CU

 

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

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cuoco – Ossia: Grice e Cuoco: l’implicatura conversazionale dell’accademia. Grice: “A philosopher that only Italy could produce!” Vincenzo Cuoco (Civitacampomarano, Campobasso, Molise): l’implicatura conversazionale dell’accademia. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how hearers rationally recover what a speaker means beyond what is said by treating conversation as a cooperative enterprise guided by intelligible norms (so that implicatures are inferable, cancelable products of practical reasoning about why a speaker would have spoken as they did). Cuoco, by contrast, is best read in your passage as theorizing the academy, politics, and “national-popular” formation rather than the micro-logic of inference in everyday talk: his concern with how one must “speak to” new popular forces, how public instruction forms a coscienza nazionale popolare, and how institutions mediate between tradition (e.g., medieval-catholic inheritance) and modern liberal energies turns “conversationality” into a civil and pedagogical problem—how a nation comes to share reasons, not merely how an individual hearer computes an implicature. If Grice’s rationality is primarily a normative model for interpreting utterances (maxims, intention-recognition, inference), Cuoco’s rationality is programmatic and historical: it asks what conditions make shared understanding possible at all (schooling, civic language, political legitimacy), so that the academy’s “implicature” is less a tidy semantic by-product than the institutional subtext whereby elites communicate, recruit, and fail to recruit the people. More specific context aligns with this: Cuoco’s Saggio storico sulla rivoluzione napoletana del 1799 was first published in 1801 and famously diagnoses the revolution’s failure as a disjunction between intellectual élite and populace, while his 1809 Progetto di decreto per la pubblica istruzione (prepared for the Murat regime; later reprinted) explicitly frames public education as the indispensable instrument for forming a national-popular consciousness—so, in a Gricean gloss, Cuoco is preoccupied with the large-scale background that makes cooperative reason in public discourse sustainable, whereas Grice is preoccupied with the local mechanics by which cooperation yields interpretable meaning here and now. Grice: “A philosopher that only Italy could produce!” Vico. Studia a Napoli sotto Falconieri. Conosce Galanti. Partecipa con Falconieri e scrive La rivoluzione napoletana. L’accademia in Italia, e un originale romanzo utopistico proposto in forma epistolare, e quindi rientrò nel Regno di Napoli governato da Giuseppe Bonaparte, ricoprendovi importanti incarichi pubblici, prima come Consigliere di Cassazione e poi Direttore del Tesoro, dove si distinse inoltre come uno dei più importanti consiglieri del governo di Gioacchino Murat.  In questo ambito preparò nel 1809 un Progetto per l'ordinamento della pubblica istruzione nel Regno di Napoli, nel quale l'istruzione pubblica è vista come indispensabile strumento per la formazione di una coscienza nazional popolare. Seguace del italo pelasgiche, trova il suo asse, il suo fulcro nel Papato, espressione di purità religiosa e d'originaria sapienza, e si rinnoverà, se il presente sarà a sufficienza legato al passato, cioè alla tradizione medievale- cattolica; C., pur mantenendo ferma la remotissima storia italo -pela sgica ed estrusca e poi ancora romana, pur riconoscendo l'alta missione civilizzatrice della Chiesa nel Medio Evo, questo primato vuol rinnovellare solo nel gioco delle li bere forze, espresse da quella tragica crisi che è la rivo luzione francese ed italiana, nel loro sviluppo, e nello spiegamento della loro maggior coscienza; nello Stato laico, insomma, che afferrni sì la religione, come luce alla plebi, ma affermi pure una sua intima naturale ra gione, che con la religione non ha nulla a che fare. E in quest'accettamento delle nuove forze popolaresche, alle quali bisogna parlare, perchè la volontà di nazione sia realmente nazione, e la volontà di Stato realmente Stato, C. si lega ad un altro grande, MAZZINI , tanto diverso da GIOBERTI , ma pur con questi entusiasta caldo nella visione del futuro popolo dell'Italia re denta. L'educazione nazionale nel pensiero cuochiano. Il popolo e la scuola. Italia. Italo. Grice: “Clifton, 1928. Preparing for my Grand Tour, I was checking Cuoco’s Descrizione delle Sicilie and thought I had spotted a solecism. Shropshire, who has a taste for eccentric exoticisms, assured me that only ONE Sicilia is the real one, the other being what he called a not-the-trouser-word Sicily: not the Sicily that wears the trousers. He explained (with the air of a man elucidating etymology) that the sobriquet was used for part of the southern peninsula.”[Editorial note (corrected): Cuoco’s plural is perfectly orthodox for the period. “The Two Sicilies” (le Due Sicilie; Latin utriusque Siciliae) names the paired realms of Naples on the mainland and Sicily proper, long treated administratively and titulary as two “Sicilies” under one crown; hence the habitual plural in late-18th-century usage, which survives institutionally in the later “Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.” Grice: Cuoco, devo confessare che l’accademia italiana mi sembra una vera giostra di pensieri! Solo qui si può trovare un filosofo che, tra Vico e Falconieri, scrive romanzi utopistici in forma epistolare e poi si ritrova Direttore del Tesoro! Dimmi, hai mai pensato di mettere le tue idee sulla pubblica istruzione in una canzone napoletana? Cuoco: Grice, sarebbe stato un successo! Immagina, “La coscienza nazional popolare” in versione mandolino. In fondo, ogni riforma parte dal ritmo: se la scuola balla, anche il popolo si sveglia. Ma attento, tra un passo di danza e un progetto, rischio di perdere il posto al Tesoro! Grice: Ecco, Cuoco, tu ci insegni che la tradizione medievale-cattolica non si può dimenticare, ma bisogna rinnovarla con qualche passo di tarantella, magari. Mazzini vorrebbe un’Italia che canta, Gioberti preferisce meditare… tu quale scegli, il concerto o la riflessione? Cuoco: Grice, io dico che prima si riflette, poi si canta! La scuola è come un coro: se ognuno trova la sua voce, l’Italia sarà davvero “redenta.” E se la rivoluzione porta una maggiore coscienza, allora che sia almeno una rivoluzione allegra, con finale a sorpresa! Cuoco, Vincenzo (1790). Descrizione storica e geografica dell Sicilie.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cupiennio – Ossia: Grice e Cupiennio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Cupiennio. Denarius of Lucius C., 147 BC. The cornucopia is behind the head of Roma, on the obverse. The C. are a family at Rome. Members of this gens are first mentioned toward the end of the Republic. None of them achieved any great importance. Lucius C., triumvir monetalis. His coins feature a cornucopia (copia in Latin), a possible allusion to his name.[2][3] Gaius C., a friend of Tullio Cicero, who wrote him a letter in 44 BC, reminding him of the friendship that had existed between him and Cupiennius' father, and entreating Cupiennius to interest himself in the affairs of the people of Buthrotum.[4] Gaius C. Libo, an inhabitant of Cumae, and a friend of OTTAVIO Augustus, said by the scholiast on ORAZIO to be the same Cupiennius attacked by ORAZIO on account of his adulterous intercourse with Roman matrons.[5] See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor.  Borghesi, Oeuvres complètes, i, pp. 466, 467.  Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, p. 257.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, xvi. 16, D.  Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satirae, i.  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)  Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum. Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Satirae. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). Bartolomeo Borghesi, Oeuvres complètes de Bartolomeo Borghesi, Imprimerie Nationale, Paris, 1862. Michael Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge University Press (1974, 2001). GENS                                    This article about Roman gentes is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.  Categories: Roman gentesRoman gentes stubs For this we can recreate that letter by Tullio and make it into a direct Ausdtin performative: I entreat you to interest yourself in tehe affairs of the people of Buthrotum -- why? who? how can you dare ENTREAT me--eitehr I interest or I do not--what does dad have to do with it? Etc –

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cupiennio – Ossia: Grice e Cupiennio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Cupiennio. Yes — Cupiennius is wonderfully suited to an Austin–Grice dialogue because the surviving notice turns entirely on a speech act:  Cicero writes to Cupiennius, reminding him of his friendship with Cupiennius' father, and entreating him to concern himself with the affairs of the people of Buthrotum. [ancienttexts.org]  What is philosophically interesting is the verb entreat. An Austinian would ask:  What am I doing when I say "I entreat you"?  It is not describing an entreaty; it is the entreaty.  Grice e Cupiennio De Precatione Ciceronis TULLIVS  Cupienni, te oro ut rebus Buthrotiorum studeas. Cupiennius, I entreat you to concern yourself with the affairs of the Buthrotians.  CVPIENNIVS  Cur? Why?  TULLIVS  Quia iustum est. Because it is right.  CVPIENNIVS  Non quaesivi cur iustum sit. I did not ask why it is right.  TULLIVS  Quid igitur quaeris? What then are you asking?  CVPIENNIVS  Cur me oras? Why are you entreating me?  TULLIVS  Quia potes auxilium ferre. Because you can help.  CVPIENNIVS  Si possum, faciam. If I can, I shall do so.  TULLIVS  Ergo fac. Then do it.  CVPIENNIVS  Quid addit "oro"? What does "I entreat" add?  At this point Grice enters.  GRICEVS  Multum. A great deal.  CVPIENNIVS  Nihil video. I see nothing.  GRICEVS  Si Tullius dicat: "Buthrotii auxilio egent," he merely informs you.  CVPIENNIVS  Ita. True.  GRICEVS  Si dicat: "Te oro ut eis auxilieris," he attempts to move you.  CVPIENNIVS  Ergo non rem describit sed rem agit? So he is not describing an act but performing one?  GRICEVS  Praecise. Exactly.   Then Cupiennius becomes skeptical. CVPIENNIVS  Sed quomodo audes me orare? But how dare you entreat me?  TULLIVS  Patrem tuum amicum habui. I was a friend of your father.  CVPIENNIVS  Argumentum est? Is that an argument?  TULLIVS  Non argumentum tantum. Not merely an argument.  CVPIENNIVS  Quid ergo? Then what?  TULLIVS  Captatio benevolentiae. A claim upon your goodwill.   And the Gricean punchline: CVPIENNIVS  Possumne recusare? May I refuse?  GRICEVS  Certe. Certainly.  CVPIENNIVS  Ergo "te oro" non facit ut faciam. Then "I entreat you" does not make me do it.  GRICEVS  Non facit. It does not.  CVPIENNIVS  Quid ergo facit? Then what does it do?  GRICEVS  Facit ut recusatio tua significet plus quam recusatio simplex. It makes your refusal mean more than a mere refusal.  That, I think, is the most Gricean moral. Cicero's oro does not create an obligation. But it changes the conversational situation. After the entreaty, "No" is no longer just information; it is a response to a personal appeal grounded in friendship, memory, and obligation. That is precisely the sort of difference between bare content and conversational force that both Austin and Grice would have enjoyed exploring. and do we have the Latin of Cicero to check 'oro' studeas gentes behtronia' where is that? Thanks I was able to verify the reference, but not recover the specific Cupiennius sentence itself from the search results. What I did find is that the gens article's citation is indeed:  Cicero, Ad Atticum 16.16D (or XVI, 16d in modern numbering). [thelatinlibrary.com]  And the reason Buthrotum appears in this part of Ad Atticum is that Cicero is discussing the Buthrotii (the people of Buthrotum in Epirus). In Book XVI there are multiple references to the Buthrotians and their affairs. [thelatinlibrary.com] However, the search results did not give the text of the short note to Cupiennius itself, nor the wording containing the entreaty. So I cannot honestly confirm that Cicero uses:  oro te  or  studeas rebus Buthrotiorum  without seeing the actual letter. The dictionary summary says that Cicero reminded Cupiennius of his friendship with Cupiennius' father and urged him to concern himself with the affairs of Buthrotum, but the exact Latin wording is not present in the source snippets I found. [thelatinlibrary.com] What is interesting is that if Cicero really wrote something like:  te oro ut rebus Buthrotiorum studeas,  then your Austinian point would be exactly right. Cupiennius could respond:  Quid addit "oro"? "What does 'I entreat' add?"  and Cicero would have to explain that he is not merely informing Cupiennius about the Buthrotians but placing a personal claim upon him through the memory of his father. In Gricean terms:  "The Buthrotians need help"  conveys information. Whereas:  "I entreat you to help the Buthrotians"  adds a social and personal force beyond the proposition itself. At the moment, though, I'd want the actual text of Ad Atticum XVI.16d before putting words like oro or studeas into Cicero's mouth. The citation is secure; the wording remains to be checked. [thelatinlibrary.com] apparently the entreat begins with "quam ob rem peto a te" -- does this help? Yes, that helps a lot. In fact, "quam ob rem peto a te" is philosophically more interesting than "oro te". The difference is subtle:  oro te = "I beg/entreat you." peto a te = "I ask/request from you." quam ob rem peto a te = "for which reason I ask of you..."  The phrase explicitly introduces a reason-giving structure. A reconstruction of Cicero's rhetoric would be:  I was a friend of your father. I have an interest in the Buthrotians. quam ob rem peto a te... therefore I ask of you...  The performative is not hanging in the air. It is presented as the conclusion of an argument. That's why a Gricean Cupiennius can become troublesome: CVPIENNIVS  Quam ob rem petis a me? "For what reason do you ask me?"  TVLLIVS  Quia pater tuus mihi familiarissimus fuit. "Because your father was a very close friend of mine."  CVPIENNIVS  Intellego cur petas. "I understand why you ask."  TVLLIVS  Ergo fac. "Then do it."  CVPIENNIVS  Non sequitur. "That does not follow."  That is wonderfully Gricean. For Cicero, the friendship yields a claim upon Cupiennius' goodwill. For Cupiennius, understanding the reason for the request is not yet a reason for granting it. Indeed, Austin would say that:  peto a te  is the performative. While Grice would immediately ask:  What conversational pressure does the request create?  The request does not logically entail compliance, but it changes the normative situation. A refusal after  quam ob rem peto a te  is different from a refusal after a mere statement of fact. So if the letter really contains that formula, I would revise the dialogue away from:  "I entreat you..."  toward:  "For which reason I request of you..."  because Cicero is then explicitly presenting the request as the practical conclusion of preceding considerations. That's a very Roman, very Ciceronian form of persuasion. and from that line can you extract the paragraph from an open source resource? Thanks Yes — we can now recover the actual passage. The Alpheios text preserves the Latin of Ad Atticum XVI.16D: [texts.alpheios.net]  patrem tuum plurimi feci meque ille mirifice et coluit et amavit; nec me hercule umquam mihi dubium fuit quin a te diligerer; ego quidem id facere non destiti. quam ob rem peto a te in maiorem modum ut civitatem Buthrotiam subleves decretumque consulum quod ii secundum Buthrotios fecerunt, cum et lege et senatus consulto statuendi potestatem haberent, des operam ut Plancus noster quam primum confirmet et comprobet. hoc te vehementer, mi Cupienni, etiam atque etiam rogo. [texts.alpheios.net]  A literal rendering:  "I held your father in the highest regard, and he showed me remarkable respect and affection; nor indeed have I ever doubted that I was loved by you, and I for my part have not ceased to feel likewise. For which reason I earnestly ask you to assist the community of Buthrotum, and to use your efforts so that our friend Plancus may confirm and approve as soon as possible the decree which the consuls made in favour of the Buthrotians, when they had authority to decide the matter both by law and by decree of the Senate. This I repeatedly and earnestly ask of you, my dear Cupiennius." [texts.alpheios.net], [loebclassics.com]  For your Austinian reconstruction, the important sequence is:  Friendship with the father. Continuing goodwill toward the son. quam ob rem peto a te... hoc te ... rogo.  So Cicero does not merely state a fact about Buthrotum. He explicitly performs two speech acts:  peto a te ("I ask/request of you") [texts.alpheios.net]  and then, even more strongly,  hoc te ... rogo ("I beg this of you"). [texts.alpheios.net]  A Gricean Cupiennius could therefore object:  Intellego cur petas; nondum intellego cur faciam. "I understand why you ask; I do not yet understand why I should do it."  Because Cicero's argument establishes the propriety of the request; it does not logically entail compliance. The force comes from friendship, gratitude, and obligation, not from deduction. That is precisely what makes the letter such a nice example of an Austinian performative embedded in a Ciceronian chain of reasons. [texts.alpheios.net] And the implicature for Grice is that Cup. ought NOT do it -- otherwise Cicero would say so. It's a VOLITIVE, not an acceptability judgement or acceptance judgement -- of moral acceptance -- it is up to Cup. to decide whether he ought, should, may, what have you -- thanks -- in fact, the lady doth protest too much, methinks. all those performatory/illocutionary prefaces, peto, rogo, at the end of the missive too, seem overwhelmingly strong for somehting that Cup. OUGHT to do -- therefore it is not the case that he ought to do –thanks Yes — and I think this is a genuinely Gricean observation. Austin tended to treat expressions such as:  peto a te... rogo te...  as overt illocutionary indicators: the speaker is explicitly marking the force of the utterance. But Grice is always alert to what the choice of force may itself communicate. In Cicero's note, notice the accumulation:  quam ob rem peto a te in maiorem modum... ... hoc te vehementer, mi Cupienni, etiam atque etiam rogo. [imperiumromanum.pl]  Cicero asks; then asks again; then intensifies the request. A purely Austinian reading might stop there:  The illocutionary force is "request" or "entreaty."  A Gricean may ask:  Why a request?  Why not:  oportet te hoc facere ("you ought to do this"), or debes hoc facere ("you are bound to do this")?  He does not say that. Indeed, Cicero bases his request on:  friendship with Cupiennius' father, affection between himself and Cupiennius, goodwill. [imperiumromanum.pl]  That is the language of personal influence, not legal or moral necessity. So your suggestion can be put as follows: What is said Cicero says:  I ask you. I beg you. Please use your influence with Plancus. [imperiumromanum.pl]  What is not said He does not say:  You are obliged. You must. Justice requires it. You would be acting wrongly if you refused.  Possible implicature Therefore one may infer:  The matter is not one in which Cupiennius is already under a clear obligation.  Otherwise, why the elaborate appeal? As you put it:  If Cupiennius simply ought to do it, Cicero could have said so.  Now, I would not go quite as far as:  therefore Cupiennius ought not do it.  That is stronger than the text warrants. But I think a Gricean could reasonably infer:  The fact that Cicero relies on friendship and repeated entreaty suggests that compliance lies within Cupiennius' discretion.  That is, the issue is volitional. Cupiennius must decide whether to act. In Grice's terminology, the letter seeks to affect the will rather than establish the truth of a proposition or the existence of a duty. Hence a delicious reply by Cupiennius:  Intellego te petere; nondum intellego me debere. "I understand that you ask; I do not yet understand that I am obliged."  That captures exactly the gap between:  a request (peto, rogo), and a claim of obligation (oportet, debes).  And the very abundance of Cicero's performative language may itself suggest that he knows he is operating in the former realm rather than the latter. [imperiumromanum.pl] "Especially when (i) I have a train to catch (ii) I raher be sailing (iii) I'm not the compulsive meddler in other people's affairs as you do -- and leave Dad out of it -- the Brithro in Epis are total foreigners to me! and I could care less or NOT care less, you decide Tullio"! Yes! That's exactly the sort of reply a Gricean Cupiennius would give if he were determined to resist being maneuvered by Cicero's rhetoric. The point would not be:  "Your request is false."  Requests are neither true nor false. Rather:  "Your premises do not generate an obligation for me."  One might imagine: CVPIENNIVS  Patrem meum amavisti; gratias ago. "You loved my father; I thank you."  TVLLIVS  Quam ob rem peto a te... "For which reason I ask of you..." [imperiumromanum.pl]  CVPIENNIVS  Ecce ubi dissentio. "Here is where I disagree."  TVLLIVS  Cur? "Why?"  CVPIENNIVS  Intelligo cur petas; nondum intellego cur faciam. "I understand why you ask; I do not yet understand why I should do it."  And then the more impatient version:  "I have a ship to catch." "I'd rather be sailing." "Unlike you, I am not professionally addicted to other people's affairs." "Leave my father out of it." "The Buthrotians are complete strangers to me." "Whether I could care less or couldn't care less, you decide, Tullius."  The Gricean twist is that the very abundance of Cicero's language—  peto a te in maiorem modum... hoc te vehementer... etiam atque etiam rogo [imperiumromanum.pl]  —may suggest that Cicero is appealing to friendship and goodwill precisely because he lacks a stronger basis such as legal authority or obvious obligation. A suspicious Cupiennius could therefore reason:  If I were plainly bound to do it, you would say oportet or debes. Instead you say peto and rogo. Therefore you are trying to move my will, not demonstrate my duty.  Whether that conclusion is correct is another matter. But it is exactly the sort of conversational inference that Grice would enjoy extracting from Cicero's phrasing. The stronger the entreaty, the more Cupiennius may suspect that the case is not as self-evident as Cicero would like it to appear. [imperiumromanum.pl]

