AV

 

 

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

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avianio – Ossia: Grice e Basso: il portico a Roma – filosofia italiana –  (Roma).  Tito Avianio Basso Polieno: il portico a Roma – filosofia italiana –  (Roma). Abstract. Grice: “I often wonder if my Play-Group at Oxford compares with other sects, say, the Portico at Rome, etc. I do not think so. He main reason against any such comparison is that our play-group was an intra-institutional sect – indeed, as I like to say, one of at least THREE which were engaged in the analysis of ordinary language: there was, besides us, the group led by senior Ryle, and there were the Wittgensteinians. At Rome, there was no university then, and so, if you follow Cicero, and claim that Basso was a member of the Portico, you are speaking either metaphorically, or urbanely!” Filosofo italiano. A member of the Porch. GRICEVS: Bassē, Porticum Romanam cum nostro ludicro grege Oxoniensi comparare velim, sed timeo ne nos intra collegium ludamus, vos sub caelo toto disputetis. BASSVS: At Romae, Grice, ipsa porticus quasi universitas fuit: si quis diceret “BASSVS in Porticu docuit,” urbaniter potius quam proprie loqueretur. GRICEVS: Urbanitas placet, sed in Oxonia tres sectae in eodem claustro certabant—Ryliani, Vittersiani, et nos—quasi tres cauponae unam famem venditantes. BASSVS: Ergo convenimus: vos habetis instituta, nos columnas; sed utrique eodem vitio laboramus—nimis serio iocamur. Grice and Speranza have another Basso but Grice thinks it should go under "A": a rather accumulative name: Tito Avianio Basso Polieno. What intrigues (and puzzles) Grice is the -ianus -- it's not Tito Avio (Avius) or Aviano (Avianus) but Avianio (Avianius). Gens Aviania, still? Thanks Yes, I think one may still treat Avianius as a nomen, and therefore as implying a gens, even if a very minor or thinly attested one. The key point is that Avianius is not to be confused with Avius or Avianus. Avianius is itself a Latin nomen gentile, and even a lexical source like Wiktionary explicitly glosses it as a Roman family name, that is, a nomen. So Grice’s instinct is sound: Avianio points to Avianius, not to Avius and not to the adjective-like Avianus. [en.wiktionary.org] Now, if it is a nomen, then by Roman naming logic it does imply a gens, however obscure. General Roman onomastic references make that point very clearly: the nomen is the element that marks gens-membership. Nova Roma states this in textbook form, and broader explanations of Roman naming structure say the same. [Nomen - NovaRoma], [imperiumromanum.pl] More specifically, Avianius is actually listed among Roman nomina in the large repertories. The List of Roman nomina includes Avianus, Avienus, Avius, and crucially Avianius as distinct forms. That is exactly the sort of evidence one wants here, because it shows that Avianius is not just an eccentric modern back-formation from Aviano, but a recognized nomen-form in Roman onomastic tradition. [en.wikipedia.org] So the dry answer is this. Yes, one may posit a gens Aviania from Avianius, in exactly the way one posits a gens from any nomen. But one should add at once that this seems to be a very obscure gens, not one of the major or frequently attested Roman houses. The evidence supports the nomen more strongly than it supports a richly documented family history. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wiktionary.org], [Nomen - NovaRoma] As for Tito Avianio Basso Polieno, the practical parsing would then be something like this. Titus is the praenomen. Avianius is the nomen, hence birth-gens Aviania if that is indeed the original gentilicial element. Bassus and Pollienus are later family or adoptive accumulations, or at least additional name-elements. So if Grice wants to file him strictly by birth gens, then A is defensible. [en.wiktionary.org], [Nomen - NovaRoma], [imperiumromanum.pl] A small caution, though, because it is the sort of thing Grice would enjoy. The ending -ianius is not the commonest old Latin gentilicial ending, and Roman onomastic guides note that different endings can suggest different linguistic strata or regional formations. Nova Roma remarks on nomen endings and their possible origins, so one should not assume Avianius is one of the oldest central Roman formations merely because it looks “Roman enough.” It is Roman enough to be a nomen, yes; but not necessarily one of the most ancient or central ones. [Nomen - NovaRoma] So the clean formula is this. Avianius is not to be collapsed into Avius or Avianus. It can function as a Roman nomen and therefore implies a gens Aviania, though apparently a very obscure one. On that basis, Grice is justified in thinking that Tito Avianio Basso Polieno belongs under A, if the filing principle is birth-gens or nomen rather than the more visible Bassus. [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wiktionary.org], [Nomen - NovaRoma], [imperiumromanum.pl] If you like, I can next do a tighter pass specifically on Pollienus in the same name, because that element too may be carrying an adoptive or secondary family signal and could sharpen the whole prosopographical picture.Avianio Basso Polieno, Tito (XXX). Dicta.