il ragionar invalido. Si è anche occupato di modelli di rappresentazione. È noto anche per la sua attività di poeta d'avanguardia, segnalata, tra gli altri, da Sanguineti, e per aver fondato e fatto parte del “Gruppo ‘93”. Altre opere: “Il Significato” Angeli); “La Funzione e la computabilità” (Carocci); “Come Ragioniamo, Laterza Editore, Lista delle pubblicazioni da DBLP Computer Science Bibliography, Universität Trier; Diottrie, Piero Manni, Ologrammi, Editrice Zona, Insegnamenti Scuola di Scienze Umanistiche, Genova. Guida dello Studente, Corso di laurea in filosofia, Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele di Milano, Governing Boards of the Italian Association of Cognitive Sciences. A Cognitive Architecture for Artificial Vision., in Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier. Prisco, Sanguineti. La letteratura è un gioco che può ancora scandalizzare, Il Sole 24 Ore, Petrella, GRUPPO 93. L'antologia poetica Petrella, Zona, F. scheda nel sito Genova, Dipartimento di Antichità, Filosofia e Storia, Come ragioniamo recensione di Dario Scognamiglio, ReF Recensioni Filosofiche.  It cannot be denied that the poem of LUCREZIO fails to awaken any  marked interest until long after its publication. The almost unbroken  silence of his contemporaries regarding him is significant of the com-  parative indifference with which his production was received. The  reasons for this neglect are various and not far to seek. In the first  place the moment was inopportune for the appearance of such a work.  It is composed in that hapless time when the rule of the oligarchy is overthrown and that of GIULIO (si veda) CESARE had not yet been established,  in the sultry years during which the outbreak of the civil war is awaited with long and painful suspense. The poet betrays his solicitude for the welfare of his country at this crisis in the introduction  of his work, in which he invokes the aid of Venus in persuading Mars  to command peace. Efficc ut inter ea f era moenera militiai   Per maria ac terras omnis sopita quiescani. He acknowledges that his attention is diverted from literary labours by the exigencies of the Roman state. Nam neque nos agere hoc patriai tempore iniquo  Possumus aequo animo nee Memmi clara propago  Talibiis in rebus comrnuni desse saluti.  Munro believes these lines were written when Caesar as consul had formed his coalition with Pompey and  when there was almost a reign of terror. The reflection of a state of   1 Monimseii, Hist. Rome, M. 41-43-   ^Muiim. Luiictiiis. tumult and peril is equally obvious in the opening verses of the second  book, where the security of the contemplative life is contrasted with  the turbulence of a political and military career.' Particularly signifi-  cant are the lines :   Si non forte tuas legiones per loca campi  Fervere cum videas belli simulacra cientis, Subsidiis magnis et ecum vi constabilitas,  Ornatasque armis statuas pariierque animatas,  His tibi turn rebus timefactae religiones  Effugiunt animo pavide ; mortisque timores  Turn vacuum pectus lincunt curaque solutum,  Fervere cum videas classem lateque vagari} It can readily be appreciated that a period of such fermentation  and alarm would afford opportunity for philosophic study to those  alone who were able to retire from political excitements to private  leisure and quiet. Moreover the very characteristics of the Epicurean  philosophy would recommend it chiefly to persons of this description.  Participation in public life was distinctly discouraged by the school  of Epicurus, who regarded the realm of politics as a world of tumult  and trouble, wherein happiness — the chief end of life — was almost, if  not quite, impossible. They counselled entering the arena of public  affairs only as an occasional and disagreeable necessity, or as a possible means of allaying the discontent of those to whom the quiet of  a private life was not wholly satisfactory.' Such instruction, though  phrased in the noble hexameters of a Lucretius, was scarcely calculated  to enjoy immediate popularity in the stirring epoch of a fast hurrying  revolution. Sellar, Rommi Pods of the Republic. Caesar after his consulship remained with his army for three  months l)efore Rome, and was bitterly attacked by Memmius. Does Lucretius here  alhide to Caesar? " Munro, Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics. In consequence of his mode of thought and writing lieing so averse to his own  time and directed to a better future, the poet received little attention in his own  age.Teuflfel, Hist. Rom. Lit. L’ORTO ROMANO arose in a  state of society and under circumstances widely different from the social ar.d  political condition of the last phase ol the Roman Republic. Sellar. Roman Poets  of the Republic. A somewhat ingenious, but unsuccessful, attempt has been made to  account for the indifference with which