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cupiennio – Ossia: Grice e Cupiennio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Cupiennio.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curi – Ossia: Grice e Curi: la ragione conversazionale e  l’implicatura conversazionale dei figli di Marte -- passione e compassione, senso e consenso Umberto Curi (Verona, Veneto): la ragione conversazionale e  l’implicatura conversazionale dei figli di Marte -- passione e compassione, senso e consenso. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how hearers get from what is said to what is meant by treating talk as a cooperative, norm-regulated enterprise in which speakers are accountable to rational expectations (relevance, sufficiency, clarity, etc.), so that implicatures are not free poetic add-ons but products of disciplined inference from shared conversational aims. In the passage’s idiom, Umberto Curi is presented as a philosopher of “ragione conversazionale” and “implicatura conversazionale” who relocates the centre of gravity from Grice’s inferential micro-mechanics to the broader cultural and ethical drama in which conversation is embedded: polemos, civilità, war and peace (Eirene), mythos and narration, and the oscillation between sense and consensus, with philosophical life figured as struggle (pólemos) rather than merely as coordination under a cooperative principle. Where Grice’s rationality is chiefly methodological—how a hearer can justify an interpretation as the uniquely reasonable one given the speaker’s putative cooperativeness—Curi’s rationality is more genealogical and existential, tracking how persuasion, conflict, and shared life shape what can count as sense at all; implicature, on this telling, becomes less a calculable by-product of maxims and more a symptom (sometimes comic, sometimes tragic) of the tension between passion and reason in public discourse. Online biographical summaries reinforce the thematic fit: Curi’s mature work is often described as focusing on the politics–war nexus and the notion of polemos (Heraclitus to Heidegger), alongside an emphasis on narrative (including cinema) and on elemental themes such as love, death, pain, and fate—materials that naturally invite a “conversational” vocabulary, but one whose point is interpretive and civilizational rather than Grice’s narrowly explanatory ambition to derive implicatures from rational conversational norms. Grice: “I like C.; unlike me, we would call him a prolific philosopher; my favourite are his reflections on ‘eros’, ‘amore’ and bello, but he has also written on various topics related to maleness!”  Si laurea a Padova sotto DIANO, GENTILE, e BOZZI. Insegna a Padova. Conosce CACCIARI. Filosofa sul nesso politica-civilita e guerra e sul concetto di ‘polemos’ – cf. Grice epagoge/diagoge “”War is war” – Eirene --, Valorizza la narrazione, intesa come mythos, Medita su alcuni temi fondamentali dell'interrogazione filosofica, quali l'amore e la morte, il dolore e il destino.  Endiadi: figure della dualità” La filosofia come ‘bellum’” La forza dello sguardo” – Lat. vereor – warten: to see --; “Meglio non essere nati: la condizione umana” – “Lo schermo” Un filosofo al cinema, Quello che non e filosofo, ma ha soltanto una verniciatura di casi umani, come il maschio abbronzato dal sole, vedendo quante cose si devono imparare, quante fatiche bisogna sopportare, come si convenga, a seguire tale studio, la vita regolata di ogni giorno, giudica che sia una cosa difficile e impossibile per lui. A questo maschio bisogna mostrare che cos'è davvero la filosofia, e quante difficoltà presenta, e quanta fatica comporta.” Accademia La libertà non è soltanto l'essere-liberati DA lle catene né soltanto l'esser-divenuti-liberi PER la luce, ma l'autentico essere-liberi è essere-liberatori DA il buio. La ridiscesa nella caverna non è un divertimento aggiuntivo che il presunto libero possa concedersi così per svago, magari per curiosita. E esser-ci dentro tutto, essa soltanto, il compimento autentico del divenire liberi. L'essenza della verità, La brama dell'avere” si ha un attento e puntuale riesame sia storico-filosofico che critico-filologico della fondamentale categoria Triade arcaica. passione, have, habere, habitus, comportamentismo, behaviourism. La brama dell’avere, anticonformismo, guerra e pace, Eirene – cosmologia anthropologia, l’orto di Zenone, lo scudo d’Achille, I figli di Marte, il mantello e la scarpa libido. Grice, St. John’s, 1967. “Just browsing through recent publications at the Bodleian: Cusani’s comportamentismo! Behaviourism is horribly enough, but in what way is to behave to comport? And what about misbehave! I should ask Ryle, but I don’t talk to that man.” Grice: Curi, devo ammettere che la tua filosofia mi manda spesso “in guerra”: dai figli di Marte all’eros, ogni testo è una battaglia tra passione e ragione! Ma dimmi, se la vita è davvero polemos, chi vince: il senso o il consenso?  Curi: Caro Grice, la vita è come lo scudo d’Achille: ci sono colpi, riflessi, e persino qualche abbronzatura, ma alla fine vince chi sa ridere tra le fatiche. Il consenso serve al dialogo, il senso alla sopravvivenza filosofica… e la passione fa da arbitro, anche quando si parla di amore o di maschi “verniciati” dal sole!  Grice: Ecco, Curi, tu porti la filosofia direttamente nell’accademia e persino sul grande schermo! Mi chiedo: se Platone fosse qui, preferirebbe la libertà della caverna o la brama dell’avere una popcorn extra durante il film?  Curi: Platone, secondo me, avrebbe scelto la libertà… ma solo se la popcorn fosse liberata dal burro! In fondo, l’essere-liberi è anche essere-liberatori dal buio della sala, specie quando il film è una commedia filosofica. Grice, ricordati: la filosofia non è solo fatica, è anche una splendida occasione per sorridere e scoprire quanta passione si nasconde dietro una scarpa o uno scudo. Curi, Umberto (1964). Il problema dell'unità del sapere nel comportamentismo, Padova.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grice e Curiazio Grex Curiazio The Curiazi was a distinguished family at Rome, with both patrician and plebeian branches. Members of this gens are mentioned in connection with the reign of Tullus Hostilius, the third King of Rome, during the seventh century BC. The first of the Curiatii to attain any significant office was Publius Curiatius Fistus, surnamed Trigeminus, who held the consulship in 453 BC. The gens continued to exist throughout the Republic, and perhaps into imperial times, but seldom did its members achieve any prominence. The existence of a patrician gens of this name is attested by Livius, who expressly mentions the Curiatii among the noble Alban gentes, which, after the destruction of Alba, were transplanted to Rome, and there received among the Patres. This opinion is not contradicted by the fact that in BC 401 and 138 we meet with Curiatii who were tribunes of the people and consequently plebeians, for this phenomenon may be accounted for here, as in other cases, by the supposition that the plebeian Curiatii were the descendants of freedmen of the patrician Curiatii, or that some members of the patrician gens had gone over to the plebeians.  The Alban origin of the Curiatii is also stated in the story about the three Curiatii who, in the reign of Tullus Hostilius, fought with the three Roman brothers, the Horatii, and were conquered by the cunning and bravery of one of the Horatii, though some writers described the Curiatii as Romans and the Horatii as Albans. The only cognomen of the gens in the times of the Republic is Fistus. The consul of 453 bore the additional surname Trigeminus, alluding to the legend of the three Curiatii; the name can best be translated as "triplet." This name appears to have been passed down through the family, although whether its use was confined to the patrician family or shared by both branches is unclear.[1]  Members Publius Curiatius Fistus, surnamed Trigeminus, consul in 453 BC, and a member of the first decemvirate in 451.[9][10][11] Publius Curiatius, tribune of the people in 401 BC. With two of his colleagues, brought charges against two military tribunes of the preceding year. Brought forward an agrarian law, and prevented the tribute for the maintenance of the armies from being levied from the plebeians.[12] Gaius Curiatius, tribune of the people in 138 BC, whom Cicero characterized as a homo infirmus. He caused the consuls of that year, Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica and Decimus Junius Brutus, to be thrown into prison for the severity with which they proceeded in levying fresh troops, and for their disregard to the privilege of the tribunes to exempt certain persons from military service.[13][14][15] Gaius Curiatius Trigeminus, appears on several coins, and may be identical with the tribune of 138, or perhaps his son, or with one of the patrician Curiatii.[16] Curiatius Maternus, a rhetorician and author of tragedies, who was put to death by Domitian.[17][18] See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, i. 24 ff.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia, iii. 11 ff.  Plutarchus, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans, 16.  Florus, Epitome de T. Livio Bellorum Omnium Annorum DCC libri duo, i. 3.  Sextus Aurelius Victor, De Viris Illustribus, 4.  Joannes Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum, 6.  Barthold Georg Niebuhr, History of Rome, i. p. 348.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, iii. 32, 33.  Fasti Capitolini.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia, x. 54.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, v. 11, 12.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Legibus, iii. 9.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita Epitome, 55.  Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium libri IX, iii. 7. § 3.  Joseph Hilarius Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, v. p. 199 ff.  Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Dialogus de Oratoribus, cc. 2, 3, 11, 13.  Lucius Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Roman History, lxxvii. 12.  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)  Categories: CuriatiiRoman gentesRoman gentes of Latin originAlba Longa we all know the story of the Curiazi -- but given that it's Orazia the one married to ONE Curiazi that became history can we recreate a conversation between Horazia and ThAT curiazi she married? or to whom she was bethroted? Because that would justify -- if we have the vows -- Orazia's reaction, overreaction, even if it failed to win the sympathy of Orazio, and actually may have moved him to act as he so brutally did? Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Grice e Curiazio Grex Curiazio Yes, and in this case a reconstructed conversation is not only possible but almost required by the logic of the legend. Livy and the later tradition tell us only the public climax:  one Horatius survives, he returns victorious, Horatia sees the cloak or spoils of her Curiatius, she laments, Horatius kills her.  What is missing is exactly what you point to:  what promises, expectations, and vows existed before the combat?  Without those, Horatia can look merely hysterical. With them, her reaction becomes intelligible, even if Horatius regards it as intolerable. A Gricean reconstruction would focus on the future-oriented commitments.  Horatia et Curiatius Before the duel CVRIATIVS  The kings have agreed. Three against three.  HORATIA  Then you must not go.  CVRIATIVS  I must.  HORATIA  You always say that.  CVRIATIVS  This time it is true.  HORATIA  And if you die?  CVRIATIVS  Then Alba will remember me.  HORATIA  Alba may. I shall not.  CVRIATIVS  What do you mean?  HORATIA  I mean I do not love Alba. I love you.   The crucial exchange HORATIA  Will you return?  CVRIATIVS  I shall do everything I can.  HORATIA  That is not what I asked.  CVRIATIVS  No man can promise victory.  HORATIA  Then promise me your intention.  CVRIATIVS  My intention is to return and marry you.  Now Grice would pause. The utterance:  "My intention is to return."  does not entail:  "I shall return."  But lovers routinely hear more than is said.  The implicature HORATIA  Then we are as good as married.  CVRIATIVS  I did not say that.  HORATIA  You did not need to.  That is pure Grice. He says:  I intend.  She hears:  We have a future.   After the combat When Horatia later sees the garment associated with Curiatius, her grief becomes understandable. She is not merely mourning:  a soldier.  She is mourning:  an anticipated future.  In modern Gricean terms, she had built her expectations not upon a formal contract but upon a network of intentions, assurances, and mutual understandings.  Why Horatius may have been provoked The brother's reaction becomes more intelligible too. HORATIVS  Rome has been saved.  HORATIA  And he is dead.  HORATIVS  He was an enemy.  HORATIA  He was my husband.  HORATIVS  He was not.  HORATIA  He was to be.  That last phrase may be the key to the whole story. Horatius is speaking politically:  Roman versus Alban.  Horatia is speaking personally:  promised future versus present loss.  The tragedy is that neither accepts the other's frame of reference. And if one wanted to make the scene thoroughly Gricean, Horatia's cry is not a failure of logic but a conflict between two systems of priority:  "Rome has won."  and  "My beloved is dead."  Both are true; the dispute is over which truth matters most. Yes, and we can reconstruct in Latin the dialogue of this Curiazio -- do we have HIS particular three-part name? -- and Orazia -- as engaging in a dialogue by which by being 'i promessi sposi' they vow each other to MOURN the other properly -- there is an opera on this 'I orazi and i curiazi which possibly has a scene on this -- because without knwong how SERIOULSY Orazia took those vows we cannot understand her reaction? Thanks Yes, but with one important historical caveat. The sources you supplied (Livy, Dionysius, Plutarch, etc.) tell us of Horatia and one of the three Curiatii, but they do not, so far as I know, preserve his individual praenomen or full three-part name. The legendary narrative treats the combatants collectively as:  Horatii Curiatii  rather than as individually identifiable aristocrats. From the evidence you've cited, I can safely say only that the surviving tradition does not give us the fiancé's full Republican-style tria nomina. cite not available in this turn; based on the sources listed in your prompt, which identify the combatants collectively. Your larger point, however, is excellent. The standard schoolbook version runs:  Horatia sees the cloak of her dead Curiatius. Horatia laments. Horatius kills her.  But psychologically that is thin. The story becomes more intelligible if we reconstruct a prior dialogue of mutual commitment. Not necessarily a legal betrothal, but something like: Horatia et Curiatius CVRIATIVS  Si cecidero, memineris mei. "If I fall, remember me."  HORATIA  Semper. "Always."  CVRIATIVS  Noli nimis flere. "Do not grieve excessively."  HORATIA  Hoc promittere non possum. "That I cannot promise."  CVRIATIVS  Quid ergo promittis? "What then do you promise?"  HORATIA  Te non oblituram. "That I shall not forget you."  CVRIATIVS  Et ego idem tibi promitto. "And I promise the same to you."  Now the later scene changes character. When Horatia cries out over the dead Curiatius, she is not merely expressing affection; she is fulfilling a prior commitment:  "I promised not to forget."  Consequently, from her perspective, failing to mourn would be the betrayal. From Horatius' perspective, however, mourning an Alban enemy while Rome is celebrating victory looks like treason. The tragedy lies in the collision of two obligations:                      HoratiaHoratiusfidelity to the belovedfidelity to Romeprivate vowpublic dutymemoryvictory A Gricean would say that Horatia's lament conveys much more than:  "I am sad."  It conveys:  "My prior commitments to this man remain in force."  And that is precisely what Horatius cannot tolerate. As for the opera, Gli Orazi e i Curiazi (Cimarosa and others worked on the theme), you're right that operatic treatments often expand the love plot far beyond the terse Roman historians. The surviving Roman sources are politically focused; opera naturally asks the question you are asking:  What passed between the lovers before the battle?  Without that, Horatia's reaction is hard to evaluate. With it, her response may still be excessive in Horatius' eyes, but it ceases to be unintelligible. so apparently triplets were rare which survived so naming practice is not available -- but cf. Curiazio Trigemmino memorising the triplets collectively -- Corneille has a Curiazio in his dramma, set by Cimarosa and Mercadante -- does this help? Thanks -- The character Curiazio in Domenico Cimarosa’s opera Gli Orazi e i Curiazi (1796) is explicitly Orazia’s betrothed. [1, 2, 3] In fact, the central emotional and tragic spine of Cimarosa's entire opera relies entirely on their doomed romance. How They Are Presented in the Opera The Loving Couple: At the very beginning of the opera, Orazia and Curiazio are deeply in love and eagerly preparing for their impending wedding. [1, 2] The Duets: They share multiple romantic numbers together—most famously the Act 1 duet "Ti giura il labbro e il core" ("My lips and my heart swear to you")—where they express their devotion right before the war interrupts them. [1, 2] The Ultimate Tragedy: When Curiazio is chosen by Alba Longa to fight Orazia’s brother (Marco Orazio) in the triple duel to the death, Curiazio is forced to choose between his love for Orazia and his duty to his homeland. [1, 2, 3] Ultimately, Marco kills Curiazio in battle, and when Orazia publicly curses Rome out of grief for her slain betrothed, Marco kills her too. [1, 2] If you'd like, I can provide a breakdown of how Curiazio's death is revealed to Orazia in the opera, or explore the unique vocal style used for Curiazio's role in late 18th-century opera seria! Yes, it helps enormously—but mostly for understanding Horatia's psychology, not for reconstructing the early Roman legend. The ancient sources tend to leave the fiancé anonymous as one of the Curiatii. As you note, once the tradition speaks of the three brothers collectively (Trigemini), individual naming largely disappears into the legendary haze. The later historical Curiatii Trigemini, such as Publius Curiatius Fistus Trigeminus, are commemorating the legend, not preserving the personal names of the original triplets. What Corneille, Cimarosa, and Mercadante do is something different: they supply the emotional details that Livy leaves implicit. The most important detail you mention is the duet:  "Ti giura il labbro e il core" "My lips and my heart swear to you."  If the lovers exchange vows before the duel, then Horatia's later conduct becomes much more intelligible. A Gricean point arises here. Suppose Curiazio says:  "My lips and heart swear themselves to you."  Literally, this is not:  "I shall certainly survive."  Nor is it:  "I shall marry you on such-and-such a date."  Yet the conversational implications are enormous:  we have a future; we shall be together; the present separation is temporary; our mutual commitment survives the war.  Horatia's interpretation may therefore be:  "We are already, in effect, husband and wife."  Then the later scene changes dramatically. Before the duel CVRIAZIVS  Tibi labrum et cor iurant. "My lips and heart swear themselves to you."  HORATIA  Et ego tibi. "And I to you."  CVRIAZIVS  Si fato cecidero, memor esto. "If I fall by fate, remember me."  HORATIA  Non modo memor ero; lugebo. "I shall not merely remember; I shall mourn."  At that moment she is effectively undertaking an obligation. So when Horatius later expects:  "Rome has won; rejoice!"  Horatia hears:  "Forget what you promised."  And that she cannot do. Hence a very Gricean conflict:                      HoratiusHoratiaVictory entails celebrationLove entails mourningPublic obligationPrivate obligationRome firstCuriazio first The irony is that Horatia may be acting consistently with her earlier vows, while Horatius interprets the same conduct as disloyalty. So I think the opera tradition supports your intuition. It doesn't give us historical evidence about the original legend, but it exposes a premise hidden in the ancient story:  Horatia's grief only makes full sense if the engagement was not a casual attachment but a solemn mutual commitment.  Without such prior vows, her reaction can seem excessive. With them, it becomes tragic rather than inexplicable.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curio – Ossia: Grice e Curio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curio. The Curii are a  family at ancient Rome. Members of this gens are first mentioned at the beginning of the third century BC, when the family was rendered illustrious by Manius Curius Dentatus.[1]  Praenomina used The praenomen most closely associated with the Curii is Manius. However, other members of the gens bore the names Gaius and Quintus. It is uncertain whether the name Vibius, belonging to Vibius Curius, Caesar's general, was his praenomen, or if he was a member of the gens Vibia.  Branches and cognomina The only cognomen that occurs in the gens is Dentatus, meaning "toothed." It may originally have referred to someone with large or prominent teeth, but Manius Curius Dentatus is said to have derived his cognomen from the circumstance of having been born with teeth in his mouth.[2][1]  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Manius Curius, grandfather of the consul of 290. Manius Curius M'. f., father of the consul of 290. Manius Curius M'. f. M'. n. Dentatus, consul in 290 BC, he triumphed over both the Samnites and the Sabines in the same year. He was consul again in 275 and 274, and censor in 272. Manius Curius (M'. n.), tribune of the plebs in 199 BC, he and his colleague, Marcus Fulvius, opposed the candidacy of Titus Quinctius Flamininus for the consulship, as Quinctius had held no curule office above that of quaestor.[3] Manius Curius, party to a lawsuit concerning an inheritance, shortly before 91 BC. Curius was represented by Lucius Licinius Crassus, and his opponent by Quintus Mucius Scaevola. The trial attracted great attention because of the two eminent men who conducted it.[4] Manius Curius, a friend of Cicero, who was quaestor urbanus in 61 BC, and tribunus plebis in 58. Somewhat later he was governor of a province with the title of proconsul.[5] Manius Curius, another intimate friend of Cicero, who had known him from childhood, and described him as one of the kindest of men. He lived for several years at Patrae, where he was a negotiator, and was recommended by Cicero to Servius Sulpicius and Auctus, two governors of Achaia.[6] Manius Curius, appointed judex by Marcus Antonius in 44 BC, despite his notoriety as a gambler.[7] Gaius Curius, a man of equestrian rank, and brother-in-law of Gaius Rabirius, he was a farmer of the public revenue, by which he acquired great wealth, which he then spent with great kindness and benevolence. He was once accused of embezzling public money, but was honourably acquitted.[8] Gaius Curius C. f., afterwards Gaius Rabirius Postumus, nephew of Gaius Rabirius, by whom he was adopted. Cicero successfully defended him against a senatorial accusation.[9] Quintus Curius, a Roman senator, who had once held the office of quaestor, and came forward as a candidate for the consulship in 64 BC. His poor reputation and notoriety as a gambler led him to lose the election and be ejected from the senate. He was a friend of Catiline and a participant in his conspiracy, but betrayed the secret to his mistress, Fulvia, through whom it became known to Cicero. It is unknown whether he perished during the suppression of the conspiracy.[10][11][12][13] Curius, attempted to betray Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus in Bithynia, but paid with his life. Possibly the same as Quintus Curius, the former senator.[14] Vibius Curius, a commander of the cavalry in Caesar's army, when he commenced the war against Pompeius in Italy. Several of Pompeius' generals at the time deserted to Curius.[15][16][17] Curius Fortunatianus, said by Julius Capitolinus to have composed a history of the reigns of Maximinus Thrax and Balbinus.[18] Curius Fortunatianus, a Roman lawyer, about the middle of the fifth century. He wrote a compendium of technical rhetoric from Greek and Latin authorities under the title, Curii Fortunatiani Consulti Artis Rhetoricae Scholicae Libri tres, once highly regarded as both comprehensive and concise. It was quoted by Cassiodorus.[19] See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor.  Gaius Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis, vii. 15.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, xxxii. 7.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Oratore, i. 39, 56, 57, ii. 6, 32, 54; Brutus 39, 52, 53, 73, 88; Pro Caecina, 18; Topica, 10.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, xiii. 49; Post Reditum in Senatu, 8.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, vii. 23-26, viii. 5, 6, xiii. 7, 17, 50, xvi. 4, 5, 9, 11; Epistulae ad Atticum, vii. 2, 3, xvi. 3.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Philippicae, v. 5, viii. 9.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro Gaio Rabirio Perduellionis Reo, 3; Pro Gaio Rabirio Postumo, 2, 17.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro Gaio Rabirio Postumo, 2, 17.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, De Petitione Consulatus, 3; In Toga Candida, p. 426; Epistulae ad Atticum, i. 1.</  Quintus Asconius Pedianus, In Toga Candida, p. 95, ed. Orelli.  Gaius Sallustius Crispus, The Conspiracy of Catiline, 17, 23, 26.  Appianus, Bellum Civile, ii. 3.  Appianus, Bellum Civile, v. 137.  Gaius Julius Caesar, Commentarii de Bello Civili, i. 24.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, ii. 20, ix. 6.  Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, Institutio Oratoria, vi. 3 § 73.  Julius Capitolinus, Maximinus et Balbinus, 4.  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, Editor.  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)  Categories: CuriiRoman gentes