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Aviano – Ossia: Grice ed Aviano -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Aviano. The Aviani are an ancient Roman family. They are known chiefly from the letters of Tullio Cicero, who was a friend of Gaius A. Flaccus. There was also a writer of Fables by this name, who lived about AD 400, although it is not certainly known that they were related. Gaius A. Flaccus, an intimate friend of Tullio Cicero's. He and his two sons seem to have been engaged in the farming of the public taxes.[2] Gaius Avianus C. f. Flaccus, recommended twice by Cicero; in 52 BC to Titus Titius, one of the legates of Pompeius, who had the management of the corn-market, in accordance with the law which conferred the superintendence of it upon Pompeius; and again in 47, to Aulus Allienus, the proconsul of Sicily. Marcus Avianus C. f. Flaccus, together with his brother, Gaius, recommended by Cicero to Aulus Allienus, the proconsul of Sicily, in 47 BC.[4] Avianus, a writer of fables, thought to have lived around AD 400. He wrote in Latin, and is thought to have been a pagan at the time when pagans were becoming an increasingly persecuted minority in the Empire. His work still survives, and was popular in the Middle Ages. See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares xiii. 35, 79.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares xiii. 75, 79.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares xiii. 79.  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Smith, William, ed. (1870). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)  GENS                  This article about Roman gentes is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.  Categories: Roman gentesRoman gentes stubs For the Aviani, we can have (I) a conversation with Cicero, with A. asking for recommendation to Titus Tatius (since recommendations were a pet topic of Grice) -- (II0 the fable writer -- especially as we may consider if his thing was vernacularised into Italian, and whether any of his fables had a Roman root in histoy about it. Feedback? Input? Thanks – This is a very nicely chosen gens for Grice/Speranza purposes, because it gives you:  (I) recommendation discourse (Ciceronian epistolary pragmatics) (II) fable discourse (compressed implicature and vernacular afterlife)  Let me give you both in the format you want, plus interpretive framing.   I. Conversatio I — Avianus with Cicero (letters of recommendation)  Theme: recommendation = indirect speech act (very Gricean)  Conversatio (four turns) AVIANVS (1) “Cicero, te rogo ut me Titi Tatii commendatione tua iuves.” (Cicero, I ask that you assist me with your recommendation to Titus Titius.)  CICERO (2) “Libenter faciam; sed quid vis ut ille de te existimet?” (I shall gladly do so; but what do you wish him to think of you?)  AVIANVS (3) “Ut dignum me habeat qui curae frumentariae fidatur.” (That he regard me as worthy of being entrusted with the grain administration.)  CICERO (4) “Scribam non quid es, sed quid esse oporteat.” (I shall write not what you are, but what you ought to be.) +> that a letter of recommendation does not simply report facts but constructs a reputation the addressee is expected to adopt   Comment (Gricean angle) This is textbook:  recommendation ≠ description rather: → normative implicature  Cicero:  “I will not say what is, but what should be”   meaning:  recommendation creates: → expectation → pressure → quasi‑obligation in the addressee    II. Conversatio II — Avianus the fable-writer  Theme: fable = minimal text, maximal implicature  Conversatio (four turns) DISCIPVLVS (1) “Aviane, cur fabulas breves scribis?” (Avianus, why do you write brief fables?)  AVIANVS (2) “Ut parva narratio magnam sententiam pariat.” (So that a small narrative may produce a great lesson.)  DISCIPVLVS (3) “Sed cur animalia loquuntur?” (But why do animals speak?)  AVIANVS (4) “Ut homines taceant et tamen intellegant.” (So that men may be silent and yet understand.) +> that fables communicate their moral not by explicit statement but by inviting the hearer to derive a general lesson from an apparently simple story   Comment (vernacular + Roman root) 1. Language  Avianus writes in Latin verse but: → widely transmitted in the Middle Ages   result:  his fables are vernacularised (including into Italian tradition)   2. Roman roots Avianus inherits:  Aesopic tradition Roman moral habit of: → indirect instruction → exemplum   so:  fables = miniature exempla   3. Gricean mechanism Fable works by:  saying: → trivial narrative meaning: → general truth   So:                  LevelContentliteralfox, wolf, etc.implicaturehuman conduct  ✦ III. Final Speranzian synthesis  In the Aviani, one finds both the practice of recommendation, in which speech constructs a reputation to be recognized by others, and the practice of fable, in which a minimal narrative invites a maximal inference; and thus the gens illustrates two complementary forms of implicature, one operating through social obligation, the other through moral indirection.    Ultra‑compact  Commendatio: dicitur → credatur Fabula: narratur → intelligatur    Answer summary  (I) Cicero dialogue: → recommendation as constructive implicature (II) Avianus: → fable as compressed implicature with vernacular afterlife   If you like, we can now turn one Avianus fable explicitly into a Gricean formal schema (“if fox speaks, infer human vice”).

