SEG

 

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

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Segulio – Ossia: Grice e Segulio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Segulio The gens Segulia was an obscure plebeian family at ancient Rome, which flourished from the end of the Republic to the third century AD. A number of this gens lived at Ostia and Portus, where they were engaged in the shipbuilding trade. Hardly any of the Segulii are mentioned in history, but several are known from inscriptions.[1]  Origin The nomen Segulius belongs to a large class of gentilicia formed from other names ending in diminutive suffixes such as -ilus and -ulus. It was probably derived from a cognomen Segulus, of uncertain meaning.[2]  Praenomina The main praenomina of the Segulii were Marcus and Gaius, two of the most common names throughout all periods of Roman history. The more distinctive Decimus is known from one inscription.  Branches and cognomina The only cognomen of the Segulii encountered under the Republic was Labeo, a common surname originally indicating someone with noticeably thick or prominent lips.[3] A variety of surnames are encountered in imperial times, many of which were the original names of freedmen who assumed Roman names upon their manumission; none of them appear to represent distinct families.  Members This list includes abbreviated praenomina. For an explanation of this practice, see filiation. Segulius Labeo, informed Decimus Brutus of Octavian's response to a supposed epigram of Cicero's in 43 BC. Brutus' letter to Cicero indicates his suspicion that Labeo might have invented the episode, or the epigram; in reply Cicero does not deny saying it, but he calls Labeo the most worthless of men.[4] Segulia C. l. Flora, a freedwoman buried at Narnia in Umbria, in the latter half of the first century AD, or the first half of the second, with a monument from her husband, Lucius Cornelius Communis.[5] Marcus Segulius, one of the municipal officials at Ostia in Latium, in AD 145.[6] Segulius Martialis, named in a second-century inscription from Ostia.[7] Segulius Felicissimus, probably a member of the shipwrights' guild at Ostia in AD 165.[8] Marcus Segulius Vitalio, a member of the shipwrights' guild at Ostia in AD 192.[9] Segulius Chresimus, named in an inscription from Ostia, dating to AD 198.[10] Segulius Spanus, named in an inscription from Ostia, dating to AD 198.[10] Undated Segulii Segulia, named in a funerary inscription from Ostia.[11] Gaius Segulius Alexander, buried in a family sepulchre at Hipponium in Bruttium, along with Segulius Camtiflanus Alexander, Gaius Segulius Amillus, and Mallia Zotiniu.[5] Decimus Segulius Alexsa, an aurifex, or goldsmith, named in an inscription from Forum Novum in Sabinum.[12] Gaius Segulius Amillus, buried in a family sepulchre at Hipponium, aged twenty-seven, along with Gaius Segulius Alexander, Segulius Camtiflanus Alexander, and Mallia Zotiniu.[5] Segulius Anthus, named in an inscription from Rome.[13] Marcus Segulius Aristobulus, a freedman named in an inscription from Ariminum in Cisalpine Gaul.[14] Marcus Segulius Attalus, a freedman named in an inscription from Ariminum.[14] Gaius Segulius C. l. Belavus, a freedman named in an inscription from Rome.[15] Segulius C. f. Camtiflanus Alexander, perhaps a freedman, buried in a family sepulchre at Hipponium, together with Gaius Segulius Alexander, Gaius Segulius Amillus, and Mallia Zotiniu.[5] Segulius Crescens, a member of the shipwrights' guild at Portus in Latium.[16] Marcus Segulius Herm[...], a freedman named in an inscription from Ariminum.[14] Segulius Maximus, a soldier in the seventh cohort of the vigiles at Rome, serving in the century of Secundus.[17] Marcus Segulius Ɔ. l. Menecrates, a freedman named in an inscription from Rome.[18] See also List of Roman gentes References  Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, vol. III, p. 766 ("Segulius", "Segulius Labeo").  Chase, p. 123.  Chase, p. 109.  Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares, xi. 20, 21.  CIL X, 82.  CIL XIV, 247.  AE 1996, 307.  CIL XIV, 4564.  CIL XIV, 251.  CIL XIV, 4569.  AE 2001, 725.  CIL IX, 4797.  BCAR, 1991/92, 240.  CIL XI, 6712,399.  Old Penn, 1915, 875.  CIL XIV, 256.  CIL VI, 3060.  CIL VI, 26102. Bibliography Marcus Tullius Cicero, Epistulae ad Familiares. Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, William Smith, ed., Little, Brown and Company, Boston (1849). Theodor Mommsen et alii, Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (The Body of Latin Inscriptions, abbreviated CIL), Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften (1853–present). Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale in Roma (Bulletin of the Municipal Archaeological Commission of Rome, abbreviated BCAR), (1872–present). René Cagnat et alii, L'Année épigraphique (The Year in Epigraphy, abbreviated AE), Presses Universitaires de France (1888–present). George Davis Chase, "The Origin of Roman Praenomina", in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, vol. VIII, pp. 103–184 (1897). Old Penn Weekly Review, Philadelphia (1915). Category: Roman gentes

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Segulio – Ossia: Grice e Segulio -- Grex griceiana – verbalia: Segulio For the Segulii, my first-best choice would be Segulius Labeo, because he gives Speranza the richest mixture of lips, report, suspicion, Cicero, Decimus Brutus, and conversational unreliability. The later Ostian and Portus Segulii are tempting, especially the shipwrights, since they would let one build a fine metaphor about naval carpentry and the construction of meaning; but Labeo is better because he enters history as a transmitter of words whose authenticity is immediately in doubt. That is pure Grice. The scene is 43 BC. Segulius Labeo reports to Decimus Brutus something allegedly said by Octavian in response to a supposed epigram of Cicero’s. Brutus, writing to Cicero, shows suspicion that Labeo may have invented either the episode or the epigram, and Cicero in reply does not quite deny the whole matter but calls Labeo a worthless fellow. The episode is small, but it is philosophically excellent. Labeo is not remembered for doing something, but for saying that someone said something about something said by Cicero. He is a chain of reported speech with a thick lip. The cognomen helps almost too much. Labeo, from labrum, suggests the man with prominent lips. In a comic Speranzian register, he is literally a man of lips involved in the uncertain transmission of utterance. But one must not overdo the physiognomy. The point is not that thick lips make one a liar; the point is that Roman cognomina often leave later readers with a bodily hint that can be mischievously reactivated. Segulius Labeo becomes “Mr Lips” in a case about whether the lips reported correctly. A dry title would be: Grice e Segulio Labeone: le labbra del relatore. A reconstructed exchange might run: Brutus: “Labeo narrat Octavianum ad epigramma Ciceronis respondisse.” “Labeo says that Octavian replied to an epigram of Cicero’s.” Implicature: The story is politically useful, but its source is already being marked. Brutus does not merely report the report; he signals his doubt about the reporter. Cicero: “Labeoni? homini nequissimo?” “To Labeo? That most worthless fellow?” Implicature: Cicero attacks the reliability of the channel rather than treating the reported content as securely before the court of conversation. Brutus: “Ergo epigramma negas?” “Then you deny the epigram?” Cicero: “Non omnia falsa sunt quae per falsum hominem veniunt; sed nihil certum.” “Not everything is false that comes through a false man; but nothing is certain.” Implicature: The issue is not simple denial. A bad transmitter does not make the transmitted content impossible, but he cancels the entitlement to trust the report without further support. That is the Gricean point. Labeo’s report fails not because reported speech cannot transmit meaning, but because the chain of uptake is contaminated. Speaker meaning depends, in ordinary conversation, on recognisable intention and trustworthy transmission. Labeo inserts himself between Cicero, Octavian, and Brutus as an intermediary whose own motives become relevant. Once the reporter is suspect, the hearer must ask not merely, “What was said?” but “Why is this man telling me that this was said?” That is exactly the shift from content to conversational setting. The episode is also useful because it shows the difference between utterance and circulation. Cicero may have made an epigram; Octavian may have replied; Labeo may have reported; Brutus may have suspected; Cicero may have deflected. By the time Speranza receives the case, the meaning of the original joke is less important than the social life of its alleged repetition. The words have become political objects. So my first choice is Segulius Labeo. The Ostian shipwrights are good