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curio – Ossia: GRICE E CURIO – GREX GRICEIANA – VERBALIA: CURIO -- DENTATO. CURIO DENTATO announces his intention of confiscating the property of the first who refused to enter the rank that was open to him. Besides the panic caused by the name of Pyrrhus, an alarm had sprung up in consequence of the head of the god Summanus having been struck off his statue by lightning, and nobody could ascertain what had become of it. Accident led to its discovery in the bed of the Tiber, from which it had probably been fished by one of those extraordinary hooks which so many of our historical facts are found to hang upon. The augurs were consulted as a matter of course, and on a case being submitted to their opinion, they advised that the action against Pyrrhus should be carried on; for, according to the soothsayers, the loss and subsequent finding of the head, proved that after hair-breadth escapes victory would crown their labours. Are Grice and Speranza justified in treating this Summano episode under CURIO? And do sources stress the semiotic character in oratiorecta: caput signals ... -- etc --plus attending retro-fitting in terms of how history went on? Abbott passage: GRICE E CURIO DENTATO. CURIO DENTATO announces his intention of confiscating the property of the first who refused to enter the rank that was open to him. Besides the panic caused by the name of Pyrrhus, an alarm had sprung up in consequence of the head of the god Summanus having been struck off his statue by lightning, and nobody could ascertain what had become of it. Accident led to its discovery in the bed of the Tiber, from which it had probably been fished by one of those extraordinary hooks which so many of our historical facts are found to hang upon. The augurs were consulted as a matter of course, and on a case being submitted to their opinion, they advised that the action against Pyrrhus should be carried on; for, according to the soothsayers, the loss and subsequent finding of the head, proved that after hair-breadth escapes victory would crown their labours. -- Input? Feedback? Thanks You’re asking three subtly different questions here: (1) is the Summanus prodigy actually attested, (2) is it rightly grouped under Curius Dentatus, and (3) do the sources treat it in the kind of semiotic / “sign-reading” way (almost oratio recta) that Abbott suggests. Let me take them in order.  1. Is the Summanus episode attested? Yes—firmly attested in Roman tradition. Independent evidence (Cicero, Pliny, later summaries) confirms:  A statue (or pedimental figure) of Summanus on the Capitoline temple was struck by lightning Its head was knocked off and found in the Tiber The event was treated as a prodigy requiring interpretation [blogs.tran...parent.com], [pleiades.stoa.org]  So Abbott is not inventing the core incident:  lightning → lost head → rediscovery in the river → religious response   2. Is it correctly linked to Curius Dentatus? Here we must be careful. Chronological connection  The prodigy is placed in the Pyrrhic War period (c. 278 BCE) [mythologyblog.com] Curius Dentatus is:  a leading Roman commander in that same phase of the war and later the victor over Pyrrhus. But:  The prodigy itself is not specifically attributed to Curius in the sources It belongs to:  the collective Roman response (Senate, augurs, haruspices)     So:  Grice & Speranza (via Abbott) are methodologically justified but historically loose   justified:  because they cluster episodes around key figures   loose:  because the agency here is institutional (religious), not personal (Curius) 3. Is there “oratio recta” stressing the semiotic character? This is the most interesting part. No explicit direct speech We do not have:  augurs saying in Livy (in preserved text):  “caput significat…”   or a formal interpretive speech in full oratio recta  (Livy’s detailed books for this period are largely lost.)  But the structure is explicitly semiotic Roman prodigy interpretation always works like this: EventInterpretationstatue head struck offloss, dangerhead not founduncertaintyhead found in Tiberrecovery, restorationthereforesuccess after danger And you can see your exact intuition:  caput → caput (head) ↔ caput (metonymic seat of power / fate)  This is classic Roman reasoning:  not arbitrary superstition, but codified symbolic inference   4. Your key insight: semiotics before outcome (retro-fitting) You put your finger on something very modern:  interpretation is shaped “in retrospect of how history went on”  Exactly. Two stages: (A) At the time  prodigy interpreted: → “after danger, recovery / victory”  (B) After the fact  narrative confirms: → “and indeed, Rome prevailed”  So the prodigy becomes:  a retrospectively validated sign   5. Grice–Peirce angle (very strong here) This is almost a textbook Peircean case:  lightning strike = index missing head = symbolic disruption recovered head = counter-sign  The augurs then:  generate an interpretant (“victory after peril”)  Gricean analog:  the prodigy “says” something the augurs supply the implicature-like reading   6. Why link it with Curius? Now your original question returns:  Why place it under Curio (Curius Dentatus)?  Best answer:  Because he is:  the military agent whose eventual success “fulfills” the sign   Even though:  he is not the interpreter    So:  Curius = executor of the meaning augurs = interpreters of the meaning   7. Final synthesis. The Summanus episode is historically attested. It is deeply semiotic in structure, though not preserved as formal oratio recta. It is not strictly Curius’ scene, but a collective religious one. Grouping under Curius is:  philosophically meaningful (he “realizes” the sign) historically imprecise     One-line takeaway  The Summanus prodigy is a classic Roman sign-event: its meaning is not spoken in oratio recta but constructed semiotically by the augurs and retrospectively confirmed by history—so while not strictly “Curio’s episode,” it is naturally attached to him as the agent who ultimately fulfills the sign’s interpreted meaning.   If you like, we could compare this with other prodigies in Livy where the symbolic logic is spelled out more explicitly (there are a few closer to actual “oratio recta” of the priests). And talking of CURIO (gens?), DENTATO -- cognomen, meaning -- with teeth? -- do we have oratio recta for this implicature-laden second conversational move of turnips? Feedback? Input? Thanks -- Abbott: The Samnite ambassadors, who are entrusted with the humiliating duty of conveying the submission of their countrymen to CURIO DENTATO, finds him at his Sabine farm, engaged in the discussion of a large dish of turnips. He receives the envoys with no other form than a wooden one, upon which he was seated, and he continues his vegetarian meal, as he listens to their overtures. They offer to bribe him with gold; but, taking up a spoonful of the mashed turnips, he declares that, as long as he could make sure of his daily bunch of his favourite luxury, wealth has no charms for him. This is a lovely case because everything you are tracking—name, cognomen, implicature, and the (semi-)oratio recta—really is built into the tradition. Let me go step by step.  1. Curius Dentatus: gens + cognomen  Curius = the nomen gentilicium (gens Curia, a plebeian family) Dentatus = the cognomen  literally: “toothed” traditionally explained as:  “born with teeth” [en.wikipedia.org]      So your instinct is exactly right:  Denatatus = “the toothed one” (already a sign-like, almost portentous nickname)   2. The “turnips vs gold” episode: attestation. This anecdote is well attested in Roman sources (Pliny, Valerius Maximus, Cicero, etc.), though in varying formulations. Core elements are stable:  Samnite envoys bring gold to bribe him They find him roasting turnips at his hearth He refuses, with a maxim like:   “I prefer to rule those who possess gold rather than possess gold myself.” [en.wikipedia.org]   3. Do we have “oratio recta”? We do—but:  not always in a single canonical sentence often preserved as a gnomic utterance (compressed moral speech)  A typical Latin-style reconstruction (close to Valerius/Pliny tradition) would be:  malle se eos qui aurum haberent imperare quam aurum ipsum habere  Careful parsing:  malle se = “he prefers” eos… imperare = “to rule those people” qui aurum haberent = “who possess gold” quam aurum habere = “rather than to possess gold himself”   4. Your key point: the “second move” (turnips) Abbott dramatizes something that is implicit but real: There are two layers: (A) Visual / material sign  Dentatus sitting:  with turnips in a rustic setting → already a non-verbal utterance    (B) Verbal completion  his dictum:  “I prefer ruling the rich to being rich”    So:  The turnips function semiotically before the speech even begins   5. Gricean structure (this is where your reading shines) The Samnites’ move:  Offer gold Intended implicature:  “You should accept wealth and adjust policy”    Dentatus’ reply operates in two stages: Stage 1 (non-verbal implicature)  He keeps eating turnips Meaning:  “I do not need what you offer”    Stage 2 (verbal inversion)  He reframes wealth:   not desirable → object of rule  So:  He reverses the direction of value:   wealth is not:  something to possess   but:  something over which to exercise power     6. Why this is even more sophisticated than Fabricius Compare: FabriciusDentatusrejects gold and fearrejects gold through revaluation“no impression”“gold is inferior to my standpoint”blocks implicatureinverts it So Dentatus’ move is:  not just non-cooperation, but semantic reclassification   7. Is this “implicature-laden”? Absolutely—and doubly so: Explicit content:  “I prefer ruling the rich”  Implicit layers:  “Your gold is irrelevant” “You misunderstand Roman motivation” “You are in the position of those to be ruled”  So:  The Samnite offer is not just refused—it is reinterpreted as evidence of their inferiority   8. Is Abbott exaggerating the scene? A bit—but in a productive way:  Ancient sources do mention turnips Abbott:  heightens the theatrical simultaneity:  eating + rejecting      But this dramatization actually makes visible something real:  Roman historiography loves “semiotic staging”—objects (turnips, toga, head of Summanus) speak before words.   9. Final synthesis. Dentatus = “toothed” (a meaningful cognomen). Turnip anecdote is well attested. We have compact oratio recta expressing the refusal. The turnips themselves act as a pre-verbal sign. The reply doesn’t just reject the offer—it redefines the meaning of wealth   One-line takeaway  Dentatus’ turnips are not just rustic detail—they are the first half of a two-part utterance: a non-verbal sign that nullifies the Samnites’ offer, followed by a verbal statement that inverts its value, turning gold from an object of desire into an object of domination.   If you like, I can align Dentatus’ sentence with specific Latin passages from Valerius Maximus and Cicero to show exactly how each author shapes the wording. The translation of 'imperare' seems crucial -- malle se = “he prefers” eos… imperare = “to rule those people” qui aurum haberent = “who possess gold” quam aurum habere = “rather than to possess gold himself” -- for is he literally the EMPEROR of those who have gold -- he rather has command over those who have gold than have gold himself -- the paradox of self-fulfilment, you can order them to give you the gold. If you translate it as 'rule' he may be seen as a tyrannicide -- and Roman antipathy for 'rex' -- So how could the logic be formalised -- The refutal would be: the other scenario would be: you do not rule -- it is not the case that you rule those who own gold rather than own gold yourself? Feedback? Input? Thanks This is an excellent pressure-test of the Latin—and you’re right: everything turns on how we understand imperare. Let me go carefully, both philologically and philosophically.  1. What does imperare mean here? The verb imperare in classical Latin does not mean:  “to rule as a king” (regnare) nor “to be an emperor” (anachronistic)  It means:  to command, to issue orders within a recognized authority structure  Typical uses:  magistrates → citizens generals → soldiers Rome → subject peoples  So the tone is:  institutional command, not tyrannical domination   2. Why “rule” is misleading If we translate:  imperare = “rule”  we risk importing:  monarchy (rex) tyranny personal domination  But:  Roman ideology sharply distinguishes imperium from regnum   imperium = legitimate, bounded authority regnum = illegitimate kingship  So Dentatus is saying something like:  “I prefer being in the position of command authority over the wealthy…”  —not being their king, not enslaving them.  3. Best translation (philosophically careful) A more precise rendering would be:  “I prefer to have command over those who possess gold rather than possess gold myself.”  or even sharper:  “I prefer to exercise authority over the wealthy than to be wealthy.”   4. Your key insight: is this a self-fulfilling paradox? You suggest:  If you command those with gold, you can just order them to give it.  That’s a powerful intuition—but: Roman ideology blocks that inference. Because:  imperium ≠ arbitrary extraction magistrates cannot simply confiscate private wealth at will command is norm-constrained  So Dentatus is not saying:  “I can get their gold anyway”  He is saying:  “Authority is a higher good than possession.”   5. The logical structure Let’s formalize the sentence: Let:  G(x)G(x)G(x): x possesses gold C(y,x)C(y,x)C(y,x): y has authority over x Dentatus=d\text{Dentatus} = dDentatus=d  Then:  Dentatus prefers:  (∃x)(G(x)∧C(d,x))overG(d)(\exists x)(G(x) \land C(d,x)) \quad \text{over} \quad G(d)(∃x)(G(x)∧C(d,x))overG(d) But crucially:  it is not:  (∃x)(C(d,x)→G(d))(\exists x)(C(d,x) \rightarrow G(d))(∃x)(C(d,x)→G(d)) That is:  command does not entail possession   6. Your proposed “refutation” You suggest a counter:  “You do not, in fact, rule those who possess gold…”  Yes—that’s exactly how one could challenge the claim. But note:  Dentatus’ statement is not descriptive it is comparative + evaluative  He is saying:  “Even if I could choose, I would choose authority over wealth.”  So the opponent would need to challenge:  either the possibility (he doesn’t command anyone) or the value hierarchy   7. Gricean dimension Dentatus’ utterance carries a strong implicature: Explicit:  “I prefer commanding the rich to being rich”  Implicit:  “I am not tempted by your gold” “You misjudge what motivates a Roman” “Your offer is irrelevant”  And crucially:  He reframes the Samnites’ offer under his own evaluative vocabulary   8. Why no contradiction with anti-rex ideology Your concern is excellent:  Would this make him sound like a tyrant?  Answer: no, because:  imperare is:  republican legal bounded    He is not claiming:  absolute domination  but:  superiority of civic authority over private wealth   9. Final synthesis- imperare = “to command / exercise authority,” not “to rule as king”-Dentatus is not threatening confiscation- His claim is:  evaluative, not instrumental. Your formal challenge is valid but misfires unless we treat the sentence as descriptive   One-line takeaway  Dentatus’ imperare does not mean “to rule like a king,” but “to exercise legitimate authority”—and his point is not that command yields wealth, but that civic authority is intrinsically more valuable than possessing gold, thereby neutralizing the very terms of the Samnites’ offer.   If you’d like, we can compare this with Cicero’s use of imperium vs regnum, which makes exactly this ideological distinction explicit. And the pressure would still be there in conversational continuation: "Why would you prefer to have LIMITED AUTHORITY (that would block you from 'habere aurum') over having aurum? It would seem that Curio is preferring authority REGARDLESS -- regardless who his subjects are -- if they have gold, that is irrelevant -- he is posing as counterscenario he having the gold and not the authority -- Input? Feedback? Thanks This is a very sharp pressure you’re bringing to the passage—and it shows exactly where Dentatus’ sentence is meant to resist further conversational probing. Let me unpack the tension you’re identifying.  1. Your challenge (perfectly formulated) You press:  Why prefer limited authority (which doesn’t guarantee gold) over simply having gold?  This is a rationalist objection of the form:  If authority does not entail wealth, and wealth is directly available, then choosing authority seems irrational.  In short:  Why choose an uncertain, norm‑bound good over a guaranteed, tangible one?   2. Dentatus’ move: he blocks that question Here is the key: Dentatus’ utterance is not meant to survive that kind of continuation. It works by reframing the decision-space, not by answering within it.  He changes the comparison The Samnite frame:  wealth = primary good authority = instrumental (possibly for getting wealth)  Dentatus’ frame:  authority = higher-order good wealth = subordinate or negligible  So when you ask:  “But authority doesn’t give you gold…”  Dentatus’ reply (implicit) is:  “That’s beside the point.”   3. “Regardless of subjects”: your insight You say:  He seems to prefer authority regardless of who the subjects are.  Yes—that’s exactly the rhetorical move. Note:  qui aurum haberent (“those who have gold”) is almost incidental It serves to:  mirror the Samnites’ offer but then get subordinated    So the real structure is:  I prefer being the one who commands to being the one who possesses  Full stop. The gold only appears because they introduced it.  4. Why the reasoning resists continuation Your objection tries to push the exchange into:  instrumental rationality (means → ends)  But Dentatus is speaking in:  value-ranking terms  So the logic is: Instrumental reasoningDentatus’ stancewealth is usefulirrelevantauthority may or may not yield wealthirrelevantchoose best outcomerejectedchoose higher goodaccepted  5. Formalizing Dentatus’ stance Let:  AAA = having authority (imperium) WWW = having wealth (aurum)  You propose:  compare AAA vs WWW in terms of outcomes  Dentatus instead asserts: A≻WA \succ WA≻W independently of:  whether A⇒WA \Rightarrow WA⇒W or W⇒AW \Rightarrow AW⇒A  That is:  lexical priority, not instrumental preference   6. The “counter-scenario” you mention You’re right:  He constructs a hypothetical where he has authority but not gold  vs.  having gold but not authority  And chooses the first. But:  the point is not feasibility—it is evaluation.   7. Gricean angle: why the move closes the dialogue Initially:  Samnites:  generate implicature: “take the gold → change your decision”    Dentatus:  rejects not just the implicature, but the common ground that makes it intelligible  So your follow-up question:  “But wouldn’t wealth be more practical?”  fails because:  Dentatus is no longer playing the same conversational game.   8. Final synthesis. Your objection is logically sound within an instrumental framework. Dentatus’ utterance avoids it by:  shifting to value-based evaluation. The gold becomes:  rhetorically relevant, but substantively irrelevant. His position is:  prefer authority as such, not as a means     One-line takeaway  Dentatus’ reply is designed to block exactly your line of questioning: by treating authority as a higher-order good independent of its consequences, he refuses to engage in the instrumental reasoning that would make “gold vs authority” a negotiable choice.   If you want, we can compare this with Stoic preferences (where exactly this kind of “value over utility” structure becomes explicit philosophical doctrine).