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Aviano – Ossia: Grice ed Aviano -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Aviano. Conversatio I — Avianus with Cicero (letters of recommendation)  Theme: recommendation = indirect speech act (very Gricean)  Conversatio (four turns) AVIANVS (1) “Cicero, te rogo ut me Titi Tatii commendatione tua iuves.” (Cicero, I ask that you assist me with your recommendation to Titus Titius.)  CICERO (2) “Libenter faciam; sed quid vis ut ille de te existimet?” (I shall gladly do so; but what do you wish him to think of you?)  AVIANVS (3) “Ut dignum me habeat qui curae frumentariae fidatur.” (That he regard me as worthy of being entrusted with the grain administration.)  CICERO (4) “Scribam non quid es, sed quid esse oporteat.” (I shall write not what you are, but what you ought to be.) +> that a letter of recommendation does not simply report facts but constructs a reputation the addressee is expected to adopt   Comment (Gricean angle) This is textbook:  recommendation ≠ description rather: → normative implicature  Cicero:  “I will not say what is, but what should be”   meaning:  recommendation creates: → expectation → pressure → quasi‑obligation in the addressee    

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Aviano – Ossia: Grice ed Aviano -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Aviano. Conversatio II — Avianus the fable-writer  Theme: fable = minimal text, maximal implicature  Conversatio (four turns) DISCIPVLVS (1) “Aviane, cur fabulas breves scribis?” (Avianus, why do you write brief fables?)  AVIANVS (2) “Ut parva narratio magnam sententiam pariat.” (So that a small narrative may produce a great lesson.)  DISCIPVLVS (3) “Sed cur animalia loquuntur?” (But why do animals speak?)  AVIANVS (4) “Ut homines taceant et tamen intellegant.” (So that men may be silent and yet understand.) +> that fables communicate their moral not by explicit statement but by inviting the hearer to derive a general lesson from an apparently simple story   Comment (vernacular + Roman root) 1. Language  Avianus writes in Latin verse but: → widely transmitted in the Middle Ages   result:  his fables are vernacularised (including into Italian tradition)   2. Roman roots Avianus inherits:  Aesopic tradition Roman moral habit of: → indirect instruction → exemplum   so:  fables = miniature exempla   3. Gricean mechanism Fable works by:  saying: → trivial narrative meaning: → general truth   So:                  LevelContentliteralfox, wolf, etc.implicaturehuman conduct  ✦ III. Final Speranzian synthesis  In the Aviani, one finds both the practice of recommendation, in which speech constructs a reputation to be recognized by others, and the practice of fable, in which a minimal narrative invites a maximal inference; and thus the gens illustrates two complementary forms of implicature, one operating through social obligation, the other through moral indirection.  

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avidio – Ossia: Grice ed Avidio -- Grex  griceiana – verbalia: Avidio. The Avidii are an ancient Roman family that flourished during the early centuries of the Empire. Several of its members rose to prominence during the late first and second centuries AD.  Two branches of this family appeared towards the end of the first century. They were descended from two brothers, who bore the surnames Quietus, meaning "calm" or "peaceful", and Nigrinus, a diminutive of niger, meaning "blackish". Titus A. Quietus, a friend and contemporary of Pliny CLAUDIO CECILIO  the Younger, whom he supported in his accusation of Publicius Certus in AD 96.[4] Titus A. Quietus, consul suffectus in AD 111.[5] Gaius A. Nigrinus, proconsul during the reign of Domitian, and brother of the elder Quietus; Plutarch dedicated a treatise on brotherly love to them. Gaius Avidius C. f. Nigrinus, consul suffectus during the first half of AD 110; one of four senators put to death in the year following the accession of Hadrian. Avidia C. f. C. n., the daughter of A. Nigrinus, married Lucio Elio, Hadrian's heir; her son, Lucius Verus, was adopted by Antoninus Pius, and was emperor with Marcus Aurelius from AD 161 to 169. Gaius A. Heliodorus, a rhetorician, and native of Syria, who became a private secretary and friend of Hadrian; he was appointed praefectus of Egypt.[9][10] Gaius Avidius C. f. Cassius, son of Heliodorus, and a successful general under Marcus Aurelius, against whom he rebelled in AD 175.[9] Avidius Maecianus, son of A. Cassius, entrusted with the command of Alexandria during his father's rebellion; he was slain by his own soldiers.[11] See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor.  Plutarchus, Morales, 478B, 487E, 548B, 632A; see also Christopher P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (1971).  D.P. Simpson, Cassell's Latin & English Dictionary (1963).  Pliny the Younger, Epistulae, vi. 29, ix. 13. § 15.  Anthony R. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain (Oxford: University Press, 1981), p. 87  Pliny the Younger, Epistulae, x. 71. s. 74, 72. s. 75.  Aelius Spartianus, Hadrian, 7.  