Lucretius was treated on the  ground of his assault Upon the doctrine of the future life. It has  been suggested that as the enmity of the Christian writers was early  called down upon his head for this cause, he was likewise whelmed under a conspiracy of silence on the part of his Roman contempo-  raries and successors " for the same reason. But so general was the  skepticism of his age on this question, that it is scarcely credible that  the publication of his views could have seriously scandalized the cultured classes who read his lines. The same judgment will hold true  with reference to the entire attitude of Lucretius toward the tra-  ditional religion. It is a sufficient answer to the theory that his infidelity created antipathy toward him to record the fact that Julius  Caesar, than whom no more pronounced free-thinker lived in his day,  was, despite his skepticism, pontifex maxi'mus of the Roman common-wealth, and did not hesitate to declare in the presence of the Senate  that the immortality of the soul was a vain delusion. That he represented in these heretical opinions the position of many of the fore-  most persons of the period is the testimony of contemporary literature. Shall we not find the better reason for the apparent neglect of  Lucretius in the era immediately following the issue of his poem in  the fact that there was no public at this juncture for the study  of Greek philosophy clothed in the Latin language? CICERONE, who devoted himself with the zeal of a patriot to the creation of a philosophical literature in his native tongue, complains of the scant courtesy  paid to his efforts. Xon eram nescius. Brute, cum, quae summis ingeniis exquisitaque doctrina philosophi Graecn sermone tractavisseni, ea  Latinis Uteris mandaremus, fore ut hie noster labor in varias reprehensiones incur reret. Nam qiiibusdam, et Us quidem non admodum indoctis,  totum hoc displicet, philosophari. Quidam autem non tam id reprehendunt,  si remissius agatur, sed tantum studium tamque muUam operant ponendam  in eo non arbitrabantur. Erunt etiam, et ii quidem eruditi Graecis Utter is,  contemnentes Latinas, qui se dicant in Graecis legendis operant maUe  consumer e. Postremo aliquosfuturos suspicor, qui me ad aUas Utter as vocent,  [This is the view advanced by R. T. Tyn-il of the University of Dublin. See  his LiiUn Poc'try (Houjrhton, Mifflin et Co., N. Y.).  Merivale. History of the Romans. hoc scribendi, etsi sit elegans, personae iamen et digtiiiatis esse  negent. Yet this work, as he explains in his De Divinatione,' was undertaken with the commendable purpose of benefitting  his countrymen. He anticipated with delight the advantages  which would accrue to them when his researches were complete. Magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ut  Graecis de philosophia litteris no?i egeant. And later he reaped his re-  ward in an awakened interest in the subjects of his studious inquiries.  But he was compelled in the beginning to cultivate a sentiment in  behalf of those investigations. Lucretius addressed himself to an unsympathetic public, and was likewise required to wait for applause  until a more appreciative generation rose up to do him honour. Yet it must not be supposed that The Garden exercised a feeble influence over the thought of cultivated Romans in this period of  their history. The very theme which engaged the genius of Lucretius had also employed the energies of predecessors and contemporaries. Among attempts of this character were the “De Rerum Natura” of Egnatius, which appeared somewhat earlier than the work of Lucretius;  the “Empedoclea” of Sallustius mentioned by Cicero in the much discussed passage relating to Lucretius; and a metrical production en-titled “De Rerum Natura” by Varro. Commentaries on the principles  of The Garden had also been extant for some time. Chief among  the authors of such compositions was Amafinius who preceded  Lucretius by nearly a century. Our knowledge of him is mainly  derived from Cicero, who says: “C Amafijiius exstitit dicens cuius libris  editis commota multitudo contulit se ad eain potissimum disciplinam.” Rabirius is also mentioned by the same author as belonging to that  class of writers, Qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis vol-  Dc Finilnts, I, i.   ^ Quaercnti mihi vmltumquc d diu cogitanti, quanotii re possem prodesse qtiam plurimus, ne quando intervdtterem considere reipubiicae, nulla niaior occurrebat quam si  optimaruni artiwn vias traderevi vicis civibus; quod conpluribus iam libris me arbitror  conseciiturn. Quod enim munus rei publicac adferrc mains nieliusve pos-  s tonus, quam si docemus at que erudimus iuveiitutem^ his praesertim in or i bus at que  iemporibus, qtdbus ita prolapsa est, etc. De Divinatione.  Sellar, Roman Poets of the Republic, Acad.  “-gari sermone disputant.” Rabirius indulges in a popular treatment  of philosophy and covers much the same ground as Amafinius. Another contributor to the literature of Epicureanism whom Cicero records in no complimentary way is Catius — “Catius insuber, Epicureus, quinuper est vioriuus, quae ille Gargettius et iam ante Democritus ctSuXa,  hie spectra nominat.” The interest in The Garden among the Romans of the  time of Lucretius is further apparent in the prominence which certain teachers of The Garden attained. Conspicuous among them is Zeno  the Sidonian, whose lectures Cicero in company with Atticus had attended, and whom he calls the prince of Epicureans in his “De Natura Deorum”, and whose instruction is doubtless liberally embodied in Cicero's  discussions of the system of The Garden. Contemporary with  Zenone is Fedro, who had achieved distinction in Rome, where Cicero studied under his direction.  Somewhat later Filodemo of Gadara appeared in Rome, and is  mentioned by Cicerone as a learned and amiable man. The considerable body of writings bearing his name found in the Volumina Herculanensia indicates his position among the philosophers of his day. Scyro, a follower of Fedro, said to have been the  teacher of Virgilio. Patrone, the successor of Fedro, and Pompilius Andronicus, “who gave up everything for the tenets of The Garden, are eminent also at this period. Partly as a result of the activity of these philosophers, and  partly on account of the prevailing anxiety to arrive at some satisfactory scheme of life, the number of The Gardeners steadily  increased at this time, and included not a few illustrious names. Disp. Ad Fam.. Cf. Diogenes Laertius. Rilter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec.  d Fam., De Fin., Ritter et Preller, Hist. Phil. Graec. Ad. Fam., Ad. Fam., Ad Attic, Zeller. Stoics. Fpicnreans and Sceptics, p. 414, i. These are known to us chiefly through the writings of Cicero/ who  mentions T. Albutius, Velleius, C. Cassius, the well-known conspirator  against Caesar, who may himself be classed among those who had  lost confidence in the gods/ C. Vibius Pansa, Galbus, L. Piso, the  patron of Philodemus, and L. Manlius Torquatus. Other notable  personages are apparently regarded as “Gardeners” by Cicero, but  grave doubts have been expressed concerning their real attitude toward the school. It is barely possible that Atticus may justly be  denominated a “Gardener”, for he calls the Gardeners nostri familiars and condiscipuli. But his eclectic spirit would  seem to forbid his classification with any single system, and Zeller  feels that neither he nor Asclepiades of Bithynia, a contemporary of  Lucretius, who resided at Rome and was associated with The Gardeners,  can be regarded as genuine Gardeners.   The discussions of the The Gardeners in De Natura Deorwn,  De Finibus and other works of Cicero evince the profound interest he  had in the school, though his general attitude was one of unfriendliness. What reason, then, we may ask, can be given for his almost  uninterrupted silence concerning Lucretius? The only reference we  have to the poet in all Cicero's voluminous compositions occurs in a  letter to his brother Quintus, four months after the death of Lucretius,  in which he says, “Lucretii poemata, ut scribis ita sunt: viultis lunmiibus  ingenii, viultae etiam artis; sed cum veneris virum te putabo, si Sallustii  Empedoclea legeris, hominem non putabo.” Cicero certainly implicates  that both Marcus and Quintus had read the poem, and many scholars  accept the statement of Jerome in his additions to the Eusebian  chronicle — quos Cicero emendavit — as applying to Marcus. But if he was closely enough identified with the work of Lucretius to edit his  manuscript, why in those writings wherein ample opportunity was afforded, did not Cicero mention his labours in the field of philosophy?  Zeller, Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, Merivale, Hist. Rom., De Fin., Legg., Stoics, Epicureans and Sceptics, p. 415.  ^Ad Quintton Munro, who discusses this question with his usual lucidity, inclines to the opinion that Jerome, following Suetonius, has indicated Cicero as the [This is a particularly pertinent inquiry in view of the fact that he does  speak of Amafinius, Rabirius and Catius, as we have already observed,  and that he devoted so much attention to the discussion of Epicurean principles. Munro answers this question by declaring that it was  ot Cicero's custom to quote from contemporaries, numerous as his  citations are from the older poets and himself. That had he written  on poetry as he did of philosophy and oratory, Lucretius would have  undoubtedly occupied a prominent place in the work, and that more  than once in his philosophical discussions Cicero unquestionably refers to Lucretius. Munro is not alone in contending that the literary relations between Lucretius and Cicero were more or less intimate.  