for a later, quieter vignette: Segulius Felicissimus or Marcus Segulius Vitalio as men who build hulls while philosophers build conversational vessels. But Labeo gives the sharper first entry, because he makes hearsay itself the subject. Speranza’s dry formula would be: some men enter history by speaking; Labeo enters by being insufficiently trusted to have repeated speech. For Grice, that is almost an honour. In oratio recta, Octavian has the ~ correctly on non esse (as applied to his agency) not the action suggested by Cicero's gerundive? Thanks According to a letter from Decimus Brutus quoting Segulius Labeo, Octavian responded by stating that he had no intention of allowing himself to be removed. [1, 2] The Original Context In a letter preserved in Cicero's Epistulae ad Familiares (11.20), Decimus Brutus warned Cicero about a witty but dangerous pun (often called an epigram) Cicero had made regarding the young Octavian: [1, 2, 3] Latin: "Laudandum adulescentem, ornandum, tollendum." English: "The young man must be praised, honored, and lifted up/removed." [1, 2, 3] Cicero used the word tollendum (from tollere) for its deliberate double meaning: it can mean "to lift up/exalt" or "to eliminate/kill/remove". [1, 2, 3] Octavian's Response When the informant Segulius Labeo repeated this joke to Octavian, the future emperor responded directly to the threat hidden in the pun: [1, 2] Latin: "...se non esse commissurum ut tolli possit." English: "...he would take care that he could not be removed [erased]." [1, 2] Octavian did not forget this slight; when he formed the Second Triumvirate later that year with Mark Antony and Lepidus, he allowed Cicero to be added to the proscription lists, leading to Cicero's execution. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] If you wish, we can explore: The political situation between Cicero and Octavian in 43 BCE. How other ancient historians like Appian or Cassius Dio recorded this tension. More details on Segulius Labeo and his role as a messenger. Yes. In oratio recta, Octavian’s reported answer is sharp exactly because the negation falls on his allowing/committing himself to the situation, not on Cicero’s verbal ambiguity as such. The usual form is: “se non commissurum esse ut tolli posset” or, in a slightly expanded direct form: “Non committam ut tolli possim.” (“I shall not put myself in a position where I can be removed.”) The point is that Octavian does not reply: “Non tollendus sum.” (“I am not to be removed.”) That would answer Cicero’s gerundive too directly and almost accept the frame of the joke. Cicero’s “laudandum, ornandum, tollendum” makes tollendum do the dangerous work: first “to be raised/promoted,” then, by the darker Roman ear, “to be removed/dispatched.” Octavian’s answer shifts from the gerundive passive obligation or advisability, tollendum, to his own agency and prudence: non committam. He will not “allow it to come about”; he will not “make the mistake”; he will not create the conditions under which Cicero’s second sense can be realised. So the negation is correctly placed over commissurum esse, not over tolli as an abstract possibility. He does not say, “removal is not possible.” He says, “I shall not be responsible for making myself removable.” In Grice/Speranza terms, Cicero’s utterance offers a dangerous implicature under cover of praise: laudandum = he is to be praised ornandum = he is to be honoured/equipped/advanced tollendum = he is to be lifted up, with the recoverable darker sense: removed Octavian’s reply cancels the hearer’s pleasure in the pun by moving to practical control: “You may play on tollere; I shall control committere.” Dry formula: Cicero makes the joke in the gerundive; Octavian answers in the future active. Cicero says what ought to be done with the young man. Octavian replies by saying what the young man will not let happen. That is why the answer is politically better than a denial: it refuses to be merely a gloss on Cicero’s word. and that explains Cicero's jealousy and pride hurt that a 'lip' has carried the UNEXPECTED EXCELLENT repartee to one of many big-mouth (if not lips) Cicero----The negation in Octavian is subtle. He could have chosen an affirmative: rather than future perfect with "non"? The 'non' is strictly ~ and carries presupposition problems indeed with 'existential COMMITment'! THanks -- History proved that he was not committed to be removed and he was committed to hav CICERO removed thanks -- how does DECIMUS