A. R. Birley, "Hadrian and Greek Senators", in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 116 (1997).  Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Roman History, lxix. 3, lxxi. 22.  Aelius Spartianus, Hadrian, 15, 16.  Julius Capitolinus, Marcus Aurelius, 25.  This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Smith, William, ed. (1870). "avidius". Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology.  Categories: AvidiiRoman gentes About the Avidii we can have (I) a conversation alla familiar lines on the Pliny-related case, since we have textual evidence -- the Plutarch treatise on mutual love adds an implicature -- because these are dedicatees, so not really the SUBJECT of the treatise, but perhaps something from which the dedicatees could learn ('fraternal love') -- cancellable implicature (II) the one slain by his own soldiers -- Input? Feedback? Thanks - This is a very elegant pairing again—because the Avidii let you contrast:  dedicatory discourse (Pliny/Plutarch): implicature through address military collapse (Avidius Maecianus): failure of authority in action  Let me give you the two dialogues in your format, with the implicatures sharpened.  ✦ I. Conversatio I — Quietus/Nigrinus and the Plutarchian dedication  Frame: Plutarch dedicates De Amore Fraterno to the Avidii (brothers)  Your key insight is perfect:  they are dedicatees, not subjects yet: → the treatise implicates instruction   Conversatio (alla Plinian/Familiar tone) AVIDIVS NIGRINVS (1) “Libellus ad nos scriptus est, frater, sed de nobis nihil dicit.” (The little book is written to us, brother, yet says nothing about us.)  AVIDIVS QVIETVS (2) “Non de nobis scribitur, sed propter nos.” (It is not written about us, but because of us.)  NIGRINVS (3) “Ergo nos docemur, dum alios describit?” (So we are taught while he describes others?)  QVIETVS (4) “Ita fit: quod ad nos dicitur, aliter intellegendum est.” (So it happens: what is addressed to us must be understood otherwise.) +> that the dedication implies the Avidii ought to model brotherly love, even though the text does not explicitly assert any deficiency   Comment (your “cancellable implicature”) Exactly:  Plutarch does not say: → “you lack fraternal love” but by dedicating: → he implicates:  this is for you to practise      And crucially:  the implicature is cancellable  They could reply:  “we already exemplify this”    II. Conversatio II — Avidius Maecianus slain by his soldiers  Frame:  entrusted with Alexandria during rebellion killed by his own troops   Conversatio (military crisis) CENTVRIO (1) “Maeciane, milites dubii sunt; fidem non tenent.” (Maecianus, the soldiers waver; they do not hold loyalty.)  MAECIANVS (2) “Imperium meum satis erit ad disciplinam tenendam.” (My command will be enough to maintain discipline.)  CENTVRIO (3) “Verba tua audiunt, sed non sequuntur.” (They hear your words, but do not follow them.)  MAECIANVS (4) “Si imperium dicitur nec creditur, iam perii.” (If command is spoken but not believed, I am already lost.) +> that political and military authority depends on recognition by subordinates, not merely on formal command   Comment This is a perfect mirror of your earlier “proscription” insight:  here: → the speech-act fails uptake result: → authority collapses    Where proscription bypassed conversation, here:  command fails because it remains only conversational    III. Final Speranzian synthesis  In the first case, the Avidii are addressed as recipients of a moral treatise whose instruction is conveyed by implicature rather than assertion, allowing them either to accept or to deflect its application; in the second, Avidius Maecianus discovers that authority itself requires recognition, so that a command which is heard but not believed ceases to be effective, and speech without uptake becomes powerless.    Ultra‑compact  Plutarchus: scribit → discas (fortasse) Maecianus: imperat → non valet nisi credatur    Answer summary  (I) Dedication: → cancellable implicature of moral instruction (II) Maecianus: → failure of authority as failed uptake of command   If you like, we could now construct a third Avidius (Cassius rebel case) where belief spreads faster than truth—another Gricean goldmine.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avidio – Ossia: Grice ed Avidio -- Grex  griceiana – verbalia: Avidio. Perhaps we can have one about the Quietus in that he was a friend of Cecilio (his born gens, right) Pliny younger -- whom Quieto supports in his accusation of Publicius Certus (gens Certus?)? What was the accusation above? Does this mean Cecilio Plinio was a laywer by profession. Can you just go and accuse someone, and what capacity was Quieto -- witness? Input? Feedback Thanks This is a very good cluster of questions—you’re right to slow down here, because this episode (Pliny + Avidius Quietus + Publicius Certus) is not a simple “one man accuses another in court” scenario, but a senatorial, political, quasi-legal proceeding, and the roles are subtle. Let me answer your questions one by one, and then give you a short Grice/Speranza-style synthesis.  