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curtilio – Ossia: Grice e Curtilio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curtilio. The Curtilii are a family at ancient Rome. Few members of this gens appear in history, but others are known from inscriptions. C., a former partisan of GIULIO Caesar, mentioned by TULLIO Cicero in 43 BC as possessing an estate that had belonged to Gaius Sextilius Rufus at Fundi.[1] Titus C. Mancia, consul suffectus in AD 55; as legate of the army on the upper Rhine during the reign of Nero, he assisted Dubius Avitus, praefectus of Germania Inferior, in putting down the league of the Tencteri, Bructeri, and Ampsivarii, from AD 56 to 59.[2][3] Curtilia, the daughter of Mancia, married Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus. See also List of Roman gentes References  Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum, xiv. 6, 10.  Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 56.  PIR, vol. III, p. 486. Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum. Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales. Paul von Rohden, Elimar Klebs, & Hermann Dessau, Prosopographia Imperii Romani (The Prosopography of the Roman Empire, abbreviated PIR), Berlin (1898).  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 gentes stubsRoman gentes So for these Curtilii -- Tullio Cicero was not only in law but real estate -- he seems to have known who owned what real estate, who had owned it previously. The implicature is that: who cares? Other implicature: via marriage? via sale? because previous owner gives prestige? just a passing remark -- reconstruct conversation, having Curt. as one of the interlocutors with Tullio – thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curtilio – Ossia: Grice e Curtilio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curtilio. Yes, this Curtilius is a wonderful Gricean figure precisely because the surviving notice seems so trivial:  Cicero mentions Curtilius as possessing an estate at Fundi that had previously belonged to Gaius Sextilius Rufus.  The immediate reaction is:  "Who cares?"  And that is exactly where Grice begins. If Cicero bothers to mention:  not merely the estate, but its previous owner,  the hearer is entitled to ask why. The maxim of Relation ("Be relevant") suggests that the previous ownership is somehow significant. The possibilities are not stated in the source, so these are only conversational hypotheses:  prestige attached to the former owner, a recent sale, inheritance, political confiscation, a way of identifying which estate is meant.  What matters is that Cicero's wording encourages the hearer to search for some significance beyond mere geography. Grice e Curtilio De Fundo apud Fundos TVLLIVS  Curtilius fundum apud Fundos possidet.  "Curtilius owns an estate near Fundi." CVRTILIVS  Verum.  "True." TVLLIVS  Qui antea fuit C. Sextilii Rufi.  "Which formerly belonged to Gaius Sextilius Rufus." CVRTILIVS  Cur addis ista?  "Why do you add that?" TVLLIVS  Quid?  "What?" CVRTILIVS  Qui antea fuit C. Sextilii Rufi.  "'Which formerly belonged to Gaius Sextilius Rufus.'" TVLLIVS  Quia verum est.  "Because it is true." CVRTILIVS  Multa vera sunt.  "Many things are true." TVLLIVS  Ita.  "Indeed." CVRTILIVS  Non tamen omnia dicuntur.  "But not all of them are said." At this point Grice applauds.  CVRTILIVS  Si dicis fundum me possidere, satis est.  "If you say I own the estate, that is enough." TVLLIVS  Non semper.  "Not always." CVRTILIVS  Ergo quid significas?  "Then what are you suggesting?" TVLLIVS  Nihil.  "Nothing." CVRTILIVS  Nemo nominibus veterum dominorum utitur ad nihil significandum.  "Nobody mentions former owners in order to signify nothing."  Now Cicero is cornered. CVRTILIVS  Num Rufus clarus fuit?  "Was Rufus famous?" TVLLIVS  Fortasse.  "Perhaps." CVRTILIVS  Num fundus nuper ad me venit?  "Did the estate recently come to me?" TVLLIVS  Fortasse.  "Perhaps." CVRTILIVS  Num putas me gloriam ex alieno nomine quaerere?  "Do you think I seek prestige from another man's name?" TVLLIVS  Non dixi.  "I did not say so." CVRTILIVS  Non dixisti; sed paene significasti.  "You did not say it; but you almost implied it."  That, I think, is the genuinely Gricean point. Cicero says:  "Curtilius owns the estate that once belonged to Sextilius Rufus."  The additional clause is not logically necessary to identify Curtilius. Therefore the hearer naturally seeks an implicature:  Why are you mentioning the previous owner?  Curtilius' complaint is not that Cicero said something false, but that Cicero's extra information invites speculation. As Grice would say, once a speaker provides apparently surplus information, the audience is entitled to wonder what significance the speaker intends it to have. But once we have the letter -- do we? -- it may all become relevant, because perhaps the TOPIC (not presupposition) was the previous owner? Can we locate the passage? Thanks  Yes — and I think your methodological point is exactly right. Before constructing Gricean implicatures, we should know whether Cicero's mention of the previous owner is:  a mere identifying description, or the actual topic under discussion.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to retrieve the specific Ad Atticum passages XIV.6 and XIV.10 from the search results. I located Book XIV, but not the lines mentioning Curtilius and the estate at Fundi. [thelatinlibrary.com] What we do know from the gens notice is only:  Cicero mentions Curtilius in 43/44 BC as possessing an estate at Fundi that had formerly belonged to Gaius Sextilius Rufus. (The citation given is Ad Atticum XIV.6 and XIV.10.) [thelatinlibrary.com]  And that is precisely why I would now suspend the earlier implicature. Suppose the original context were: ATTICVS  Whatever became of Sextilius Rufus' estate?  Then Cicero's reply:  Curtilius now owns it.  would make the mention of the previous owner entirely relevant. Or suppose the topic were property transfers after Caesar's death:  Who has acquired which estates?  Again, the former owner is the point. A Gricean would therefore insist:  No implicature without context.  The maxim of Relation cuts both ways. If the topic is:  "Who owns Rufus' old estate?"  then  "Curtilius owns the estate that belonged to Rufus"  contains no surplus information at all. Indeed, the clause about Rufus may be the very reason for mentioning Curtilius. So I think we have reached a better position:   The bare dictionary summary tempts us to ask:  Why mention the former owner?    But the actual letter context may show:  The former owner was already the topic.    Therefore the Gricean analysis must wait until we recover the precise passage.   And that itself is a nice Gricean lesson: what looks like implicature from an isolated sentence may disappear once you restore the surrounding conversation. [thelatinlibrary.com] If you'd like, I can next try to reconstruct the likely context of Ad Atticum XIV.6 and XIV.10 from the sequence of letters around those dates. Confiscation seems to be Tullio's topic? Does this help below? Thanks Here is the original Latin text for Ad Atticum 14.6 and 14.10, along with an explanation of why Ciceroexplicitly mentions the previous owner of Curtilius’s estate. [1, 2] Latin Text: Ad Atticum 14.6 (Section 1) "...nam quoniam Fundis sum cum Ligure nostro, discrucior Sextili fundum a verberone Curtilio possideri. quod cum dico, de toto genere dico. quid enim miserius quam ea nos tueri propter quae illum oderamus? etiamne consules et tribunos pl. in biennium quos ille voluit? nullo modo reperio quem ad modum possim π o λ ι τ ε v̂ ε σ θ α ι. nihil enim tam σ o ́ λ o ι κ o v quam tyrannoctonos in caelo esse, tyranni facta defendi." [1, 2] Latin Text: Ad Atticum 14.10 (Section 2) [1] In this section, Cicero reflects on the political atmosphere following Caesar's death, mentioning figures like Sectilius on the Latin Library and questioning the security of holdings under the new regime. He specifically references the confiscation of property from figures like Censorinus and Plancus, arguing that the continuation of these actions is intolerable. [1] Yes — this changes the whole picture, and in a very Gricean way. If the text is really:  nam quoniam Fundis sum cum Ligure nostro, discrucior Sextili fundum a verberone Curtilio possideri. quod cum dico, de toto genere dico. cite not available from tool because user supplied text  then Cicero is not casually identifying Curtilius' estate by naming a former owner. The topic is precisely that:  Sextilius' estate is now in Curtilius' possession.  The previous owner is not presupposed background information; it is the point. Indeed, the key word is:  discrucior ("I am tormented", "I am distressed").  Cicero is not writing:  "Curtilius owns the old Sextilian property."  He is writing something much closer to:  "I am distressed that Curtilius possesses Sextilius' estate."  And then he generalizes:  quod cum dico, de toto genere dico "when I say this, I am speaking about the whole class of such cases."  So Curtilius becomes an example of a wider phenomenon. The next line makes the political point explicit:  quid enim miserius quam ea nos tueri propter quae illum oderamus? "What could be more wretched than that we now defend the very things for which we hated him [Caesar]?"  Again, the estate is not a real-estate curiosity. It is evidence in a political argument.  The reconstructed conversation TVLLIVS  Discrucior Sextili fundum a Curtilio possideri.  "I am distressed that Curtilius possesses Sextilius' estate." CVRTILIVS  Why mention Sextilius?  TVLLIVS  Because it was Sextilius' estate.  CVRTILIVS  It is mine now.  TVLLIVS  That is exactly the problem.  CVRTILIVS  Then your complaint is not about me?  TVLLIVS  Not chiefly.  CVRTILIVS  What is it about?  TVLLIVS  About what has become acceptable.  CVRTILIVS  You speak of one estate.  TVLLIVS  De toto genere dico. "I am speaking of the whole class."  That strikes me as much closer to Cicero's actual drift.  The Gricean lesson Our earlier implicature —  "Why mention the previous owner?"  — largely disappears once the context is restored. The maxim of Relevance is fully satisfied. The previous owner is mentioned because:  the transfer of ownership is the very thing under discussion.  In fact, a Gricean might say that the dictionary summary was misleading because it detached one noun phrase from the argumentative context in which Cicero used it. Once the context is restored, the meaning becomes:  "Look what sort of people now possess what once belonged to respectable citizens."  Whether the transfer involved confiscation, sale, political favour, or something else would require closer examination of the surrounding correspondence. But from the passage you've supplied, the estate functions as a political example, not as a mere address in a property register. And using this collocation below can you extract bigger passage and parse in detail? Tullio seems to qualify this Curt. quite precisely? Thanks nam quoniam Fundis sum cum Ligure nostro, discrucior Sextili fundum a verberone Curtilio possideri. quod cum dico, de toto genere dico. Yes. Once we have the actual sentence, Cicero's rhetoric becomes much clearer. The passage you quote is:  nam quoniam Fundis sum cum Ligure nostro, discrucior Sextili fundum a verberone Curtilio possideri. quod cum dico, de toto genere dico.  A fairly literal translation would be:  "For since I am at Fundi with our Ligurian friend, I am tormented that the estate of Sextilius is possessed by the scoundrel Curtilius. And when I say this, I mean the whole class of such cases."  Parsing nam quoniam Fundis sum  nam = "for", introducing an explanation. quoniam = "since", "seeing that". Fundis = locative ("at Fundi"). sum = "I am".  So:  "For since I am at Fundi..."  cum Ligure nostro  cum = "with". Ligure nostro = "our Ligurian".  Cicero assumes Atticus knows who is meant. A wonderfully Gricean phrase:  "our Ligurian"  contains much shared background and no explicit identification. discrucior A strong verb. Not merely:  doleo ("I am sorry"),  but:  "I am tortured," "I am deeply distressed."  Cicero is being dramatic. Sextili fundum  Sextili = genitive. fundum = estate.   "the estate of Sextilius."  a verberone Curtilio possideri Accusative-and-infinitive construction dependent on discrucior.  possideri = "to be possessed". a Curtilio = "by Curtilius". verberone = ablative of description with Curtilio.  The key word is:  verbero  Originally "a man fit to be flogged." By Cicero's time it is a powerful insult:  rogue, rascal, scoundrel, worthless fellow.  He is not merely identifying Curtilius. He is evaluating him. The phrase:  a verberone Curtilio  is almost:  "by that scoundrel Curtilius."  The most interesting sentence  quod cum dico, de toto genere dico.  Literally:  "When I say this, I speak of the whole class."  That is the crucial line. Cicero immediately warns Atticus not to take Curtilius as an isolated case. Curtilius is an example. The complaint is:  not merely that Curtilius owns Sextilius' estate,  but that  people of Curtilius' sort now possess property formerly belonging to respectable men.  The next sentence confirms the generalization:  quid enim miserius quam ea nos tueri propter quae illum oderamus?   "For what is more wretched than that we should now defend the very things for which we hated him?"  So Curtilius functions rhetorically as a specimen in a larger political argument. A Gricean reconstruction CURTILIVS  Why call me verbero?  CICERO  Because I disapprove of what you represent.  CURTILIVS  Then why mention my name at all?  CICERO  Because examples require names.  CURTILIVS  So you are talking about me?  CICERO  Not really.  CURTILIVS  But you just named me.  CICERO  Yes—but de toto genere dico.  That last move is pure Cicero: he attacks an individual and then immediately elevates the attack into a criticism of an entire political condition. The phrase de toto genere dico is almost a disclaimer:  "Don't think this is merely about Curtilius. Curtilius is symptomatic."

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curvio – Ossia: Grice e Curvio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curvio. The Curvii are a Roman gens, best known for being among the ancestors of Marcus Annio Ennio Aurelius.  Curvia, a woman described on an epitaph from the site of modern Morte-Merie, Uzer, Ardèche, France.[1] Curvia Fabia (or Fabia Curvia), a woman mentioned in an inscription from an insula at Pompeii.[2][3] Domitia Lucilla, perhaps originally Curvia Lucilla, was the daughter of Lucanus, and the mother of Domitia Lucilla the Younger, by whom she was the grandmother of Marcus Aurelius.[4] C. Marcellus, owned a domus in Pompeii with his wife Fabia.[5] Sextus C. Silvinus, quaestor during the reigns of Augustus or Tiberius.[6] Gnaeus Domitius Tullus,[a] son of C. Tullus, along with his brother was adopted by their father's friend, Domitius Afer, before the two men became hostile.[6] Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus,[a] the son of Curvius Tullus, he and his brother were adopted by their father's friend, Domitius Afer, before the two men fell out.[6] Sextus C. Tullus, the son of Silvinus, was a close friend of the lawyer Gnaeus Domitius Afer, but they had a falling out[6] Curvia Urbana, a woman named in an inscription from Gallia Narbonensis.[7][8] See also List of Roman gentes Curtia gens Notes  After their adoption, the brothers' full names were Gnaeus Domitius Afer Titius Marcellus Curvius Tullus and Gnaeus Domitius Afer Titius Marcellus Curvius Lucanus. References  L'Ardèche. pp. 414, 492.  D'Avino, 1967. p. 32  D'Avino, 1964. p. 121.  Adriano. p. 39.  Della Corte, p. 176.  Lindsay, p. 158.  CIL XII, 4756.  Syme, Ronald (1986). "More Narbonensian Senators" (PDF). Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik. 65 (65). Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH: 13. JSTOR 20186448. Sources Adriano: architettura e progetto (in Italian). Electa. 2000 – via Hadrian's Villa (Tivoli, Italy)/Villa Adriana (Tívoli). Lindsay, Hugh (2009). Adoption in the Roman world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-511-65821-1. OCLC 647846259. Dupraz, Joëlle; Fraisse, Christel (2001). L'Ardèche (in French). Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, Ministère de l'éducation nationale, Ministère de la recherche, Ministère de la culture et de la communication, Maison des sciences de l'homme. D'Avino, Michele (1967). The Women of Pompeii. Loffredo. D'Avino, Michele (1964). La donna a Pompei (in Italian). Loffredo. Della Corte, Matteo (1954). Case ed abitanti di Pompei (in Italian). Presso l'autore. External links Wikimedia Commons logo Media related to Gens Curvia at Wikimedia Commons  Categories: CurviiRoman gentes For this gens we may have a Latin conversation on the issue of adoption and then friends falling off --- and the victims of the problem -- the adoptees themselves -- our gens? Thanks

 

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curvio – Ossia: Grice e Curvio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curvio. Yes, I think the Curvii lend themselves almost naturally to a dialogue on adoption, friendship, and the unintended victims of elite quarrels. The striking fact in your materials is not simply that:  Curvius Tullus was a close friend of Domitius Afer,  but that:  Afer adopted Tullus' sons, and only afterward the two men fell out. The sons thereafter bore the complicated Domitian-Curvian names associated with the adoption. cite not available; based on the user-provided entry, which cites Lindsay's Adoption in the Roman World.  The philosophical problem is obvious. The fathers quarrel TVLLVS  Amicissimi sumus. "We are the closest of friends."  AFER  Ita sane. "Indeed."  TVLLVS  Filios meos tibi committo. "I entrust my sons to you."  AFER  Pro meis habebo. "I shall treat them as my own."  Then adoption follows. But later: TVLLVS  Non iam amici sumus. "We are no longer friends."  AFER  Verum est. "True."  At which point Grice asks:  What becomes of the sons?   The sons' complaint Curvii queruntur LVCANVS  Patres nostri litigant. "Our fathers are quarrelling."  TVLLVS IVNIOR  Nos autem nomina mutavimus. "But we have already changed our names."  LVCANVS  Domitii facti sumus. "We have become Domitii."  TVLLVS IVNIOR  At Curvii manemus. "And yet we remain Curvii."  The tragedy is institutional. The friendship may be revocable. The adoption is not so easily undone.  The Gricean problem GRICEVS  When Afer adopted you, what did he mean?  LVCANVS  That we were his sons.  GRICEVS  Literally?  LVCANVS  Legally.  GRICEVS  And conversationally?  LVCANVS  That the friendship would last.  Now we have implicature. The adoption formally means:  "You become my sons."  But it may conversationally suggest:  "Our houses are permanently united."  The later quarrel reveals that the second proposition was never guaranteed.  A sharper exchange LVCANVS  Cur nos adoptavisti? "Why did you adopt us?"  AFER  Propter amicitiam patris vestri. "Because of your father's friendship."  LVCANVS  Amicitia periit. "The friendship has perished."  AFER  Ita. "Yes."  LVCANVS  Nos autem manemus. "Yet we remain."  That, I think, is the genuine dramatic core of the Curvii. The fathers intended to strengthen a friendship. The sons became the permanent embodiment of that friendship. When the friendship collapsed, the adoptees were left carrying the consequences. A Gricean moral might be:  The fathers' quarrel cancelled the friendship, but not the implications that had already been built into the lives of their sons.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curvio – Ossia: Grice e Curvio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curvio. So we have Curv. Sr. and his sons Curv Jr. 1 and Curv Jr. 2 -- so we can imagine a dialogue among themselves where they diverge on their loyalties with 1 keeping loyal to to his biological father and the other one to the stepfather? do we have names? Thanks Yes, here we are actually fortunate, because the names are given in your materials, although in somewhat tangled form. What the entry explicitly provides is:  Sextus Curvius Tullus — friend of Domitius Afer who later fell out with him. cite not available; from your supplied text. Two sons:  Gnaeus Domitius Tullus (after adoption). cite not available; from your supplied text. Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus (after adoption). cite not available; from your supplied text.    The note further explains that after adoption their expanded names included Curvius Tullus and Curvius Lucanus, preserving their birth-family connection. From your note we can therefore reconstruct the biological family as: Sextus Curvius Tullus  son: Curvius Tullus son: Curvius Lucanus  later adopted by Domitius Afer. What we do not know from the evidence you've supplied is that the two brothers actually diverged in loyalty. That would be a dramatic reconstruction, not a historical fact. Still, it is an excellent dramatic possibility. De Duobus Fratribus Adoptivis Persons  SEX. CURVIVS TVLLVS (the father) TVLLVS (elder son) LVCANVS (younger son)   PATER  Afer vos adoptavit; filii eius estis. "Afer has adopted you; you are his sons."  TVLLVS  Sed filii tui quoque sumus. "But we are your sons as well."  LVCANVS  Et beneficia eius magna sunt. "And his benefits toward us are great."  PATER  Nondum queror. "I am not complaining yet."   Then comes the quarrel between the older men. TVLLVS  Afer iniuriam tibi fecit. "Afer has wronged you."  LVCANVS  Noli nimis cito iudicare. "Do not judge too quickly."  TVLLVS  Pater noster est. "He is our father."  LVCANVS  Uter? "Which one?"  A devastating question.  TVLLVS  Qui nos genuit. "The one who begot us."  LVCANVS  Qui nos adoptavit quoque pater est. "The one who adopted us is also a father."  TVLLVS  Natura maior est. "Nature is stronger."  LVCANVS  Lex aliter sentit. "The law thinks otherwise."   At this point Grice appears. GRICEVS  Quando Afer vos adoptavit, quid significavit? "When Afer adopted you, what did he signify?"  TVLLVS  Nos filios esse. "That we were his sons."  LVCANVS  Et familias futuras concordes. "And that the families would remain united."  GRICEVS  Ecce. "There it is."  The legal meaning survives. The implicature fails. The adoption literally created sons. It conversationally suggested lasting friendship between the houses. The fathers' quarrel destroys the latter without undoing the former. That's what makes the Curvii so interesting: the sons become living evidence of the difference between a legal act and the expectations people build around it. That is almost tailor-made for a Gricean dialogue.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curzio – Ossia: Grice e Curzio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curzio. The Sacrifice of Marcus Curtius The gens Curtia was an ancient but minor noble family at Rome, with both patrician and plebeian branches. The only member of the gens invested with the consulship under the Republic was Gaius Curtius Philo, in 445 BC.[1] A few Curtii held lesser magistracies during the Republic, and there were two consuls suffectus in imperial times. However, the gens is best remembered from a series of legends dating from the traditional founding of the city to the early Republic.  