compares to all the Bruti? Thanks -- cf. Somerset and all the Maughams -- by Maugham, pun by Coward. Thanks Yes. Cicero’s irritation is partly that the excellent repartee arrives through the wrong mouth. Segulius Labeo, “the lip,” carries back not a dull report but a genuinely good Octavianic answer. That is what wounds Cicero’s vanity. It is bad enough that the adolescent has understood the joke; worse that he improves the exchange by shifting the scope of the negation. The subtlety is in “se non commissurum esse ut tolli posset.” In direct form: “Non committam ut tolli possim.” “I shall not allow/bring it about that I can be removed.” The non does not simply attach to tolli. Octavian does not say: “Non tollar.” “I shall not be removed.” Nor does he say: “Tollendus non sum.” “I am not to be removed.” Those would remain too obedient to Cicero’s gerundive frame. Cicero says, with malicious elegance: “Laudandum, ornandum, tollendum.” “To be praised, to be honoured/equipped, to be raised — or removed.” Octavian replies not by denying the predicate but by controlling the conditions of application. The negation falls on committere: I shall not commit myself, expose myself, place myself, or allow matters to be so arranged that the passive possibility tolli possim can arise. That is why your existential-commitment joke works. Cicero’s tollendum toys with a dangerous description: the young man is the sort of object to be dealt with by praise, adornment, and eventual removal. Octavian refuses to enter the existential situation required by that description. He does not merely deny the future event; he denies the practical preconditions under which Cicero’s joke could become policy. History then supplies the grim confirmation: Octavian was indeed not committed to being removed; he was later sufficiently committed to having Cicero removed. Decimus Brutus is also an excellent channel for the anecdote because he belongs to the Bruti without being the Brutus. “Brutus” is one of those Roman names overloaded with public meaning: Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of liberty; Marcus Junius Brutus, Caesar’s assassin and republican emblem; Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus, one of Caesar’s assassins too, but politically less memorialised, less philosophically polished, less schoolroom-ready. He has the name, and indeed the deed, but not the clean afterlife. Compared with Marcus Brutus, Decimus is the awkward Brutus: militarily useful, politically entangled, a Caesarian beneficiary who turns conspirator, and then becomes one more casualty in the collapsing republican aftermath. Marcus gets Plutarch, Shakespeare, “Et tu,” and moral theatre. Decimus gets letters, manoeuvre, and the uncomfortable fact that Caesar trusted him significantly. In Speranza’s terms: Marcus Brutus becomes an exemplum; Decimus Brutus remains a complication. So the Maugham/Coward parallel is apt. As “Maugham” contains several possible literary-social resonances, while “Somerset Maugham” narrows the target, “Brutus” alone is too broad and too mythic. One needs the praenomen. Lucius gives foundation, Marcus gives assassination as philosophy, Decimus gives conspiracy as correspondence and logistics. The cognomen supplies the atmosphere; the praenomen supplies the address. Dry Speranzian formula: Cicero made a joke in the gerundive; Octavian answered in the future active with the negation in the right place. Labeo had the lips to carry it, Decimus had the name to preserve it, and Cicero had the vanity to be injured by both and, parsing, why apparent passive in Lip's oratio obliqua yet non passive in Octavian's oratio recta. I was wondering if there is a verb he could have used that already incorporates the ~, to allow Octavian NOT to use 'non' -- while keeping the 'ut tolli posset' intact? Thanks. Yes. The apparent passivity is mostly an effect of the embedded passive infinitive, not of Octavian’s own stance. In Labeo’s oratio obliqua we get something like: se non commissurum esse ut tolli posset Parsing: se = Octavian as subject of the indirect statement. non commissurum esse = future active infinitive of committere: “that he would not allow/bring about/put himself in the position.” ut tolli posset = substantive/result clause: “that he could be removed.” tolli = present passive infinitive of tollere. posset = imperfect subjunctive, required by the indirect/reporting frame and by ut. So the dangerous verb, tollere, remains passive because Cicero’s