I. What was the accusation against Publicius Certus? From Pliny’s letters (Book IX):  the case is brought on behalf of Arria and Fannia Quietus insists:  the Senate must hear their complaints attention must be given not to rank but to conduct [en.wikisource.org], [loebclassics.com]     The key charge (from the broader context):  Publicius Certus had been involved (as an informer) in the judicial killing of Helvidius Priscus under Domitian.  This fits the general pattern:  after Domitian’s death (AD 96) there is a political movement against informers (delatores) Pliny participates in that movement [en.wikisource.org]    So:  The accusation is not a private dispute, but a political-moral prosecution of a former agent of tyranny.   II. Was Pliny a “lawyer”? Yes—with an important nuance.  Pliny was:  a professional advocate and orator active in forensic and political prosecutions [en.wikipedia.org], [ebsco.com]     Roman reality:  there was no formal “profession” of lawyers as today but elite men like Pliny: → regularly acted as advocates in trials    So:  Pliny can “go and accuse someone” — but only:   in appropriate legal/political context often representing injured parties (as here)   III. What exactly was the procedure here? This is the crucial point. This was:  not a courtroom trial in the modern sense but a senatorial proceeding   Structure  injured parties (Arria, Fannia): → bring complaint senators: → debate Pliny: → acts as advocate/prosecutor Quietus: → supports the admissibility and justice of the charge    So:                          RoleFunctionArria & FanniacomplainantsPlinyadvocate (accuser in speech)Quietussupporting senatorSenatedeliberative/judging body  👉 Quietus is not a witness. He is:  a senatorial speaker backing the prosecution’s legitimacy   IV. What exactly does Quietus do? From the text:  he argues:  complaints must not be excluded rank must not shield wrongdoing     [en.wikisource.org], [loebclassics.com]   So his intervention is:  procedural + moral, not evidential  He does not say:  “I saw X”  He says:  “this case must be heard”   V. Grice/Speranza analysis (your key interest) This is a very good example of multi-layer implicature.  1. Explicit level  Pliny: → accuses Certus Quietus: → supports hearing the case   2. Implicit layer Quietus’ claim:  “we must hear the complaints”  implicates:  “to refuse them would be unjust—and therefore you are morally committed to judging them seriously”   3. Even deeper implicature Pliny’s prosecution implies:  “the new regime (Nerva) must distance itself from Domitian’s injustices”    So the conversation is not just legal:  it is political re-legitimation   VI. Short Latin mini‑dialogue (for flavour)  PLINIVS: “Certum accusandum suscipio.” (I undertake to accuse Certus.) QVIETVS: “Iniquum est querelas excludi.” (It is unjust to exclude complaints.)  +> that refusing to prosecute would amount to tolerating the injustices of the previous regime  VII. Final synthesis (clear answer)  What was the accusation? → involvement of Certus as an informer in oppressive, possibly deadly prosecutions under Domitian  Was Pliny a lawyer? → yes, an elite Roman advocate/orator, regularly prosecuting cases  Can one “just accuse”? → only:  in institutional settings (court or Senate) often representing others   What was Quietus’ role? → not witness, but:  senatorial supporter arguing that the case must be heard and judged    Ultra‑compact  Plinius accusat—Quietus concedendum esse censet.   If you like, we can now turn this into a full four‑turn “senate debate” dialogue where Quietus’ intervention shifts the vote (a very Gricean “turning point” moment).

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avidio – Ossia: Grice ed Avidio -- Grex  griceiana – verbalia: Avidio. And perhaps we can have an entry for this extra Auvidio. One thinks of Elio (that was the gens name of Hadrian, right?) as peaceful, yet A. and three more senators were slain on the year following Elio (Adriano?) accession. Were they slain publicly as per political legal execution? Do we have details and we can reconstruct the usual four-move conversation. Thanks This is an excellent “extra Avidius” case: Gaius Avidius Nigrinus, eliminated at the very start of Hadrian’s reign. It’s a perfect Grice/Speranza moment because:  it looks like a legal act (Senate execution), but in reality: → bypasses ordinary public, dialogical procedure.  Let me first give you the historical answer, then the four‑move dialogue.  I. What actually happened to Avidius Nigrinus? 1. The basic fact  Nigrinus:  former consul prominent under Trajan   in AD 118, shortly after Hadrian’s accession: → executed with three other senators [en.wikipedia.org], [en.wikipedia.org]   2. Official reason  alleged: → plot against Hadrian [en.wikipedia.org]   3. Real political reading  sources suggest: → they were powerful, influential figures → seen as potential threats [grokipedia.com]   4. Crucial point for your question   Were they executed through a normal public legal process?   