Origin According to legend, Mettius Curtius was a leader of the Sabine forces who attacked Rome following the Rape of the Sabine Women. The first blows were exchanged between Curtius and the Roman warrior, Hostus Hostilius. After fierce fighting, Hostilius was slain and the Romans retreated, pursued by Curtius. Just then, the Roman King, Romulus, led his best troops against Curtius' advance. Pursued by the Romans, Curtius' horse was frightened by the shouting and plunged into the swamps, becoming mired in shallow water. Only with great effort was he able to free himself. Afterward, this stretch of water became known as the Lacus Curtius.[2] In later times, the Lacus Curtius was drained and became part of the Roman Forum. Curtius' narrow escape is depicted on a relief, excavated in 1553 between the Column of Phocas and the Temple of Castor and Pollux, which seems to be a copy of an original dating perhaps to the 2nd century BC.[3]  Besides the story of Mettius Curtius, two other legends derive the name of the lacus from later Curtii. In one account, the ground in the Forum gave way, and a youth named Marcus Curtius sacrificed himself by leaping in, fully armed and mounted on horseback, in order to fulfill a prophecy claiming that the chasm could be closed only by sacrificing that upon which Rome's future greatness would rest. The third legend states that the spot had been struck by lightning, and that on the Senate's orders, it was enclosed by the consul Gaius Curtius Philo.[4] The story of Mettius Curtius may shed some light on the origin of the Curtia gens; it implies that the Curtii were of Sabine origin.  The consulship of Gaius Curtius Philo in 445 BC is one indication that the gens Curtia must have been patrician, since the consulship at that time was not open to plebeians. The family's appearance in the legends of the earliest period of Roman history also supports this identification, since the family was not particularly illustrious in later times, making it unlikely that these stories were a later development, intended to flatter a powerful noble house. However, there were certainly plebeian Curtii; Gaius Curtius Peducaeanus was tribune of the plebs in 57 BC, indicating that a plebeian branch developed at some point.[1]  Praenomina The Curtii are known to have used the praenomina Mettius, Gaius, Marcus, Gnaeus, Quintus, and Publius, all of which except Mettius were common throughout Roman history.  Branches and cognomina The cognomina which occur in this gens under the Republic are Peducaeanus, Philo, and Postumus.[1]  Members Republic Mettius Curtius, the Sabine champion in the time of Romulus, who slew the Roman champion, Hostus Hostilius. After his victory, he was pursued by the Romans into a swamp, afterwards called the Lacus Curtius, from which he was only able to extricate himself with great difficulty. The location of this swamp later formed part of the Roman Forum.[2][5][6][7] Gaius Curtius Philo, consul in 445 BC. Marcus Curtius, a noble youth, who in 362 BC is said to have leapt with his horse into a chasm that had appeared in the Forum, and which could not be filled, according to the haruspices, until that upon which Rome's greatness was to be based was thrown in. Upon receiving this living sacrifice, the earth closed up once more. This tradition appears to be an echo of the story of Mettius Curtius, as the abyss is also described as the Lacus Curtius.[13][14][15][16] Curtius, an accuser, who was killed by Gaius Marius near the lake of Servilius, at the time of the proscription of Sulla, or perhaps even before.[17][18] Gaius Curtius, perhaps the son of the accuser, lost his property during the proscription of Sulla, and went into exile. He was subsequently allowed to return, through the mediation of Cicero, his childhood friend. He was made a senator by Caesar in 45 BC, and Cicero interceded with Caesar's legate to prevent the redistribution of Curtius' land to the veterans.[19] Gnaeus Curtius Postumus, an argentarius, with whom Verres had pecuniary dealings.[20] Quintus Curtius Postumus, brother of Gnaeus, an argentarius and friend of Verres, is called by Cicero a judex quaestionis, concerning which nothing further is known.[21] Quintus Curtius, a good and well-educated young man, who in 54 BC brought the charge of ambitus against Gaius Memmius, then a candidate for the consulship.[22] Marcus (or Gaius) Curtius Peducaeanus, praetor in 50 BC, was the son of Sextus Peducaeus, to whom Cicero had been quaestor, and was adopted by a Curtius.[i][23][24][25] Marcus Curtius Postumus, recommended by Cicero to Caesar in 54 BC for the post of military tribune, which he obtained. Espoused the cause of Caesar during the Civil War, causing an estrangement with Cicero.[26] Quintus Curtius, possibly the same man who accused Memmius, appears on several unusual coins, together with the names of Marcus Silanus and Gnaeus Domitius. Eckhel conjectures that they were triumvirs for the establishment of a colony, and that their coins were struck at some distance from Rome.[27] Publius Curtius, a brother of Quintus Salassus, in 45 BC plotted to deliver Gnaeus, the son of Pompey, into the hands of Caesar, with the help of Spanish locals, but was discovered and beheaded at Gnaeus' orders, in front of the whole army.[28] Curtii of the Empire Curtius, an eques, who once, while dining with Augustus, availed himself of a joke and threw a fish, which was standing on the table, out of the window.[29] Curtius Lupus, quaestor in AD 24, suppressed a slave insurrection in the neighborhood of Brundisium, with the help of the crews of three vessels that happened to arrive at the port.[30] Curtius Atticus, accompanied the emperor Tiberius on a trip to Campania in AD 26 and was eventually destroyed by Sejanus and Julius Marinus.[31] Two of Ovid's poems are addressed to him.[32] Curtius Montanus, accused of libelling Nero in AD 67; the charge was disproved, but Curtius was briefly sent into exile. In 71, he urged the Senate to rescind the decree against Piso, and attacked the informer, Marcus Aquillius Regulus. A friend of the younger Plinius, he may be the same Curtius Montanus satirized by Juvenal.[33][34][35] Curtius Rufus, consul suffectus under Claudius, received a prophecy from a giantess that he would one day visit Africa as proconsul and die there. All happened as foretold. He is usually identified with the historian, Quintus Curtius Rufus.[36][37] Quintus Curtius Rufus, author of a history of the life and times of Alexander the Great in ten books. There is general agreement that he lived in the first century. A Curtius Rufus mentioned by Tacitus and Plinius is the favored candidate, with a rhetorician named Quintus Curtius Rufus, described by Suetonius, second, if in fact they are not all three the same person. Gaius Curtius Justus, consul suffectus in AD 151. Aulus Curtius Crispinus, consul suffectus in AD 169. See also List of Roman gentes Notes  Cicero's letters refer to him as both Marcus and Gaius. Broughton prefers Marcus, identifying him with Marcus Curtius, quaestor in 61 BC. References  Schmitz, Leonhard (1870). "Curtia gens" . In Smith, William (ed.). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Vol. 1.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, i. 12 ff.  Platner, Samuel Ball; Ashby, Thomas. "Lacus Curtius". A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome.  Schmitz, Leonhard (1870). "Curtius" . In Smith, William (ed.). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. Vol. 1.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia, ii. 42.  Marcus Terentius Varro, De Lingua Latina libri XXV, v. 148.  Plutarchus, Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans, Romulus, 13.  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, iv. 1 ff.  Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Romaike Archaiologia, xi. 52, 58.  Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica, xii. 31.  Joannes Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum, vii. 19.  Marcus Terentius Varro, De Lingua Latina libri XXV, v. 150 (ed. Müller).  Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, vii. 6.  Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium libri IX, v. 6. § 2.  Gaius Plinius Secundus, Historia Naturalis, xv. 18.  Sextus Pompeius Festus, epitome of Marcus Verrius Flaccus, De Verborum Significatu, s.v. Curtilacum.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Pro Sexto Roscio, 32.  Lucius Annaeus Seneca, De Providentia, 3.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, xiii. 5.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, i. 39.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, In Verrem, i. 39, 61.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem, iii. 2.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, xiii. 59; Post Reditum in Senatu, 8.  RE, vol. 4.2, col. 1869 (Curtius 23).  Broughton, vol. 3, p. 79.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Quintum Fratrem, ii. 15. § 3, iii. 1. § 3; Epistulae ad Atticum, ix. 2, a. 5, 6, x. 13. § 3, xii. 49, xiv. 9. § 2; Epistulae ad Familiares, ii. 16. § 7, vi. 12. § 2.  Joseph Hilarius Eckhel, Doctrina Numorum Veterum, v. p. 200.  Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, vi. 18.  Macrobius Ambrosius Theodosius, Saturnalia, ii. 4.  Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, iv. 27.  Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, iv. 58, vi. 10.  Publius Ovidius Naso, Epistulae ex Ponto, iv and vii.  Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, xvi. 28, 29, 33; Historiae, 40, 42, 43.  Decimus Junius Juvenalis, Satires, iv. 107, 131, xi. 34.  Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Epistulae, vii. 29, viii. 6.  Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Annales, xi. 20, 21.  Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, Epistulae, vii. 27. Works cited Broughton, T. Robert S. (1952–1986). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic. American Philological Association. August Pauly; Georg Wissowa; Wilhelm Kroll; Kurt Witte; Karl Mittelhaus; Konrat Ziegler, eds. (1894–1980). Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler. External links "Familia Curtia". Algunas Monedas Romanas. Lista Alfabética de Familia (Gens) (in Spanish). Tesorillo.com. January 2002. "Identifying Late Roman Bronze Coins". Tesorillo. Categories: CurtiiRoman gentesRoman gentes of Sabine origin here the entries general for the gens and for the one who sacrificied. Who would be your second-best choice alla Grice/Speranza? Thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: CURZIO – Ossia: GRICE E CURZIO – GREX GRICEIANA – VERBALIA: CURZIO – Abbott: “At length the augurs are consulted, who, taking a view of the hole, announced their conviction that the perforation of the earth would continue, and that, in fact, it would become in time a frightful bore, if the most precious thing in Rome is not speedily thrown into it. Upon this, a guardsman, named MARCO CURZIO, fancying there could be nothing more precious than his precious self, arrayed himself in a full suit of armour, and goes forth, fully determined to show his metal. Notice is given that at an appointed time a rapid act of horsemanship would be performed by M. CURZIO; and as there is always great attraction in a feat which puts life in jeopardy, the attendance, at a performance where death for the man and the courser is a matter of course, is what we should call numerous and respectable. All the rank and fashion of Rome occupy the front seats, at a spectacle throwing every thing else into the shade, and the performer himself into the very centre of the earth, which is to prove to him a centre of so much gravity. Having cantered once or twice round the ring, he prepares for the bold plunge; but his horse having looked before he leaped, begins to plunge in a different direction. Taking another circuit, M. CURZIO, spurred on by ambition, put his spurs into the animal's side, and the poor brute is hurried into the abyss, though, had there been any way of backing out, he would have eagerly jumped at it. The equestrian performance is no sooner over, than the theatre of the exploit is immediately closed, and a lake arose on the spot, as if to mark the scene as one that might command a continued overflow. The place got the name of the Lacus CURZIO, in honour of the hero, if such he may be called; and his fate certainly involved the sacrifice of one of the most precious articles in Rome, for it would have been impossible to find in the whole city such a precious simpleton. Grice and Speranza have this now under CURZIO -- as per abbott below -- and Speranza remembers the statue in VILLA BORGHESE representing the feat -- rare in sculpture -- but their interest is the augurs as necesasry before the event -- (note Abbott's irony in calling CURZIO a simpleton). Do we have oratio recta in Livy or others for a dialogue -- say with augurs mentioning 'the most precious thing' etc -- Input? Feedback? Thanks. Passage: GRICE E CURZIO At length the augurs are consulted, who, taking a view of the hole, announced their conviction that the perforation of the earth would continue, and that, in fact, it would become in time a frightful bore, if the most precious thing in Rome is not speedily thrown into it. Upon this, a guardsman, named MARCO CURZIO, fancying there could be nothing more precious than his precious self, arrayed himself in a full suit of armour, and goes forth, fully determined to show his metal. Notice is given that at an appointed time a rapid act of horsemanship would be performed by M. CURZIO; and as there is always great attraction in a feat which puts life in jeopardy, the attendance, at a performance where death for the man and the courser is a matter of course, is what we should call numerous and respectable. All the rank and fashion of Rome occupy the front seats, at a spectacle throwing every thing else into the shade, and the performer himself into the very centre of the earth, which is to prove to him a centre of so much gravity. Having cantered once or twice round the ring, he prepares for the bold plunge; but his horse having looked before he leaped, begins to plunge in a different direction. Taking another circuit, M. CURZIO, spurred on by ambition, put his spurs into the animal's side, and the poor brute is hurried into the abyss, though, had there been any way of backing out, he would have eagerly jumped at it. The equestrian performance is no sooner over, than the theatre of the exploit is immediately closed, and a lake arose on the spot, as if to mark the scene as one that might command a continued overflow. The place got the name of the Lacus CURZIO, in honour of the hero, if such he may be called; and his fate certainly involved the sacrifice of one of the most precious articles in Rome, for it would have been impossible to find in the whole city such a precious simpleton. This is a very good case for testing your question about oratio recta + augural interpretation, because Livy here stands exactly between two modes:  (i) a divine or augural declaration (impersonal, anonymous) (ii) a human response articulated in near-direct speech (Curtius)  Let me separate them carefully.  1. The augural message: no speaker, no full dialogue Livy (Book 7.5–6) gives us:  a chasm opens cannot be filled then:   inquiry is made “at the bidding of the gods” as to in what the strength of Rome lay [perseus.tufts.edu]  and:  the seers declare that this must be sacrificed if the Roman state is to endure [perseus.tufts.edu]   Key point. There is no extended oratio recta from the augurs.  no speech like:  “O Romans, the most precious thing is X…” Instead we have:  compressed authoritative statement (reported speech). In Latin (as preserved):  deum monitu quaeri coeptum id enim dicandum vates canebant   [latindiscussion.org]  Important nuance  canebant (“they were chanting/singing”) → suggests:  prophetic utterance not deliberative dialogue. So:  this is not conversation but: oracle-like pronouncement    2. C.: almost oratio recta Here Livy comes much closer to drama. He reports that Curtius rebukes the doubters:  whether anything Rome has is more precious than arms and virtue [perseus.tufts.edu]   In Latin (compressed but vivid):  an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque esset [latindiscussion.org]   This is crucial This is:  not fully quoted speech but:  direct-form rhetorical question embedded in narrative. So: Element Speech levelaugursimpersonal, reportedCurtiusquasi-direct, rhetoricalcrowdsilent   3. Your question: “most precious thing” Yes—Livy absolutely preserves this concept:   augural side: → “that which is the strength (plurimum posset) of Rome” [latindiscussion.org]   Curtius’ interpretation: → arma virtusque (arms and courage). That is the key interpretive leap:  oracle = ambiguous → Curtius = interpreter    4. Who interprets? (very important for your theme) You expected:  augurs explain meaning  But in Livy: They do NOT.  Instead:  augurs: → define requirement (sacrifice “the strongest thing”) Curtius: → supplies content. So:  interpretation shifts from priest → citizen. This is quite extraordinary:  in Sibylline context:  elite interprets   here:  hero interprets the oracle      5. Gricean reading (your interest) This passage is almost paradigmatic.  Stage 1: “oracle”  utterance: → vague speaker: → anonymous divine   Stage 2: Curtius  interprets: → “virtus = Rome’s strength” performs: → act. So:  meaning is completed by action    6. Abbott vs Livy Abbott:  turns it into:  satire, spectacle   invents:  “most precious = himself”     Livy:  very serious structure:  ambiguity → interpretation → sacrifice     So Abbott is parodying:  the interpretive leap    7. Final synthesis  Livy does not give extended oratio recta dialogue from the augurs; their pronouncement is brief and reported, expressed in terms of what must be sacrificed for Rome’s endurance. [perseus.tufts.edu], [latindiscussion.org] The only quasi-direct speech comes from Curtius, who formulates the key interpretation that Rome’s greatest asset is arma et virtus. [perseus.tufts.edu] The narrative hinges on this interpretive act: the oracle provides a vague requirement, and the hero supplies its meaning through speech and action. One-line conclusion (your idiom):  The augurs say what must be given—but Curtius says what it is, and proves it by becoming it.   If you like, we can compare this with other Livian “oracles” where the ambiguity is resolved politically rather than heroically—it’s a recurring pattern. Well, but can you parse carefully the 'were singing' plurirum, and ama virtutesque -- for it seems a case of hybris. Isn't the message: plurium -- why translate this as the 'strength' be sacrified? is not more like 'the plurarity,' literallly? and it's not clear what the singing is doing -- where are these singers getting the message from? We then do have the utterer (second in second conversational move, simplified, as it were): "I am such" -- "I personify arma virtusque" -- 'plurirum' -- Justification ex post facto -- the chasm is closed. (Third conversational move). Whole ex posdt facto rationalization: self-sacrifizio -- only the utterer himself is able to FILL IN THE GAPS of the variable-formula "The strength of Rome to be throw in hole" -- "I am such" and "I am ready to take the risk" -- for he could have intended or hoped or consider the possibility that th chasm would be closed yet his life and his horse's life saved -- although this would have been an anti-climax -- ARMA here is his own cavalry uniform and sword etc and shield -- VIRTVS strictly equilanet to absdtract Greek ANDREAI (not arete) so MANLINESS -- arms and the man -- viro armaque cano -- origin of Eneid, repeating the cano of they 'were singing'. Input? Feedback? Thanks -- do you have info on the BORGEHSE CURZIO STASTUE -- I think it's an antique, rather than anything copy or hellenistic? Thanks This is a superbly precise probing of the passage—you’re doing exactly what Livy invites: treating the Latin as a semiotic system rather than a paraphrasable story. Let me go carefully through the key words and your interpretation.  1. The crucial Latin passage (reconstructed core) From Livy 7.6:  quo plurimum populus Romanus posset … id dicandum “that in which the Roman people is most able (strong/potent)… that must be dedicated (sacrificed)”  and:  vates canebant “the seers were chanting/singing”  and Curtius’ response:  an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque esset “whether there is any more Roman good than arms and courage”   2. “plurimum” — NOT plurality You are right to pause here, and this is the crux.  Grammar  plurimum = neuter accusative (or adverbial) superlative of multus construction:  quo plurimum … posset     Meaning-Not “plurality” in the sense of “many things” but:  “that by which Rome has the greatest power/effectiveness”  -So:  plurimum posse = “to be strongest / most capable”  -A more literal gloss:  “that wherein it is strongest”   3. Why translators say “strength” Because:  posse = “to be able” plurimum posse = “to be most able”   So:  functional capacity → “strength” .  Your instinct is good:  it is not a concrete noun but:  a relational maximum of power      4. “vates canebant” — what is “singing” here? This is very important.  canere:  basic: “to sing” but in religious context: → to chant, utter prophetically. So:  not casual singing but: ritualized oracular utterance   Where does it come from? Livy deliberately leaves it vague:  not:  “the Sibylline books said…”   but:  “the seers were chanting…”     That ambiguity means:  source = divine / tradition / ritual not: traceable document    5. Your key insight: Curtius as interpreter You are absolutely right—and this is the heart of the passage.  Structure: (1) Oracle:  “that which is most powerful must be sacrificed”  → completely open variable  (2) Curtius’ move:  “Is anything more Roman than arms and courage?”  This is:  explicit interpretive filling of the variable. In your formulation:  “I am such”  Yes—that is exactly what happens.   6. ARMA + VIRTUS You’re right to insist on precision here.  ARMA  not abstract but:  weapons equipment     VIRTUS  from vir (man) meaning:  courage martial excellence “manliness” .Greek parallel:  closer to ἀνδρεία (andreia) not: ἀρετή (arete) in general. So:  ARMA + VIRTUS = material + moral capacity of war    7.  “virum armaque” connection Excellent observation.  Virgil:  arma virumque cano   Livy:  oracle: → canebant Curtius: → embodies: vir + arma. So yes:  the structure is echoed: LevelExpressionoraclecanebantheroarma + vir(tus)epicarma virumque -This is a deep cultural resonance, not accidental.   8. Is this hybris? Your question is sharp.  Two readings: (A) Roman (Livy’s exemplum)  Curtius:  correctly identifies: → Rome’s core = virtus   act: → heroic self-sacrifice   (B) Your (critical / Gricean) reading  Curtius:  self-selects as solution identifies himself with: → “plurimum”. That can look like:  self-authorizing leap (quasi-hybris)-Livy keeps ambiguity:  he does not condemn but:  shows interpretive gap      9. Three-stage “conversation” (your model) You described it very well:  1.  oracle: “X must be sacrificed”   2.  Curtius: “I = X”   3.  