Other critics have traced to Cicero's “Aratea” important lines in LUCREZIO (si veda), while many passages in CICERONE (si veda) closely resemble utterances of the poet. Martha quotes several remarkable parallels between “De Finibus” and various lines in LUCREZIO. But it is argued on the other  hand no less vigorously that didactic resemblances prove nothing, except that LUCREZIO and CICERONE wrought from like sources their several  Latinizations of philosophy. And herein there is suggested a possible explanation of CICERONE’s apparent indifference to the poet, whether he did him the favour of editing his verse or not. Cicero had made an earnest study of philosophy long before the poem of LUCREZIO had been introduced  to his notice. He had resorted to original authorities for information concerning L’ORTO ROMANO. Zeno the Sidonian and Philodemus  of Gadara, as already noted, had supplied him with much material.  Everywhere in his philosophical works there is evidence that he regarded himself a sort of pioneer in this peculiar field of investigation.  --  editor of Lucretius, and that this was the real fact. Sellar, Roman Poets of the  Republic, though suspending judgment does not deny the probability  that Cicerone performs this favor for Lucretius. Teuffel, Hist. Rom. Lit., while expressing doubt concerning the evidence of Cicerone’s connection  with the poem, declares that at any rate his "part was not very important, and it  might almost seem that he was afraid of publishing a work of this kind." Sihler presents an argument of great force against the probability of Cicero's editorship. See Art. Lucretius and CICERONE. Transactions American Philological Association. Munro;  Martha, La: L^oeme de LUCREZIO, quoted in Lee's Lucretius -- and therefore deserving of the pre-eminence therein. He doubtless  placed no importance upon any Latin writings beside his own which treated of this philosophy. Indeed the references which Cicero makes to philosophers engaged in an undertaking similar to his own  are in no instance flattering. And Lucretius would only be esteemed  by him a competitor in the same department of inquiry, who wrote  in Latin verse instead of Latin prose. Keeping these facts in mind the comparative silence of Cicero regarding Lucretius does not seem wholly incompatible with the theory of his editorship. He was himself an expositor of Epicurus — and  that too of the hostile kind. Cicerone popularized the doctrines of The Garden in the bad sense of the word," and had thrown "a  ludicrous colour over many things which disappear when they are more  seriously regarded. Yet his opposition to the tenets of Epicurus  would not preclude him from friendly association with many who professed them, and if asked to lend his name to the publication of Lucretius' verses, there could be no reason for withholding it. But if his antagonism to L’ORTO ROMANO would lead him to speak against  the doctrines of the poem, his admiration for the literary excellences  of the work, as exhibited in his willingness to stand sponsor for its  issue, would deter him from adverse criticism. Silence in such a  case is the best evidence of friendship. Mommsen remarks that LUCREZIO although his poetical vigor  as well as his art was admired by his cultivated contemporaries, yet  remained — of late growth as he was — a master without scholars. But with increasing knowledge in what is best in The Garden and a  finer taste to appreciate the moral and literary virtues of Lucrezio,  subsequent generations gave ample recognition to the poet. ORAZIO (si veda) and VIRGILIO (si veda) were greatly influenced by him, particularly the latter, who  is supposed to refer to Lucrezio in the famous lines, “Felix qui potuii rerum cognoscere causas atque metus omnes et inexorabile fatum. Subiecit pedihus strepitumque Achernntis avari. Lanjje, History of Materialism. Hist. Rome, Georgica. OVIDIO (si veda) pronounced words of high eulogy upon him. Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucre tt  Exitio terras cum dabit una dies. The persistency of The Garden despite persecution and opposition demonstrates its marvelous vitality and the almost deathless influence of  the personality of Epicurus, whose single mind projected its grasp  upon human thought throughout the whole existence of the sect.  And not the least important agent in affecting this result, because of  his almost idolatrous devotion to his master and the persuasive charm  of his lines, was the poet LUCREZIO. Keywords: l’implicatura metrica di Lucrezio, poetry, Ezra Pound, Alighieri, “speranza, tela” – Tesauro – Folco -- Refs.: Luigi Speranza, “Grice e Frixione” – The Swimming-Pool Library, Villa Speranza. Marcello Frixione.

 

Grice e Frinico: la ragione conversazionale e la diaspora di Crotone -- Roma – filosofia italiana – Luigi Speranza (Taranto). Filosofo italiano. A Pythagorean, cited by Giamblico.