Evidence indicates:  no public trial they were:  condemned in absence hunted down and killed [historydraft.com]      So:  This is not the earlier Republican or senatorial model (like Pliny vs Certus)  It is:  pre-emptive political elimination with legal façade   II. Important contrast (your Hadrian puzzle) You noted:  Hadrian (Aelius) is usually seen as mild / civilized  Correct—and this is why the episode is striking:  Hadrian later: → distances himself from the executions claims: → responsibility lay with others (e.g. Attianus)    So:  even contemporaries felt this strained legitimacy   III. Conversatio (four turns) Scene: report reaches Nigrinus  NUNTIVS (1) “Nigrine, senatus te inter coniuratos rettulit.” (Nigrinus, the Senate has listed you among the conspirators.)  NIGRINVS AVIDIVS (2) “Ubi accusatus sum? quis me audivit?” (Where was I accused? Who heard me?)  NUNTIVS (3) “Nemo coram: iudicium factum est sine te.” (No one in your presence: judgment has been passed without you.)  NIGRINVS (4) “Ergo damnor non quod dixi, sed quod timeri possum.” (So I am condemned not for what I have said, but for what I might be feared to be.)  +> that the execution is motivated not by proven speech or action, but by perceived potential threat, making the legal form a cover for political pre-emption  IV. Grice/Speranza analysis This case is especially interesting because it breaks conversational structure.  1. Classical model (Cicero / Pliny)  accusation → defence → hearing → judgment → dialogical justice   2. Nigrinus case  accusation (implicit) no hearing immediate execution  → collapsed conversation  3. Gricean failure  maxim of Quality: → no test of truth maxim of Quantity: → no full account maxim of Relation: → cause replaced by suspicion    So:  the speech situation disappears and is replaced by pure inference of danger    Final Speranzian synthesis  In the case of Avidius Nigrinus, what appears formally as a senatorial judgment is in fact a non-dialogical act of political elimination, since the accused is neither heard nor present, and the grounds of decision are not established statements but perceived possibilities; thus, where earlier Roman practice depended on the exchange of accusation and defence, here authority operates by anticipating what might be said or done, and extinguishing it before it enters the space of discourse.    Ultra‑compact  Non dictum, sed suspicio damnabat.    Answer to your questions  They were not publicly tried in a full legal sense Likely: → condemned in absence → executed as political threats This contrasts sharply with: → Pliny/Quietus model of argued accusation   If you like, we can now place Nigrinus in a triad with Quietus (dialogue) and Maecianus (failed command) as three different breakdowns of conversational order.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avidio – Ossia: Grice ed Avidio -- Grex  griceiana – verbalia: Avidio. Conversatio II — Avidius Maecianus slain by his soldiers  Frame:  entrusted with Alexandria during rebellion killed by his own troops   Conversatio (military crisis) CENTVRIO (1) “Maeciane, milites dubii sunt; fidem non tenent.” (Maecianus, the soldiers waver; they do not hold loyalty.)  MAECIANVS (2) “Imperium meum satis erit ad disciplinam tenendam.” (My command will be enough to maintain discipline.)  CENTVRIO (3) “Verba tua audiunt, sed non sequuntur.” (They hear your words, but do not follow them.)  MAECIANVS (4) “Si imperium dicitur nec creditur, iam perii.” (If command is spoken but not believed, I am already lost.) +> that political and military authority depends on recognition by subordinates, not merely on formal command   Comment This is a perfect mirror of your earlier “proscription” insight:  here: → the speech-act fails uptake result: → authority collapses    Where proscription bypassed conversation, here:  command fails because it remains only conversational    

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avieno – Ossia: Grice ed Avieno -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Avieno. The Avieni, occasionally written Avienii, was a family at ancient Rome. Hardly any members of this gens are mentioned in history, but a number of Avieni are known from inscriptions.  “A.” belongs to a class of names formed using the suffix -enus, typically derived from other gentilicia. There were the Avii, also known primarily from inscriptions, derived from avus, grandfather. The main praenomina of the Avieni were Sextus and Titus, with a few other names receiving occasional use, including Gaius, Publius, and Quintus. All of these were very common throughout Roman history. One family of the Avieni at Ostia used Sextus alone, and were differentiated by their cognomina, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the "fossilization" of a praenomen, which became common in imperial times.[2]  Branches and cognomina The Avieni do not appear to have been divided into distinct stirpes, or branches, identified by hereditary surnames. There was a family of this name at Ostia, where at least some of them were part of the shipwrights' guild, but the members of this family used distinctive personal cognomina.  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Gaius Avienus, a military tribune with the tenth legion, under the command of Caesar, who dismissed him due to his conduct in the African war, in 46 BC.