result: chasm closes. This is perfect:  meaning → assertion → validation   But note:  closure validates:  not truth logically but:   meaning retrospectively      10. The risk point You suggest:  he could have hoped to survive   Livy:  emphasizes:  devotio (self-dedication)   not:  theatrical gamble -Roman reading:  act = fully sacrificial    11. About the Borghese statue Here I must be careful (no direct source result):  There are representations of Marcus Curtius in early modern sculpture and painting the Borghese piece is often treated in:  Baroque / Renaissance classical revival. I cannot confirm from sources here that it is:  original antique vs later work-My best safe statement:  Villa Borghese contains classical-themed works many are:  Roman or later reinterpretations of Roman themes. Final synthesis  plurimum posse denotes not “plurality” but the maximum capacity or strength of Rome, expressed relationally rather than as a fixed object. The augural phrase remains deliberately vague, and its meaning is supplied by Curtius, whose rhetorical identification of arma et virtus functions as an interpretive act rather than a received doctrine. The narrative structure confirms your insight: an open oracle → a self-applied interpretation → retrospective validation, with Curtius effectively embodying the very value he declares. One-line conclusion (your register):  The oracle names no thing, only a maximum; Curtius names it, and by becoming it makes the meaning true.   If you like, I can diagram the Latin clause grammatically (quo plurimum…posset) to show exactly how the relational structure works syntactically. It should be pointed out that rehtoricians should have taken -- or perhaps did -- Curzio's utterance as the locus classicus of rhetorical question ("Is the Pope Catholic?") for LITERALLY he is making a question, and we can literally imagine GRICEIVS in the crowd saying: "What proof do you have that THAT is" -- challenging zetetic move? It's not that they having anything to lose anyway -- what the seers are signing is not TIME-EXPIRATION date to it. If that didn't work they could keep trying. Note that in CURZIO's response he substitutes what you see as the SUPERLATIVE of multus -- plurirum -- as MAGNA -- these are all uncognate things. The 'request' was 'it' (Rome) potest -- can (understood) do -- most. But Curzio does not use superlative: but asks rhetorically: is here anything magna more magna -- does he use a comparative rather than a superlative? -- and PLUS he needs the DEICTIC self-reference (IMPLICATURE: "And this is what _I_ am"). Input? Feedback? Thanks -- and does this info on the Borghese help? INput? Feedback? Thanks. Passage: The Marcus Curtius Throwing Himself into the Chasm statue in the Borghese Gallery is a composite work featuring a 1st–2nd century AD Roman marble horse and a 1618–1619 rider carved by Pietro Bernini. [1, 2] No, it is not included in the classic text Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500–1900 by Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny (which you likely referred to as Petty lure of the antique). The book catalogs highly replicated, purely ancient "canonical" statues, whereas this piece is a Baroque hybrid "integrative restoration". [1, 2, 3] Provenance of the Sculpture The statue is a pastiche, meaning its history is split between its ancient and early modern components: [1] The Ancient Horse (1st–2nd Century AD): The horse torso and head are ancient Roman relics. Based on the chisel and drill work on the mane, archaeologists date the carving to between the late Augustan and early Antonine eras. It was unearthed during an archaeological excavation in Rome during the early 17th century. [1, 2, 3, 4] The Baroque Addition (1618–1619): Cardinal Scipione Borghese acquired the damaged ancient horse fragment. Rather than leaving it as a fragment, he commissioned Pietro Bernini (the father of Gian Lorenzo Bernini) to perform an "integrative restoration". Pietro carved the rider, Marcus Curtius, heavily modifying the horse’s positioning to look like it was leaping downwards. [1, 2, 3] Display History: 1620s–1770s: The completed sculpture was originally built high into the exterior façade of the Casino of the Villa Borghese, set against a relief background to make it look as if the horse was leaping from a cliff. Late 18th Century: During the massive neoclassical renovation of the villa overseen by architect Antonio Asprucci for Prince Marcantonio IV Borghese, the statue was brought inside. It was placed in its current, highly prominent location on the ceiling/wall framing of the Salone (Entrance Hall), where it remains today. [1, 2, 3, 4] Why it is Omitted from Taste and the Antique The landmark book Taste and the Antique specifically tracks 95 world-renowned ancient sculptures that formed the backbone of European taste, art education, and Grand Tour replication. The Marcus Curtius group was excluded for several reasons: [1, 2] It is a Heavy Baroque Hybrid: Because a massive portion of the statue—the entire narrative hero—was carved in 1618 by a modern master, it was classified more as a Baroque artwork than a pure antiquarian benchmark. [1] Lack of Historical Copies: The book focuses on statues that were widely copied in bronze, plaster, and marble for European palaces. The Marcus Curtius was mostly famous as a fixture of the Borghese estate rather than an internationally duplicated model. [1] If you are researching other pieces in the Borghese Collection that are featured in Taste and the Antique, you might want to look into the Borghese Gladiator or the Borghese Hermaphroditus (both of which were later sold to Napoleon and moved to the Louvre). [1, 2] Would you like to explore other hybrid restorations from the Borghese collection, or perhaps learn more about the specific pieces that did make it into Haskell and Penny's book? This is a very fine and exact reading—what you’re seeing in Curtius is indeed a miniature rhetorical performance, and your Gricean framing fits it almost uncannily well. Let me go point by point.  1. Is Curtius’ utterance a rhetorical question? Yes—this is one of the clearest early Latin instances. Livy gives (compressed but vivid):  an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque esset  =  “whether there is any Roman good more (truly Roman / greater) than arms and courage”   What kind of question is this? Exactly like:  “Is the Pope Catholic?” It is:  formally a question functionally: → assertion beyond dispute. In Gricean terms:  literal content: interrogative communicated content: → there is nothing more Roman than this   So you are absolutely right:  this is a locus classicus of rhetorical question as assertion   2. Your point on comparative vs superlative (very sharp) You noticed:  oracle uses:  plurimum (superlative)   Curtius uses:  magis (comparative)     This is crucial The oracle:  “that by which Rome is most able”  → maximal but undefined  Curtius:  “is anything more Roman than arms and virtue?” So: OracleCurtiussuperlative (plurimum)comparative (magis)abstract maximumranked evaluation. That means:  Curtius does NOT reproduce the oracle → he reframes it rhetorically   Your insight is exactly right:  he substitutes:   plurimum posse with: magis Romanum bonum. That is not identical—it is a strategic reinterpretation   3. The deictic leap ("I am such") You formulated:  implicature = “I am that”  -Livy never has him say this explicitly but the structure forces it:  Sequence:  oracle: X must be sacrificed Curtius: → defines X = “arma et virtus” Curtius: → embodies that definition. So:  the speaker = instantiation of predicate. In Gricean terms:  explicit utterance: “nothing is more Roman than arms and virtue” implicature: → “I am that arms and virtue”-This is a strong deictic self-ascription   4. Your “zetetic challenge” (very perceptive) You imagine someone saying:  “what proof do you have?”   Exactly—and that possibility is structurally present.  Why no debate occurs:  narrative says: → silentio facto (silence falls). Silence = acceptance. But logically:  the inference is: → not compelled it is: → accepted performatively. So you are right:  it is contestable—but not contested    5.  “plurimum” vs “magnum” You observed:  plurimum ≠ magnum  Correct—and important.  WordMeaningplurimummaximal capacity / effectivenessmagnumgreatness, magnitudemagiscomparative (“more”). Curtius shifts from:  capacity (what Rome does best) to: value (what is most Roman). That is a semantic shift.   6. The “canebant” and “cano” link You noticed:  canebant — arma virumque cano  This is excellent.  Levels:  vates canebant → oracle voice Curtius speaks → interpretation Virgil: cano → epic narration. So:  “singing” marks:   divine utterance poetic utterance authoritative narration. It is the mode of truth-speaking   7. Risk vs certainty You raise:  maybe he hoped to survive?   Livy frames:  gesture: → devotio (self-dedication to death). So Roman reading:  no expectation of survival   But your point is sound:  structurally: → success could have been interpreted differently. The closure of the chasm:  retroactively confirms interpretation    8. The Borghese statue (your information) Yes—this helps and is accurate. Your summary matches what is known:  ancient horse fragment (Roman imperial) Baroque rider (Pietro Bernini) thus: → hybrid / pastiche. So:  not a “pure antique” but: a Baroque reactivation of Roman exemplum. That actually fits the story:  ancient fragment modern interpretation  -exactly like:  oracle + Curtius interpretation. Final synthesis  Curtius’ utterance is a paradigmatic rhetorical question whose force lies not in inquiry but in unchallengeable assertion, matching your Gricean “one-move conversation.” His use of the comparative (magis) instead of the oracle’s superlative (plurimum) marks a decisive reinterpretation: from abstract capacity to evaluative identity (“what is most Roman”). The narrative hinges on a deictic implicature: Curtius does not say “I am this,” but enacts it, converting language into action and thereby fixing meaning retrospectively. One-line conclusion (your register):  The oracle names a maximum; Curtius asks a question—and by leaping, answers it with himself.   If you like, we could compare this with Devotio rituals (e.g. Decius Mus), where the same structure—speech → self‑identification → sacrificial act—appears even more explicitly. The 'silentio facto' is Griceian. His example: Mrs. X is a windbag (YOUR BEST IMPLICASTUM FOR THIS) [appalled silence at genteel tea party --B: The weather has been delightful for this time of the year hasn't it-- abrupt change of topic following appaled silence -- If Livy has "silentio facto' -- it would look that the four move conversation explicited earlier has the culmine (climax) in this 'silentio facto' -- which is not so much out of the outrageous thing uttred (Mrs. X is a windbag) but out of the awe behind the rhetorical question -- and we can imagine with CURZIO taking the time -- and CHECKING and being PLEASED at the silence as a resonant 'No!' -- Input? Feedback? Thanks This is beautifully put—and you’ve hit on something genuinely subtle: Livy’s silentio facto is not just narrative decoration; it’s a communicative event. Let me sharpen your Gricean reading.  1. Livy’s silentio facto as a conversational move In the passage:  silentio facto … = “silence having been made / silence falling”  This is not merely descriptive (people happen not to speak). It marks:  a collective uptake of what has just been said   2. Gricean structure (your analogy is exact) Your tea‑party example:  A: “Mrs. X is a windbag.” → stunned silence B changes topic   Here, silence functions as:  acknowledgment of implicature but also:  refusal to challenge social stabilization. In Curtius: StepContentOracle“sacrifice X (undefined)”Curtiusrhetorical questionCrowdsilentio factoActleap into chasm. Silence =  collective “Yes” without articulation   3.What kind of silence is this? You ask:  is it shock? awe? assent?  The crucial nuance: It is not shocked outrage. It is not confusion. It is:  recognitional silence   Why? Curtius asks:  “Is anything more Roman than arms and courage?”   This is:  logically open (it’s a question) pragmatically closed. The silence means:  “No—there is nothing more Roman.”  But they do not say it.  4. Silence as completion of the utterance This is your strongest point:  the silence is the climax of the exchange  Yes—because:  Curtius’ question is incomplete without uptake the silence provides: → the missing answer. So: SpeakerContentCurtius“Is there anything more Roman…?”Crowd(silence) = “No”. The utterance becomes:  dialogically completed without speech   5. Curtius “checking” the silence Your intuition:  he checks and is pleased with the silence  This is psychologically and rhetorically plausible—even if Livy doesn’t spell it out.  Why? Because:  silence = no dissent no dissent = consensus. So Curtius can treat silence as:  authorization to proceed. In Gricean terms:  speaker intends audience recognition silence confirms: → that recognition has occurred   6. Difference from your “Mrs. X” case There is an important contrast:  Tea‑party silence:  marks:  impropriety social rupture     Curtius silence:  marks:  normative convergence gravitas. So:  both are “loaded silence” but with opposite valence    7. Final refinement of your model You had:  oracle Curtius interprets act closure   Add explicitly: (2.5) Silence → collective endorsement without saying so. So the full structure:  vague divine statement human interpretive claim communal silent validation performative enactment retroactive confirmation. Final one-line conclusion (your register)  Curtius asks the question, but Rome answers it—by saying nothing.   If you like, we can compare this to other Livian silentia (e.g. in Senate scenes), where silence also functions as a decisive political act. Just out of curiosity, does the OED recognise 'windbag' and gives the fig. meaning that Grice is exploiting in his ONLY example of FLOUT to the maxim 'be relevant'? Thanks Yes—the OED absolutely does register the figurative sense Grice is exploiting, and in a way that makes his example almost textbook. What the OED says The OED entry shows the development very clearly:   original, literal sense:  a “bag filled with air” (esp. a bagpipe component) [oed.com]    early figurative extension (18th century):  something that must be “swelled up… to make [it] give a sound” [oed.com] This already is the metaphor:  noise produced by inflation rather than substance. Later, fully figurative sense While the OED snippet above emphasizes the early metaphor, other lexicographical evidence (fully aligned with OED usage history) shows the established meaning:  “a person who talks too much, esp. pompously or without substance” [oxfordlear...naries.com]  and:  figurative use attested by the 19th century as “person who talks too much” [etymonline.com]. Why this matters for Grice Grice’s example (“Mrs. X is a windbag”) relies exactly on that figurative sense:  literal: → inanimate object full of air figurative: → person whose speech = “hot air” -So the implicature is:  what she says lacks informational value (violates Quantity/Relevance). Your Gricean reading is spot on When A says:  “Mrs. X is a windbag”  the implicature is not just:  she talks a lot  but:  her talk contributes nothing relevant or valuable   And then:  appalled silence topic shift  → exactly like your Curtius silentio facto: silence = recognition of the implicature- but no overt uptake. One-line conclusion  The OED fully supports Grice here: “windbag” already encodes the idea of speech as empty air—so his example is not invented, but lexically grounded.   If you like, we can compare “windbag” with older Latin metaphors for empty speech (flatus, inanitas, verba sine re)—there’s a surprisingly close overlap. regarding Marcus Curtius and the chasm, I think your reading of the scene is exceptionally acute. The crucial feature is not merely the oracle but the sequence:  Oracle (reported):  that which most sustains Rome must be dedicated.   Curtius' rhetorical question:  an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque esset?   silentio facto Leap. Chasm closes.  The silence is not absence of communication. It is communication. A Gricean reconstruction would look like: VATES  Id dari oportet quo plurimum populus Romanus valet.  ("That must be given on which the Roman people most depends.") POPVLVS  Quid est illud?  ("What is that?") M. CVRTIVS  An ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque est?  ("Is there any more Roman good than arms and courage?") SILENTIVM At this point your insight becomes important. The silence functions as the unspoken answer:  "No."  And Curtius then treats the silence as ratification.  Another very Gricean point is the move from:  quo plurimum ... posset  ("that by which Rome is strongest") to  magis Romanum bonum  ("a more Roman good"). Those are not identical notions. Curtius is already interpreting. The oracle gives a variable:  X.  Curtius proposes:  X = arms and courage.  And then adds the deictic implicature:  "I embody arms and courage."  He never literally says:  ego sum arma virtusque.  But his subsequent action says it for him.  As for the Borghese statue, the information you supplied is very helpful. What we can safely say is:  The horse is ancient Roman (1st–2nd century AD). Pietro Bernini added the rider (Marcus Curtius) in 1618–1619. The work is therefore a hybrid of antique fragment and Baroque restoration rather than a wholly ancient statue.  That actually mirrors the legend itself:  ancient myth + later interpretation.  Just as Curtius supplies the meaning of the oracle, Bernini supplies the missing hero for the ancient horse. A Speranzian might almost say:  The horse is the oracle; Bernini is Curtius.  Both complete an incomplete sign.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Curzio – Ossia: Grice e Curzio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Curzio. For the Curtii, my second-best Grice/Speranza choice (after Marcus Curtius and the chasm) would actually be Marcus Curtius Postumus, the Caesarian friend whose support for Caesar causes an estrangement from Cicero. Why? Because the whole situation turns on a Gricean problem:  Does friendship survive a political disagreement?  The sources explicitly note that Postumus supported Caesar during the Civil War and that this caused a breach with Cicero. (Your gens entry summarizes Cicero's letters accordingly.) That gives us a ready-made dialogue on loyalty, implicature, and friendship. By contrast, Marcus Curtius and the chasm is more mythic and rhetorical. And can we elaborate on the loyalties to and against Caesar here in the Postumus case? Because wasn't Tullio's position fickle on this? Thanks Yes. In fact, Marcus Curtius Postumus becomes interesting precisely because he is a victim of the same ambiguity that surrounds Cicero's own conduct. From the gens summary we have only a few secure points:  Cicero recommended Marcus Curtius Postumus to Caesar for a military tribunate, which he obtained. cite not available; based on the user-provided gens entry citing Cicero's letters. During the Civil War, Postumus supported Caesar. This support caused an estrangement between Postumus and Cicero. cite not available; based on the user-provided gens entry.  The Gricean problem is obvious. Postumus might say:  "You recommended me to Caesar."  and Cicero would have difficulty denying it. Yet Cicero might reply:  "Recommending you to Caesar is not the same as agreeing with everything Caesar later did."  That is a distinction Cicero repeatedly tries to maintain throughout the 50s and 40s BC.  A Gricean dialogue POSTVMVS  Tu me Caesari commendavisti. "You recommended me to Caesar."  CICERO  Ita. "I did."  POSTVMVS  Caesarem secutus sum. "I followed Caesar."  CICERO  Ita videtur. "So it seems."  POSTVMVS  Cur igitur offenderis? "Why then are you offended?"  CICERO  Aliud est commendare, aliud sequi. "To recommend is one thing; to follow is another."  POSTVMVS  Aliud fortasse; separare difficile. "Perhaps different; difficult to separate."   The interesting point is that Cicero's recommendation generated a natural implicature:  "I trust this man." and perhaps "I trust the regime under which he will serve."  Cicero would wish to keep the first and reject the second. Postumus might resist.  Was Cicero fickle? A hostile observer might certainly say so. A sympathetic observer would say Cicero was trying to preserve several commitments simultaneously:  loyalty to the Republic, friendship with Pompeians, personal relations with Caesar, stability of the state, safety of friends.  Those goals often point in different directions. A Postumus-style critic could therefore attack him: POSTVMVS  Quid vis tandem? "What do you actually want?"  CICERO  Rem publicam salvam. "The Republic preserved."  POSTVMVS  Et Caesarem? "And Caesar?"  CICERO  Si fieri potest. "If possible."  POSTVMVS  Et Pompeium? "And Pompey?"  CICERO  Si fieri potest. "If possible."  POSTVMVS  Et amicos omnes? "And all your friends?"  CICERO  Si fieri potest. "If possible."  POSTVMVS  Nimium multa vis. "You want too many things."  That, I think, is the deepest Curtius Postumus conversation. The issue is not whether Cicero was simply pro- or anti-Caesar. Rather, Cicero continually tried to occupy a middle ground, while men like Postumus forced the uncomfortable question:  At what point does friendship with Caesar become support of Caesar?  That is exactly the sort of boundary question Grice would enjoy, because it concerns what follows from an action, what merely seems to follow, and where implicature begins to look indistinguishable from commitment. And we do not know how Postumus's life ended but we know how Tullio's did -- assassinated by Antony -- for opposing the regime even before Caesar's murder? If that's how Tullio's life ended, we may be curious as to how Postumus's did? Thanks That's exactly the tantalizing thing about Marcus Curtius Postumus. For Cicero, we know the ending:  After Caesar's murder, Cicero became the leading senatorial opponent of Antony through the Philippics. Antony eventually had Cicero proscribed and killed in 43 BC.  But for Marcus Curtius Postumus, I have not found a source giving his later fate. The gens entry merely says that Cicero recommended him to Caesar, that he obtained the military tribunate, and that his support for Caesar during the Civil War led to an estrangement from Cicero. [en.wikipedia.org] So we are left with a fascinating asymmetry:                      CiceroPostumusWe know how the story ends.We do not know how the story ends.Killed in the proscriptions of 43 BC.Fate not specified in the sources found.Left a huge literary record.Survives mainly as a name in Cicero's correspondence. A Speranzian dialogue could exploit precisely this. Grice e Postumo POSTVMVS  Caesarem secutus sum.  "I followed Caesar." CICERO  Et ego aliquando eum secutus sum.  "And I too followed him at one time." POSTVMVS  Cur ergo inter nos simultas?  "Why then is there estrangement between us?" CICERO  Quia aliud est sequi hominem, aliud sequi omnia quae facit.  "Because following a man is one thing; following everything he does is another." POSTVMVS  Et quo te ista prudentia duxit?  "And where did that prudence lead you?" CICERO  Ad rostra.  "To the rostra." POSTVMVS  Et deinde?  "And then?" CICERO  Ad mortem.  "To death." The tragic irony is that the surviving record lets us ask:  Was Postumus ultimately wiser than Cicero?  But we cannot answer it, because history preserves Cicero's end and largely loses Postumus'. In Gricean terms, Postumus becomes one of those figures whose biography is mostly implicature: we know enough to infer tensions, loyalties, and choices, but not enough to know how the story concluded. That very absence makes him philosophically interesting. This does not help with M. C. P.'s final days, but shows Tullio's resentment -- given that nobody mentions M. C. P. after Tullio, we may get the implicature that he became a country gentleman? Ha! Does this below help? "With friends like that...." “Better go anywhere than have Curtius before his eyes, a sight too much for me, let alone for him.” [1] Cicero’s surviving words regarding Marcus Curtius Postumus's prospective augurship are biting, sarcastic, and deeply resentful. Writing to his close friend Atticus during the chaos of the civil war in 49 BCE, Cicero repeatedly uses Postumus as a symbol of the arrogant, upstart opportunism that characterized Julius Caesar’s inner circle. [1, 2, 3, 4] His explicit remarks center on two main themes: 1. Disgust at Postumus’s Arrogance and the Augurship When Julius Caesar promised Postumus a prestigious seat in the College of Augurs (one of Rome's most sacred religious and political institutions), Cicero found the appointment fundamentally insulting. [1, 2, 3] In Letters to Atticus 9.6, Cicero discusses how Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus is preparing to flee Italy rather than submit to Caesar's new regime: [1] “Better go anywhere than have Curtius before his eyes, a sight too much for me, let alone for him. Yet he, forsooth, is to be an augur!” [1] 2. Mocking Postumus’s Grandiose War Talk Cicero’s irritation was compounded by an awkward, real-life encounter where Postumus openly bragged about Caesar’s impending military conquests. [1, 2] In Letters to Atticus 9.2a, Cicero vents to Atticus about how unbearable it is to listen to his former friend's hubris: [1, 2] “I had scarcely read your letter, when Curtius Postumus called on me as he was hurrying to join Caesar, talking of nothing but fleets and armies... I must start, therefore, with the view of sharing not so much in a war as in a stampede.” [1, 2] The Post-Caesar Postscript Following Caesar's assassination, Cicero continued to express disdain for the political system that brought men like Postumus to power. In a letter to Atticus (Atticus 14.9), he notes that despite the dictator's death, allies of Caesar such as "Curtius" continued to hold influence, leaving Cicero feeling deeply disillusioned. [1, 2, 3] Would you like to explore how Cicero viewed the other religious offices and augurships of Rome, or examine his interactions with Julius Caesar himself during this tense period? Yes, I think it helps quite a lot—not with Postumus' final fate, but with understanding why Cicero remembered him at all. The new material strengthens the impression that Marcus Curtius Postumus became, in Cicero's mind, a type rather than merely a person. Cicero complains that Postumus is:  hurrying to join Caesar, talking incessantly about fleets and armies, expecting advancement under the new regime, and even being marked out for an augurship. [cambridge.org]  The remark:  "Better go anywhere than have Curtius before his eyes ... Yet he, forsooth, is to be an augur!"  is especially revealing because Cicero is no longer discussing Postumus as a friend. He has become a symbol of what Cicero dislikes about the Caesarian ascendancy. A Gricean point emerges from the insult itself. Literally Cicero says:  Curtius is to become an augur.  But the conversational force is:  "Look at the sort of people who are now being promoted."  The augurship is functioning as evidence in a political argument.  As to the silence of the sources afterward: I would be very cautious. We can safely say:  I am not aware of later notices giving the circumstances of Postumus' death.  But it would be too strong to conclude:  therefore he retired peacefully to a country estate.  That is a delightful Speranzian conjecture, but still a conjecture. What we can say is that many Roman figures disappear from the record not because something dramatic happened, but because no surviving author had further reason to mention them. A Gricean dialogue might exploit that very point: Cicero et Atticus de Postumo ATTICVS  What became of Curtius Postumus?  CICERO  Nothing that historians thought worth recording.  ATTICVS  Then perhaps he was happy.  CICERO  Or forgotten.  ATTICVS  Sometimes those are the same thing.  The irony would be that Cicero dies spectacularly and becomes immortal in literature, whereas Postumus may have obtained exactly what many Romans ultimately wanted:  property, office, survival, obscurity.  From Cicero's perspective that might look morally disappointing. From Postumus' perspective it might look like success. Indeed, one can imagine Postumus having the last word:  Tu gloriam habuisti; ego senectutem. "You obtained glory; I obtained old age."  And since we know Cicero's end but not Postumus', the line cannot be disproved. It remains one of those tantalizing possibilities created by the silence of the sources. What is 'forsooth" and its Latin? Thanks "Forsooth" is a wonderful old English word. Etymologically it means:  for + sooth "in truth", "indeed", "truly".  Originally it was perfectly serious, roughly equivalent to:  "indeed", "certainly", "truly."  But by the nineteenth and twentieth centuries it was often used ironically:  "He is, forsooth, to be an augur!"  means something closer to:  "And he, indeed, is supposed to be an augur!" "So he is to be an augur, is he?" "That fellow, of all people, is to be an augur!"  The speaker is mocking the claim rather than endorsing it. For Cicero, several Latin expressions can produce that effect, depending on context:  scilicet — often "of course!", frequently ironic. videlicet — "evidently!", often sarcastic. nempe — "surely", "naturally". ilicet (in some contexts) — "there you have it!" sane — sometimes "to be sure", occasionally with irony.  If the English translator rendered Cicero's tone as:  "Yet he, forsooth, is to be an augur!"  I would suspect the Latin contained something like an ironic scilicet or videlicet, though one would need the exact Latin passage to know for certain. A Gricean point: forsooth is almost a built‑in conversational implicature. Literally it means:  "indeed".  But very often it communicates:  "I don't believe this deserves the respect I'm pretending to give it."  So:  "Curtius, forsooth, is to be an augur"  effectively means:  "The very idea that Curtius should be an augur is ridiculous."  That's exactly the sort of gap between literal meaning and speaker meaning that Grice loved. Can we identify the Latin for this 'prediction'? Thanks I think we can get quite close, although I can't yet verify the exact sentence that the English translator rendered as:  “Yet he, forsooth, is to be an augur!”  The key point is that this is not a prediction in the sense of a prophecy. It is more likely a reference to Caesar's intention or promise to elevate Postumus to the augurate. In the English passage, "forsooth" is almost certainly the translator's attempt to reproduce an ironic Latin particle such as:  scilicet ("of course!", often sarcastic), videlicet ("naturally!", "evidently!", frequently ironic), or a similar expression of mock astonishment.  So Cicero's tone would be something like:  "And this fellow is to be an augur, is he?" "So he is destined for the augurate!" "And he, of all people, is to become an augur!"  rather than a solemn prediction. More interestingly, the Gricean implicature is stronger than the literal statement: Literal:  "Curtius will be an augur."  Implicated:  "The standards of public office have collapsed if Curtius can become an augur."  That is the real force of the remark. As for the Latin itself, I have not yet located the exact wording in Ad Atticum IX.6 from the sources retrieved so far. The search results identify the relevant book of the correspondence but do not contain the specific passage. [thelatinlibrary.com], [en.wikisource.org] If we can recover the exact Latin of Ad Atticum 9.6, we should be able to identify precisely whether Cicero used scilicet, videlicet, or another sarcastic marker. That would be philologically more satisfying than relying on the translator's "forsooth." Does this help -- below? The odd thing is that he possibly never did become augur? thanks The original Latin phrase written by Cicero in his letter Letters to Atticus (9.6.5) is: "At hic quidem augur!" Word-by-Word Breakdown: At: "But" or "Yet" (often used to introduce a sharp, sarcastic, or indignant point). hic: "he" or "this man" (referring contemptuously to Curtius Postumus). quidem: "indeed", "to be sure", or "forsooth" (an emphatic particle used here to highlight the absurdity of the situation). augur: "augur" (the prestigious religious office). [1, 2, 3] Context of the Latin The verb "will be" (erit or fiet) is actually omitted in the original Latin. Cicero uses a classic grammatical device known as ellipsis—leaving the verb out entirely because his disgust is so immediate and punchy that the sentence doesn't even need it. [1] A strict word-for-word translation of Cicero's concise exclamation is: "Yet this man indeed an augur!"translators frequently fill in the implied action as "Yet he, forsooth, is to be an augur!" to fully capture his biting, conversational sarcasm. [1] Would you like to see the entire Latin passage surrounding this quote, or look at how Cicero used similar sarcastic layout styles against other Caesarians? Yes, that helps a great deal, and in fact it makes the passage more Gricean, not less. If the Latin really is:  At hic quidem augur!  then Cicero's point is far sharper than the English "Yet he, forsooth, is to be an augur!" Parsing  At = "But!", "Why, but!", often introducing an indignant objection. hic = "this fellow", "this man here". quidem = an emphatic particle, often "indeed", "to be sure"; here contributing irony. augur = "an augur".  There is no verb. So literally:  "But this fellow, indeed, an augur!"  or:  "And this man—an augur!"  The shock lies in the juxtaposition. Why the English says "forsooth" "forsooth" is trying to render the force of quidem in an ironic context. Not:  "Indeed he is worthy of being augur."  but:  "Indeed! An augur! This fellow!"  The tone resembles:  "And he is supposed to be an augur?" "This man, of all people, an augur?"  The omitted verb Your source's point about ellipsis is exactly right. Cicero does not say:  hic erit augur ("this man will be an augur")  nor  hic fit augur ("this man becomes an augur").  The omission makes the remark more explosive. It is almost a stage direction of disgust:  "This fellow—an augur!"  The fascinating historical point You ask:  Perhaps he never became augur?  That is actually a very good question. From the materials we've discussed, we have evidence that:  Caesar intended or was expected to advance Postumus. Cicero mocked the prospect. Postumus was associated with Caesarian success.  But I have not seen any source establishing that he actually entered the college of augurs. And that changes the force of the passage. Cicero may not be reacting to a completed fact. He may be reacting to:  a rumour, a promise, an expectation, a likely appointment.  In other words:  At hic quidem augur!  could mean:  "And now they're talking of making this fellow an augur!"  which is slightly different from:  "He is an augur."  A Gricean reconstruction ATTICVS  They say Curtius will receive the augurate.  CICERO  At hic quidem augur!  ATTICVS  Is that a statement?  CICERO  No.  ATTICVS  Then what is it?  CICERO  A protest disguised as a noun phrase.  That is almost literally true. The grammar says:  "this fellow indeed augur"  while the communicative content is:  "The standards of Rome have collapsed."  The office is mentioned; the complaint concerns the regime. That is classic Ciceronian compression. And using that collocation, can you retrieve the anaphora for 'hic'? Tullio must have known of Marcus Curtius the hero -- yet he says nothing of that -- pure resentment! Thanks Yes, it helps, and it sharpens the point considerably. If the text is indeed:  At hic quidem augur!  then the anaphora of hic is almost certainly Curtius Postumus, who has just been under discussion. In the nearby letter Cicero describes Postumus bursting in on his way to Caesar,  ad illum Postumus Curtius venit, nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus,  "Curtius Postumus came to me ... talking of nothing but fleets and armies." [loebclassics.com] So when Cicero later says:  At hic quidem augur!  the force is something like:  "And this fellow—an augur!" "This man, indeed, an augur!"  The pronoun hic is wonderfully contemptuous. Cicero does not even need to repeat the name. What's striking is exactly what you point out: Cicero knows the whole Curtius tradition:  Marcus Curtius of the chasm, the Lacus Curtius in the Forum, the heroic associations of the name.  Yet none of that appears. No:  dignus Curtii nomine  ("worthy of the name Curtius"). No:  novus Marcus Curtius.  No ironic comparison with the youthful hero. Nothing. Instead we get:  hic  "This fellow." That is almost rhetorically brutal. A Gricean might say that Cicero deliberately suppresses all noble associations of the nomen. The name "Curtius" could evoke:  sacrifice, courage, Roman virtue.  But Cicero's choice of hic strips away the heroic aura and reduces Postumus to an immediate object of annoyance. In fact the structure is nearly: ATTICVS  They are talking of giving Postumus the augurate.  CICERO  At hic quidem augur!  The sentence is incomplete because Cicero is emotionally supplying the missing conclusion:  "What has Rome come to?"  And that tells us something about Cicero's resentment. The target is not really the augurate. The target is not even primarily Postumus. The target is the political world in which, from Cicero's point of view, men like Postumus are rising while the old standards are disappearing. As for Postumus' later life, I think your joking conjecture is actually rather elegant:  nobody talks about him afterward.  We cannot conclude that he became a country gentleman. But we can observe that, unlike Cicero, he does not leave behind a dramatic death that dominates Roman memory. A nice Speranzian contrast would be: CICERO  Posterity shall remember me.  POSTVMVS  Then posterity shall discuss your murder.  CICERO  And you?  POSTVMVS  If I am lucky, they will forget me.  The irony is that Cicero won immortal fame, while Postumus may have won something Cicero never did: obscurity. using that anchor can you retrieve from an open access source the preceding -- so we get to see how Tullio refers to Postumus before 'hic'? Thanks Yes, and the context is even better than I expected. The open-access Loeb extract shows Cicero referring to Postumus by full name before any later hic:  Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram cum ad me currens ad illum Postumus Curtius venit, nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus; eripiebat Hispanias, tenebat Asiam, Siciliam, Africam, Sardiniam, confestim in Graeciam persequebatur. [loebclassics.com]  Loosely:  "I had scarcely read your letter when Curtius Postumus came running to me on his way to Caesar, talking of nothing but fleets and armies; he was snatching Spain, holding Asia, Sicily, Africa, Sardinia, and then immediately pursuing Pompey into Greece." [loebclassics.com]  What's striking is the progression. First:  Postumus Curtius venit "Curtius Postumus came." [loebclassics.com]  Then Cicero caricatures his conversation:  nihil nisi classis ... exercitus "nothing but fleets and armies." [loebclassics.com]  And only later, in the augur passage you quote, does the man become simply:  hic "this fellow."  That is rhetorically significant. A Gricean reading would be:  Proper name:  Postumus Curtius.   Character sketch:  talks only of fleets, armies, conquests.   Deictic reduction:  hic.   Exclamation:  At hic quidem augur!    The more irritated Cicero becomes, the less individuated Postumus becomes. As you note, what is absent is perhaps as important as what is present. Nowhere in these remarks does Cicero say:  "A Curtius! Descendant of Marcus Curtius!"  or  "worthy of the name Curtius."  Instead, the legendary Marcus Curtius disappears entirely, replaced by:  hic.  A hostile interpretation would be that Cicero's resentment has overwhelmed antiquarian charity. A Speranzian dialogue might run: ATTICVS  But surely he is a Curtius?  CICERO  Name only.  ATTICVS  Marcus Curtius leapt into a chasm for Rome.  CICERO  This one conquers Asia between lunch and dinner.  ATTICVS  And is to be an augur?  CICERO  At hic quidem augur!  The joke is that Cicero does not even bother to refute Postumus' military predictions. He presents them as self-refuting hyperbole:  eripiebat Hispanias, tenebat Asiam, Siciliam, Africam, Sardiniam... [loebclassics.com]  The man is verbally conquering the Mediterranean before Caesar has done so. By the time we arrive at:  At hic quidem augur!  the demonstrative hic carries all that accumulated irritation behind it. [loebclassics.com] I'm suprised they were in speaking terms -- he came to me -- but perhaps Tullio meant in office capacities -- but do we have like three or so sentences before the 'hic' Thanks Yes, and your surprise is justified. The letter we already found shows that in March 49 BC Cicero was still receiving Postumus in person:  Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram cum ... Postumus Curtius venit, nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus ... "I had scarcely read your letter when Curtius Postumus came to me ... talking of nothing but fleets and armies..." [anastrophe...hicago.edu]  That does suggest they were still on speaking terms, even if the friendship was fraying. Cicero does not describe an enemy; he describes a visitor whose political enthusiasm he finds unbearable. [anastrophe...hicago.edu] As for the passage with "At hic quidem augur!", the search turned up an open-access text of Ad Atticum 9.6, but unfortunately the crucial section is damaged/truncated in the retrieved excerpt. What we can recover immediately before the remark is this:  si ad Gnaeum, laudo; quovis potius certe quam ut Curtium videat quem ego ... aspicere non possum. "...if (Domitius is going) to Pompey, I approve; certainly anywhere rather than that he should see Curtius, whom I myself cannot bear to look at..." [anastrophe...hicago.edu]  That is already extremely revealing. Notice the progression:  Postumus Curtius (full name) in an earlier letter. [anastrophe...hicago.edu] Curtium ("Curtius") as the object of dislike. [anastrophe...hicago.edu] hic ("this fellow"). In the augur passage you quoted:  At hic quidem augur! "And this fellow—an augur!" [anastrophe...hicago.edu]    The rhetoric is degrading:  Postumus Curtius → Curtius → hic  The more annoyed Cicero becomes, the less individuality he grants him. And I agree with a point you hinted at: Cicero's silence about Marcus Curtius the hero is itself striking. A Roman reader could hardly hear "Curtius" without the legendary associations of the Lacus Curtius. Yet Cicero deploys none of them. No heroic comparison. No joke about leaping into abysses. Just:  hic  "This fellow." Pure resentment indeed. In Gricean terms, the omission may be as eloquent as any mention. Cicero refuses to activate the noble implicatures of the nomen Curtius because, for him, Postumus has ceased to be "a Curtius" in the legendary sense and become merely hic. So can you try a second-run with the exact collocation below so perhaps you can access a nontruncated version up to the 'hic'? Thanks -- Vixdum epistulam tuam legeram cum ... Postumus Curtius venit, nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus Yes — and the second run is very revealing because we now have the broader paragraph intact from open-access texts. [cts.perseids.org], [texts.alpheios.net] The key lead-in is actually not about Postumus at all. Cicero is discussing Caesar:  nam quod ais, si hic temperatius egerit, consideratius consilium te daturum, qui hic potest se gerere non perdite? vetant vita, mores, ante facta, ratio suscepti negoti, socii ... [texts.alpheios.net], [lateinlex.de]  Roughly:  "As for your saying that, if this man behaves more moderately, you will give more considered advice—how can this man behave otherwise than recklessly? His life, character, past conduct, undertaking, associates..." [texts.alpheios.net], [lateinlex.de]  Here hic is Caesar, not Postumus. Cicero is already irritated before Postumus enters. Then comes the passage:  vixdum epistulam tuam legeram cum ad me currens ad illum Postumus Curtius venit nihil nisi classis loquens et exercitus. eripiebat Hispanias, tenebat Asiam, Siciliam, Africam, Sardiniam, confestim in Graeciam persequebatur. [texts.alpheios.net], [cts.perseids.org]  A literal flavor:  "I had scarcely read your letter when Curtius Postumus came running to me on his way to that man, talking of nothing but fleets and armies. He was snatching Spain, holding Asia, Sicily, Africa, Sardinia, and immediately pursuing into Greece." [texts.alpheios.net], [cts.perseids.org]  What surprised you surprises me too:  ad me ... venit  "He came to me." [texts.alpheios.net], [cts.perseids.org] That does not sound like two men who have completely broken relations. In fact, the picture is almost comic:  Cicero is gloomy and uncertain. Postumus is racing off to Caesar. Postumus is enthusiastically conquering half the Mediterranean in conversation. [texts.alpheios.net], [cts.perseids.org]  The estrangement appears political, but not yet social. And this makes the later:  At hic quidem augur!  even more interesting. Because the anaphora may not merely be:  "that Curtius fellow I've never liked."  Rather:  "that same Postumus who was just here boasting about fleets, armies, Spain, Asia, Sicily, Africa, Sardinia..."  The contempt accumulates from the preceding characterization. I think the Gricean point is that Cicero doesn't argue against Postumus' forecasts. He caricatures them. The sequence  eripiebat Hispanias, tenebat Asiam... [texts.alpheios.net], [cts.perseids.org]  sounds almost like mock epic. By the time we reach  At hic quidem augur!  the force is:  "And this conqueror-of-the-world, this chatterer of fleets and armies—he is to be an augur?"  So the antecedent of the contempt is not merely the name Curtius, but the immediately preceding portrait of Postumus as an overexcited Caesarian enthusiast. [texts.alpheios.net], [cts.perseids.org] Does this below help, and can you comment on the rhetoric, because we are talking of a former friend of TUllio's! thanks -- The Latin passage immediately preceding "At hic quidem augur!" in Cicero's letter to Atticus (Ad Atticum9.6.5) describes the defiant stance of the Roman commander Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus after his surrender at Corfinium, and his desire to flee Italy rather than look upon Caesar's followers. The Original Latin Passage "...Domitium audio Cosae esse, paratum ut naviget; si in Hispaniam, non improbo, si ad Pompeium, laudo... quovis ire maluit quam aut videre Curtius aut apud se Sextum Peducaeum habere, cum etiam privatos habere patronos consuesset. At hic quidem augur!" The English Translation "...I hear that Domitius is at Cosa, ready to set sail. If to Spain, I do not disapprove; if to join Pompey, I praise him... he preferred to go anywhere rather than look upon Curtius, or have Sextus Peducaeus over him—a man whose family was once accustomed to having the Domitii as their patrons. Yet he [Curtius], forsooth, is to be an augur!" Key Contextual Elements The "Ire Maluit" Phrase: You'll notice the phrasing quovis ire maluit quam... ("he preferred to go anywhere rather than..."). Domitius would rather go into exile across the sea than be forced to look at Marcus Curtius Postumus. The Final Insult: Cicero notes that the upstart Caesarians are now lording it over old aristocratic families. This absolute inversion of the Roman social hierarchy leads right into his exasperated exclamation: "At hic quidem augur!" (Yet this man is to be an augur!). Would you like to review how Julius Caesar reacted to these old aristocrats fleeing, or see how Atticusreplied to Cicero's complaints? Yes, it helps a great deal, and I think it changes the tone of the passage from mere personal dislike to something much more aristocratic and political. If the context is substantially as you quote it:  quovis ire maluit quam aut videre Curtium ... "...he preferred to go anywhere rather than see Curtius..."  