[3][4] Avienia, named in an inscription from Rome.[5] Avienus, the husband of Clodia, named in an inscription from Ameria in Umbria, dating to the late first century BC.[6] Avienus, named in an inscription from Haedui in Gallia Lugdunensis.[7] Avienus, named in an inscription from Bituriges Cubi in Gallia Aquitania.[8] Avienus, named in a series of inscriptions from the present site of Stanton Low, formerly part of Roman Britain.[9] Gaius Avienus, named in an inscription from Florentia in Etruria.[10] Sextus Avienus, named in an inscription from Hispalis in Hispania Baetica.[11] Sextus Avienus, named in an inscription from Ameria, dating from the reign of Augustus.[12] Titus Avienius, a cornicularius, or hornblower, buried at Rome.[13] Sextus Avienius Sex. f. Sex. n. [...], the son of Sextus Avienius Livianus and Annia, buried in the family sepulchre at Ostia.[14] Sextus Avienius Sex. f. Agathyrsus, the brother of Sextus Avienius Livianus, buried in the family sepulchre at Ostia.[14] Sextus Avienus Calliclus, named in an inscription from Sulci in Sardinia, along with Aviena Philomena.[15] Aviena Calliope, named in an inscription from Tucci in Hispania Baetica.[16] Gaius Avienus C. l. Ciratus, a freedman named in an inscription from Rome.[17] Sextus Avienus Dioscurides, buried at Tibur in Latium.[18] Titus Avienus Eros, buried at Rome.[19] Aviena Eucumene, buried at Rome, aged thirty, together with her brother, Avienius Georgus.[20] Sextus Avienus Eudoxus, named in an inscription from Rome, dating to 2 BC.[21] Sextus Avienius Felicior, the son of Avienia Flora, buried at Rome, aged sixteen years and eight days.[22] Avienia Flora, the mother of Sextus Avienius Felicior, a young man buried at Rome.[22] Avienia Sex. f. Sex. n. Flora, daughter of Sextus Avienius Livianus and Annia, buried in the family sepulchre at Ostia.[14] Aviena P. l. Fausta, probably the freedwoman of Publius Avienus Primus, named in an inscription from Rome.[23] Avienius Georgus, buried at Rome, aged eighteen, together with his sister, Avienia Eucumene.[20] Sextus Avienius Sex. f. Her[...], the brother of Sextus Avienius Livianus, buried in the family sepulchre at Ostia.[14] Sextus Avienus Heraclida, named in a list of members of the shipwrights' guild at Ostia, dating to the beginning of the third century.[24] Sextus Avienius Sex. f. Livianus, one of the municipal Decurions at Ostia, built a family sepulchre for himself and his wife, Annia, children, Avienia Flora, Sextus Avienius Livianus Junior, Sextus Avienius [...], and brothers, Sextus Avienius Agathyrsus, Sextus Avienius Nico, and Sextus Avienius Her[...]. Sextus Avienius Sex. f. Sex. n. Livianus Junior, son of Sextus Avienius Livianus and Annia, buried in the family sepulchre at Ostia.[14] Sextus Avienius Sex. f. Nico, the brother of Sextus Avienius Livianus, buried in the family sepulchre at Ostia.[14] Sextus Avienius Nico[...], named in a list of donors at Ostia, dating to AD 198.[25] Avienius Ɔ. l. Nicomedes, a freedman, built a tomb at Rome for his patron.[26] Sextus Avienius Onesiphorus, a member of the shipwrights' guild at Ostia in the beginning of the third century.[24] Aviena Philista, named in an inscription from Rome, dating to the first half of the first century.[27] Aviena Philomena, named in an inscription from Sulci, together with Sextus Avienus Calliclus.[15] Publius Avienus Primus, probably the former master of Aviena Fausta, named in an inscription from Rome.[23] Aviena Procula, dedicated a tomb at Rome to her husband, Felix, master of the imperial household.[28] Quintus Avienus Pudens, dedicated a tomb at Ameria, dating to the latter half of the first century, to his wife, Nonia Saturnina.[29] Avienus Quarte[...], named in a late second or third century inscription from Cumae in Campania.[30] Sextus Avienus Sex. l. Secundus, a freedman, and the husband of Titia Aucta, with whom he was buried at Rome, aged thirty-five.[31] Titus Avienus Tarentinus, buried at Rome.[32] Avienia Sex. l. Thaïs, a freedwoman, built a family sepulchre at Rome.[26] Titus Avenius Tiro, buried at Rome.[33] Avienia Viontilla, together with her brother, Hyginus, dedicated a tomb at Rome to their father, Julius Atticus.[34] Titus Avenius T. l. Zetus Eros, a freedman named in an inscription from Rome.[5] Avienia Sex. f. Zosime, the daughter of Sextus Avienius Zosimus, for whom she built a tomb at Ostia.[35] Sextus Avienius Zosimus, one of the Seviri Augustales at Ostia, buried in a tomb dedicated by his daughter, Avienia Zosime, dating to the late second or early third century.[35] See also List of Roman gentes References  Chase, pp. 118, 129.  Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire.  Hirtius, De Bello Africo, 46.  Broughton, vol. II, p. 299.  CIL VI, 38063.  CIL XI, 4384.  CIL XIII, 2820b.  CIL XIII, 11152.  RIB, ii. 5, 2489, 7, 1–7.  CIL XI, 8119,10b.  CIL II, 1214.  CIL XI, 4383.  AE 1988, 23.  CIL XIV, 4623.  CIL X, 7521.  CIL II, 5474.  CIL VI, 6944.  CIL XIV, 3729.  CIL VI, 34593.  CIL VI, 12897.  CIL VI, 36809.  AE 2009, 173.  CIL VI, 12896.  CIL XIV, 251.  CIL XIV, 4562.  CIL VI, 12898.  