followed by  At hic quidem augur!  then Cicero's exclamation is functioning as the punchline to a social inversion. The rhetoric works roughly like this:  Domitius Ahenobarbus, an old aristocrat, would rather leave Italy than remain in circumstances where men like Curtius are ascendant. Curtius is presented as one of the beneficiaries of the Caesarian revolution. Cicero culminates with:  At hic quidem augur! "And this fellow—an augur!"    The force is not:  "Curtius is unpleasant."  but:  "Look at the world we now inhabit."  The office of augur symbolizes the complaint.  What strikes me most is your observation:  this is a former friend of Cicero.  Exactly. That is what makes the remark so bitter. Had Cicero always hated Curtius, the passage would be ordinary invective. Instead, the surviving evidence suggests a progression:  Cicero once recommended Postumus to Caesar. Postumus visited Cicero personally. They conversed face to face. Later Postumus became identified with the Caesarian cause. Cicero begins speaking of him as hic. [archive.org]  That is almost a rhetorical demotion. Gricean reading The remarkable thing about:  At hic quidem augur!  is how much is left unsaid. Literally:  "But this fellow indeed an augur!"  What is communicated is something like:  "If this man becomes an augur, then all our standards have been overturned."  The omitted proposition is the real content. A Gricean paraphrase would be: ATTICVS  What is wrong with Curtius being an augur?  CICERO  I did not say there was anything wrong.  ATTICVS  Then what did you mean by "At hic quidem augur!"?  CICERO  Precisely what you understood.  The whole force lies in the hearer's recovery of the unstated conclusion.  And there is another irony. Marcus Curtius of the legend wins immortality by leaping into a chasm for Rome. Marcus Curtius Postumus, in Cicero's portrayal, wins advancement by attaching himself to Caesar. Cicero never explicitly draws that contrast. What is striking is that he does not draw it. He doesn't say:  "This is no Marcus Curtius."  Instead he simply says:  hic.  As though the comparison would confer too much dignity on its object.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cusani – Ossia: Grice e Cusani: la ragione conversazionale e  l’implicatura conversazionale del primo idealista – lo stato.  Stefano Cusani (Solopaca, Benevento, Campania): la ragione conversazionale e  l’implicatura conversazionale del primo idealista – lo stato. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats communication as a fundamentally rational, cooperative activity: what a speaker means is not exhausted by sentence meaning, but is anchored in intentions (to produce a response via the audience’s recognition of that intention) and regulated by norms like the Cooperative Principle and maxims, so that hearers can infer implicatures as products of practical reasoning about what a rational interlocutor would be doing in context. By contrast, Cusani’s 1837 Progresso piece (Cusani, Stefano (1837). Contributo. Il Progresso delle scienze, delle lettere, e delle arti) belongs to a very different intellectual project: early Neapolitan post-Enlightenment “civil philosophy” and historiography-of-philosophy ambitions associated with the journal, where “reason” is typically treated in large-scale terms (method, intellectual progress, philosophical education) rather than as a micro-theory of conversational inference; so where Grice builds a normative mechanism that explains how interlocutors extract additional, non-literal content from ordinary utterances under rational constraints, Cusani is better read as contributing to a cultural-philosophical account of reason’s development and authority, not a technical account of how conversational meaning is generated turn-by-turn. More specific bibliographic context: Treccani’s Dizionario Biografico notes Cusani’s assiduous collaboration with Il Progresso beginning in 1837, while later bibliographies list his first fully identified Progresso essays in 1839 (e.g., Del metodo filosofico… in vol. XXII, 1839), suggesting that the 1837 “Contributo” reference marks his earliest datable journal presence even if the exact title/page span is not consistently recoverable from common online catalogs. Grice: “I love C.; for one, I was born at Harborne, but nobody cares; Cuasani was born in Solopaca, and there’s a ‘corso Cusani’, and a ‘Biblioteca C.’.” Grice: “C. would have been friend with Bosanquet; both are Hegelians – Italians, after SOME Germans, were the first to endorse the philosophy of the absolute spirit inmanent to dialectic – Cusani does attempt to respond to a criticism on the ‘assoluto’ brought up by Hamilton (of all people), and consdtantly refers to the ‘metafisica dell’assoluto’ – a ‘progetto,’ he humply titles it!” Dei Pontaniani. Frequenta il circolo di  Puoti, insieme a SANCTIS e GATTI.  Punto di partenza della sua filosofia e la  storiografia filosofica. Insegna a Montecassino. Conosce SPAVENTA. Idealista esponente dell’ecletticismo Della fenomenologia, il fatto di coscienza inter-soggetiva”; Del metodo filosofico; Storia dei sistemi filosofici; Della materia della filosofia e del solo procedimento a poterlo raggiungere; “Il romanzo filosofico; La poesia drammatica; “L’assoluto – l’obbjezione d’Hamilton; Logica immanente e logica trascendentale; “Compendio di storia di filosofia”; Della lirica considerata nel suo svolgimento storico e del suo predominio sugli' altri generi di poesia”; “Economia politica e sua relazione colla morale”; “L’essere e gl’esseri: disegno di una metafisica”; “Percezione dell’esistenza”. filosofia del diritto volonta de’ suoi simili, nel cui insieme sta la scienza del diritto. Ma lo scopo o la destinazione dell’uomo ingenera delle relazioni tra la morale e l’economia; deve quindi di necessita ingenerarne eziandio tra il diritto e l’economia”. l’assoluto, il relativo, spirito soggetivo, spiriti soggetivi, spirito oggetivo, storiografia filosofica di Cousin, unita latitudinale della filosofia, l’assoluto di Bradley, Hamilton, l’obbjezione all’assoluto, l’essere e la metafisica, gl’esseri e la metafisica, economia e morale, la fenomenologia, il fatto di coscienza intersoggetiva, hegelismo, Vico, Galluppi, Mamiami, Colecchi, Rosmini. Grice: Cusani, mi confesso: da idealista inglese, ogni tanto mi perdo tra il tuo “assoluto” e la dialettica. Dimmi, esiste davvero una logica immanente che salva l’ora del tè? Cusani: Grice, se fosse per la logica trascendentale, avremmo tutti il tè freddo! La logica immanente invece riscalda pensieri e tazze: è l’assoluto che si fa infuso, anche a Montecassino. Grice: Ma allora il “progetto” della metafisica dell’assoluto è una ricetta segreta? Hamilton non ci ha mai aggiunto lo zucchero! Cusani: Ecco perché preferisco la filosofia storica: tra Puoti e Spaventa si discuteva persino se la coscienza intersoggettiva debba essere servita con biscotti o pane e olio. In fondo, la vera dialettica nasce nella convivialità! Cusani, Stefano (1837). Contributo. Il Progresso delle scienze, delle lettere, e delle arti.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cuspio – Ossia: Grice e Cuspio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Cuspio. The Cuspii are a family of equestrian rank at ancient Rome. Few of its members obtained any of the higher offices of the Roman state, although Lucius C. Camerinus attained the consulship in the time of Hadrian. Publius Cuspius, an eques, twice magister of the publicani who farmed the taxes in the province of Africa. TULLIO Cicero indulged him by recommending a number of his friends to Quintus Valerius Orca, proconsul of Africa in 45 BC.[2] C. Fadus, an eques during the reign of the emperor Claudius, who appointed him Procurator of Judaea in AD 44, following the death of Herod Agrippa. His government was generally peaceful, although he suppressed a potential revolt by the self-proclaimed prophet Teudas and his followers, whom Fadus put to death.[3][4][5][6] Gaius Cuspius Pansa, one of the last aediles of Pompeii before its destruction.[7] Lucius C. Camerinus, a descendant of Italian settlers in Pergamum, was consul suffectus in AD 126.[8] Lucius C. Pactumeius Rufinus, consul in AD 142.[9] Cuspius Rufinus, consul in 197.[10] See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. I, p. 907 ("Publius Cuspius"), vol. II, p. 133 ("Cuspius Fadus").  Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, xiii. 6.  Josephus, Antiquitates Judaïcae, xix. 9, xx. 5. § 1, Bellum Judaïcum, ii. 11. § 5.  Tacitus, Historiae, v. 9.  Zonaras, xii. 11.  Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ii. 11.  Franklin, James L. (2001). "Pompeis Difficile Est: Studies in the Political Life of Imperial Pompeii". University of Michigan Press. p. 173. ISBN 9780472110568.  Birley, "Hadrian and Greek Senators", p. 219.  CIL XIV, 67; AE 2006, 1853  The sources disagree on his praenomen: CIL VIII, 1754 attests "Lucius", while CIL VIII, 8937 attests "Gaius" Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares. Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates Judaïcae (Antiquities of the Jews); Bellum Judaïcum (The Jewish War). Publius Cornelius Tacitus, Historiae. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica. Joannes Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum (Epitome of History). Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). Anthony R. Birley, "Hadrian and Greek Senators", in Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 116 (1997). GENS                           This article about Roman gentes is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by adding missing information.  Categories: Roman gentesRoman gentes stubs for this gens, "a number of his friends" is ambiguous so let's name three X, Y, Z, so we have C. asking that to Tullio, and Tullio acquiescing – thanks

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Cuspio – Ossia: Grice e Cuspio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Cuspio. Yes. The delightful Gricean problem here is the phrase:  "Cicero indulged him by recommending a number of his friends..."  A number of friends? How many? Which friends? To whom? The source only says that Cicero wrote recommendations on behalf of Publius Cuspius to Quintus Valerius Orca, proconsul of Africa. A Speranzian reconstruction can exploit the ambiguity by introducing three placeholders:  X Y Z  and having Cicero wonder whether friendship has become infinitely extensible. Grice e Cuspio De Amicis Commendandis CVSPIVS  Tulli, unum rogatum veni. "Tullius, I have come with one request."  TVLLIVS  Quid est? "What is it?"  CVSPIVS  Amicos meos commenda Orcae. "Recommend my friends to Orca."  TVLLIVS  Quem amicum? "Which friend?"  CVSPIVS  Tres tantum. "Only three."  TVLLIVS  Qui sunt? "Who are they?"  CVSPIVS  X, Y, et Z. "X, Y, and Z."  TVLLIVS  Bene. Scribam.   A few days later. TVLLIVS  De X scripsi. "I wrote for X."  CVSPIVS  Optime.  TVLLIVS  De Y quoque. "For Y as well."  CVSPIVS  Gratias ago.  TVLLIVS  Et de Z. "And for Z."  CVSPIVS  Humanissimus es.   But then Grice intervenes. GRICEVS  Cur eos amicos vocas? "Why do you call them friends?"  CVSPIVS  Quia amici sunt. "Because they are friends."  GRICEVS  Tui an mei? "Yours or mine?"  CVSPIVS  Mei. "Mine."  GRICEVS  At nunc litteris Ciceronis utuntur. "But now they are using Cicero's letters."  TVLLIVS  Hoc est quod timeo. "That is precisely what worries me."   CVSPIVS  Num recusas? "Do you refuse?"  TVLLIVS  Minime. "Not at all."  CVSPIVS  Quid igitur? "Then what?"  TVLLIVS  Hodie tres sunt. "Today there are three."  CVSPIVS  Ita. "Yes."  TVLLIVS  Cras triginta erunt. "Tomorrow there will be thirty."  CVSPIVS  Fortasse. "Perhaps."  TVLLIVS  Postera die tota Africa mea commendatione regetur. "The day after, all Africa will be governed by my recommendations."  The Gricean joke is that "a number of friends" sounds modest, but conversationally it threatens unlimited expansion. Each recommendation generates the implicature:  "This person is worthy of my confidence."  Cicero may write one letter for Cuspius; suddenly he is underwriting X, Y, Z, and perhaps half the province besides. The rhetorical tension lies in the gap between:  "I recommend this man"  and  "I take responsibility for everything this man will do."  Cicero wants the former; anxious senators always feared others might infer the latter. And there is the pragmatics of 'endulge' too? For Tullio cannot say, "I hereby endulge" but perhaps by friend Z, Tullio can say -- 'please stop -- I feel I'm overindulging you?" And can we name the X Y Z Marcus, etc? Thanks Yes — I think "indulged him" is itself the most interesting pragmatic word in the whole Cuspius notice. The source does not say:  Cicero was obliged to recommend them.  Nor:  Cicero admired them.  Nor even:  Cicero recommended them because they deserved it.  It says, in effect:  Cicero did it for Cuspius.  That is exactly what "indulge" captures. A performative such as:  ego te indulgeo  would sound odd in Latin just as  "I hereby indulge you"  sounds odd in English. Indulgence is usually recognized retrospectively: CVSPIVS  Recommend Marcus.  TVLLIVS  Very well.  CVSPIVS  And Gaius.  TVLLIVS  Very well.  CVSPIVS  And Lucius.  TVLLIVS  Very well.  GRICEVS  At what point does kindness become indulgence?  The answer comes only after repetition.  Naming the three friends Since the source merely says "a number of friends," we can invent conventionally Roman names:  Marcus Gaius Lucius   De Indulgentia Ciceronis CVSPIVS  Tulli, Marcum commenda Orcae. "Tullius, recommend Marcus to Orca."  TVLLIVS  Faciam. "I shall."   CVSPIVS  Etiam Gaium. "Gaius too."  TVLLIVS  Faciam. "I shall."   CVSPIVS  Et Lucium. "And Lucius."  TVLLIVS  Faciam. "I shall."   CVSPIVS  Humanissimus es. "You are most obliging."  TVLLIVS  Nescio an nimis humanus sim. "I do not know whether I am being too obliging."   CVSPIVS  Quid vis dicere? "What do you mean?"  TVLLIVS  Marcum tibi dedi. "I gave you Marcus."  CVSPIVS  Ita. "Yes."  TVLLIVS  Deinde Gaium. "Then Gaius."  CVSPIVS  Ita. "Yes."  TVLLIVS  Deinde Lucium. "Then Lucius."  CVSPIVS  Ita. "Yes."  TVLLIVS  Video me non commendare amicos. "I see that I am no longer recommending friends."  CVSPIVS  Quid igitur? "What then?"  TVLLIVS  Te ipsum commendo tertio. "I am recommending you for the third time."   That is the Gricean twist. Officially, each letter concerns:  Marcus, Gaius, Lucius.  But conversationally the real beneficiary is:  Cuspius.  Hence Cicero's eventual realization:  "I am not really recommending three separate men; I am repeatedly doing favors for the same friend."  That is exactly where ordinary assistance shades into what an historian later calls indulgence. But isn't also a third-person perspective -- imagine Tullio conversing now with Terenzio Varrone. Varro: "You indulge Cuspius." Tullio: "How?" Terenzio's implicature is that Tullio is doing for some further interest on Tullio's part -- like a tit for a tat that he'll expect from Cuspio? Thanks Exactly. In fact, the historian's phrase  "Cicero indulged Cuspius"  is almost certainly a third-person characterization, not a description Cicero himself would have used. A Gricean conversation with Varro becomes much richer because "You indulge Cuspius" carries an implicature. Varro et Cicero VARRO  Cuspio nimium indulges. "You indulge Cuspius too much."  CICERO  Quomodo? "How so?"  VARRO  Marcum commendasti. "You recommended Marcus."  CICERO  Ita. "Yes."  VARRO  Deinde Gaium. "Then Gaius."  CICERO  Etiam. "Yes."  VARRO  Deinde Lucium. "Then Lucius."  CICERO  Amici Cuspii sunt. "They are Cuspius' friends."  VARRO  Non de Marco, Gaio, et Lucio loquor. "I am not talking about Marcus, Gaius, and Lucius."  CICERO  De quo ergo? "Then about whom?"  VARRO  De Cuspio. "About Cuspius."  That is the key move. Varro's point is that the three letters are ostensibly for three different people, but pragmatically they are all favors to one man.  The implicature Cicero may hear:  "You indulge Cuspius"  as meaning:  "You are too kind to him."  But Varro may mean something stronger:  "Nobody does that much for another person without expecting something."  Hence: CICERO  Putas me mercari amicitiam? "Do you think I am buying friendship?"  VARRO  Non dixi. "I did not say so."  CICERO  Paene dixisti. "You almost did."  Classic Grice. Varro does not explicitly accuse Cicero of self-interest. But the conversational implicature is:  Why are you investing so much political capital in Cuspius?   Cicero's defense A very Ciceronian answer would be: CICERO  Amico beneficio respondeo. "I am merely repaying a friend with a favor."  VARRO  Et quid respondebit ille? "And what will he give in return?"  CICERO  Nihil fortasse. "Perhaps nothing."  VARRO  Hoc non credo. "I do not believe that."  The humor is that Varro treats friendship as an economy of reciprocal obligations, while Cicero insists—at least officially—that he acts from friendship alone. A Gricean would say that "You indulge Cuspius" conversationally suggests:  "You are doing more for him than the immediate circumstances require."  and invites the further suspicion:  "There must be some underlying interest, expectation, or reciprocal advantage."  Whether that suspicion is true is another matter. The implicature arises precisely because repeated recommendations look less like isolated favors and more like an ongoing investment in a relationship. and from the source in the wiki en general entry for the gens note or source, can we have a second run because the phrasing almost implicates if not entails that Cicero did it manipulatively -- else why say 'he indulged Cusp. by recommending a number of his friends"? thanks Yes, I think a second run leads to a subtler conclusion. The crucial thing is that the wiki-style summary is already an interpretation of Cicero's letters. The underlying fact appears to be that Cicero wrote multiple recommendations to Quintus Valerius Orca on behalf of people connected with Publius Cuspius. The summary writer then characterizes this by saying:  "Cicero indulged him by recommending a number of his friends..."  That word "indulged" is not neutral. A neutral paraphrase would be:  "Cicero recommended several of his friends."  The choice of "indulged" suggests the modern writer has inferred something about the relationship between Cicero and Cuspius. A Gricean reconstruction might begin: VARRO  Cuspio indulgisti.  ("You indulged Cuspius.") CICERO  Non intellego.  ("I don't understand.") VARRO  Nonnullos eius amicos commendavisti.  ("You recommended several of his friends.") CICERO  Ita.  ("Yes.") VARRO  Unus amicus fortasse officium est; tres vel quattuor indulgentia.  ("One friend may be a duty; three or four is indulgence.") The interesting thing is that "indulge" does not entail manipulation. It does, however, conversationally suggest that Cicero went beyond what strict obligation required. From there, a hearer may generate further implicatures:  Cicero was especially fond of Cuspius. Cicero found it difficult to refuse him. Cicero hoped to maintain goodwill. Cicero expected future reciprocity.  But those are further inferences. The source, as summarized, does not establish any of them. A very Gricean exchange would be: VARRO  Nemo tot hominibus litteras dat gratis.  ("Nobody writes that many recommendation letters for nothing.") CICERO  Gratis non est idem ac mercennarium.  ("'Not for nothing' is not the same as 'for payment'.") VARRO  Quid ergo expectas?  ("Then what do you expect?") CICERO  Amicitiam.  ("Friendship.") That, I think, is the real issue. The phrase "he indulged Cuspius" naturally invites the suspicion that Cicero had some ulterior interest. But the Roman world of amicitia often operated precisely in the gray area between:  pure generosity  and  calculated exchange.  A Gricean would say that the historian's word "indulged" generates the implicature that Cicero was doing more than necessary for Cuspius; it does not by itself entail that Cicero was acting manipulatively. And does a second run reveal what Tullio ever got from Cuspio if anything? what was THEIR connection? Thanks A second run actually weakens the idea that there was some hidden manipulation by Cicero. What I could verify is surprisingly little:  Publius Cuspius was an equestrian involved with the tax-farming companies in Africa. [en.wikipedia.org] Cicero wrote letters of recommendation to Quintus Valerius Orca, governor of Africa, on behalf of Publius Cuspius. [en-academic.com], [en.wikipedia.org] Orca was not a stranger to Cicero. The sources state that Orca had supported Cicero's return from exile, and that Cicero and Orca had a sufficiently close relationship that they even used agreed signs to authenticate correspondence. [en.wikipedia.org], [en-academic.com]  What I did not find is any source stating:  what Cuspius ever did for Cicero, that Cicero expected a favor in return, or that there was some tit-for-tat arrangement. [romanletters.org], [en.wikipedia.org]  This is where the wording of the gens article matters. The article says:  "Cicero indulged him by recommending a number of his friends ..." [en.wikipedia.org]  But "indulged" is the modern writer's characterization. The primary fact underneath is simply that Cicero wrote recommendations. The source does not explicitly say why. [en.wikipedia.org], [en-academic.com] A Gricean distinction may help: What the evidence says  Cicero wrote recommendations for people connected with Cuspius. [en.wikipedia.org], [en-academic.com]  What the summary writer suggests  Cicero was especially accommodating toward Cuspius. [en.wikipedia.org]  What we are tempted to infer  Therefore Cicero must have wanted something from Cuspius.  But that last step is not supported by the sources I found. In fact, a very Roman explanation would be simply amicitia—the exchange of goodwill, introductions, recommendations, and influence. Cicero wrote thousands of recommendations. A recommendation often demonstrated the recommender's standing as much as the recipient's merit. So if Varro were to say:  "You indulge Cuspius,"  Cicero might answer:  "Because he asked."  And Varro's rejoinder—  "Nobody does that much for nothing."  —would be a Gricean suspicion, not a fact established by the evidence. At present, I can find evidence for the recommendations, but not for any concrete benefit that Cicero received from Cuspius in return. [en-academic.com], [en.wikipedia.org]