NSA, 1920, 37.  AE 1983, 61.  CIL XI, 4495.  CIL X, 3700.  CIL VI, 34594.  CIL VI, 33283.  CIL VI, 38062.  CIL VI, 38485.  AE 1999, 410. Bibliography Aulus Hirtius (attributed), De Bello Africo (On the African War). Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità (News of Excavations from Antiquity, abbreviated NSA), Accademia dei Lincei (1876–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). T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, American Philological Association (1952–1986). The Roman Inscriptions of Britain (abbreviated RIB), Oxford (1990–present). Olli Salomies, Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire, Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki (1992). Categories: Roman gentesAvieni Which would you think would make the best Grice/Speranza fit from the gens? Thanks –

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avieno – Ossia: Grice ed Avieno -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Avieno. This is a very good test case, because the Avieni are (almost) a “minimal-data gens”—so the best Grice/Speranza fit must exploit:  scarcity of narrative instability of naming and one sharp episodic case  Let me give you a ranked answer, with justification.   Best fit: Gaius Avienus dismissed by Caesar This is clearly the strongest. The case  military tribune under Caesar dismissed for his conduct in the African war   Why it fits Grice/Speranza perfectly We are told:  he was dismissed “for his conduct”  But:  no details no explicit charge no speech preserved   So what happens? We have:  minimal explicit content maximum interpretive pressure   Gricean structure Speaker (historian) says:  “dismissed for conduct”  Hearer must infer:  misconduct incompetence disloyalty?    This is:  pure implicature-generating narrative compression   Latin vignette CAESAR: “Aviene, dimitteris.” (Avienus, you are dismissed.) AVIENVS: “Quam ob rem?” (For what reason?) CAESAR: “Quod factum est satis indicat.” (What has been done is enough to show it.)  +> that the reason for dismissal is considered obvious enough to remain unstated, forcing others to reconstruct it from context  Why this is #1  silence → inference authority → no need to justify history → leaves a vacuum   Perfect Grice case.   Second-best: the “fossilised praenomen” Avieni at Ostia This is philosophically rich. The phenomenon  repeated use of Sextus alone differentiation only by cognomen   Why Gricean? Normally:  praenomen = identifying  Here:  loses informativeness becomes almost empty    So:  naming violates Maxim of Quantity   Effect  hearers must: → rely on context → reconstruct identity indirectly   Ultra-formula  Sextus dicitur—sed quis sit quaeritur.    Third-best: the etymology (Avienus ← Avus) This ties to your Aurelius insight.  derived from avus (grandfather) suggests: → genealogy / descent   Gricean twist  name implies: → lineage but actual identity: → unknown in most cases    So:  genealogical implicature without data   IV. Why the others rank lower Most other Avieni:  inscriptional only no narrative no speech situation   they lack:  interpretive tension   V. Final Speranzian synthesis  Among the Avieni, the dismissal of Gaius Avienus illustrates the most refined case of conversational implicature, in which a minimal statement by authority—“dismissed for his conduct”—invites the hearer to reconstruct an unstated narrative; and thus the silence of the source does not diminish meaning, but rather shifts it to the interpretive activity of the reader.    Ultra‑compact  Parum dicitur—multum intellegitur.    Final answer  Best fit: Gaius Avienus (dismissed by Caesar) Reason: → generates maximum Gricean implicature from minimum explicit information   If you like, we can now contrast this with a case where Caesar explicitly states reasons, to show the difference in implicature load.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Avieno – Ossia: Grice e Avieno: il portico a Roma – filosofia italiana –  (Roma). Abstract.  Avieno Rufio Festo (Roma, Lazio): il portico a Roma. Grice: “I would claim that Avieno’s “Phenomena” is the first tract in Phenomenalism. It is adventurous that hundred years later, I still had to cope with it as a scholar at Corpus!” “The Romans like a descendancy: the fact that Avenio’s middle name was ‘Rufio’ makes him indeed – in those ancient times – a ‘distant descendant’ of Musonio, whose _last_ name was Rufo!” -- Filosofo italiano. Porch. A distant descendant of Musonio Rufo. Writes “Phenomena”.: portico, portico romano, phenomena. GRICEVS: Aviene, sub porticu Romana philosopharis tam audacter ut ego apud Corpus post centum annos adhuc tuis Phenomenis lucter, quasi ventus de Tiberi chartas meas vertat. AVIENVS: Si ventus est, Grice, culpa est porticus: ibi verba mihi ambulant sicut ego, nec umquam sciunt quando sedere debeant. GRICEVS: Sed Romani descendentiam amant, et quod tibi nomen medium Rufio est, te statim faciunt nepotem longinquum Musonii Rufi—nomen quasi scala genealogica. AVIENVS: Ita, et si quis me rogat unde veni, respondeo: ex porticu, ex Rufione, ex Phenomenis—et ex tua querela, quae iam fit appendix libri.