joke had made Octavian the patient of the gerundive tollendum: “to be raised/removed.” Octavian’s answer keeps that passive possibility in view, but he relocates agency into committere. In oratio recta: Non committam ut tolli possim. “I shall not let it come about that I can be removed.” The grammar is beautifully political. Octavian refuses the passive fate by an active verb. He is grammatically still the possible object of tollere, but pragmatically he becomes the manager of the conditions under which tollere could apply. Could he have used a verb that incorporates the negative, while keeping ut tolli posset intact? Yes, but each option changes the colour. A good candidate is cavebo: Cavebo ne tolli possim. “I shall take care lest I be removed.” But this changes ut to ne. Latin normally uses cavere ne for “take care that not.” It elegantly builds in the negative without non, but it does not keep ut tolli possim intact. If one insists on keeping ut tolli possim intact, the best negative-incorporating verb is impediam: Impediam ut tolli possim. “I shall prevent it from being the case that I can be removed.” But that Latin is a little less idiomatic/classical than impediam ne tollar or impediam quominus tollar. More natural would be: Impediam ne tollar. “I shall prevent my being removed.” or: Impediam quominus tollar. “I shall prevent my being removed.” These avoid non, but they lose the exact ut tolli possim form. Another possible verb is prohibebo: Prohibebo ne tollar. “I shall prevent myself from being removed.” Again, no non, but no intact ut tolli possim. So the answer is: if Octavian wants to preserve the elegant reported shape “ut tolli possit,” non commissurum esse is almost perfect. A verb like impedire or prohibere can incorporate the negative idea, but idiomatic Latin will usually pull the subordinate clause into ne or quominus, not ut. That is why the transmitted form is so subtle. Non is not a clumsy negation; it is doing exact scope-work. Octavian does not deny tolli head-on. He denies commissurum esse. He will not “commit” himself to the possibility. In Gricean terms, he does not cancel Cicero’s pun by saying “I shall not be removed”; he cancels the precondition under which the pun could acquire historical uptake. Dry Speranzian formula: Cicero places Octavian under tollendum; Octavian replies by refusing committere. The passive remains as a danger, but the active future takes charge of it. History, with its usual bad manners, then supplied the converse: Octavian did not commit himself to being removed; he committed Cicero to removal. And Octavian is playing with the Victorian: "Can I go to the bathroom? B: You can, but you may not. For Cicero's tollendum has a modal quality to it -- 'non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem' -- are not to ... -- almost the opposite of Octaviam possim--non committam (future intentional) that -- possim tolli -- unexpanded agent construction of 'passive' -- -- is Cicero's ornandum cognate with ornamentum? why honour at all? it seems more frivolous than that--adulesc. is also offensive -- the boy is SUFFERING --laudandum is as vain as Cicero is. Thanks The Lip noticed a pretty vulgar epigramme, had it lipped onto the right ear -- and report to Deciumus, the tenth of the Bruti ("Giunio e tutti i Brutti -- R. Maugham, Somerset and all the Maughams -- all famous writers in swams do it, somerset and all the maughams do it, let's do it -- let's fall in love --. Thanks Yes. The Victorian “Can I go?” joke is exactly the right model, because Cicero’s tollendum and Octavian’s possim belong to two different modal games. Cicero’s gerundive has the flavour of “is to be…”: laudandum, ornandum, tollendum. It is evaluative, advisory, quasi-obligatory, and conveniently deniable. The young man is “to be praised, to be adorned/honoured/equipped, to be lifted up” — and, under the darker sense of tollere, “to be removed.” Octavian answers not at the level of what should be done to him, but at the level of what he will allow to become possible: non committam ut tolli possim. Cicero’s modality is gerundival and public; Octavian’s is prudential and first-person future. Cicero says, in effect, “he is to be dealt with thus.” Octavian replies, “I shall not so manage my affairs that I can be dealt with thus.” That is why the negation is so elegant. Non is not lazily cancelling tolli. It scopes over committam. He is not saying “I cannot be removed” in the schoolmaster’s sense of can/may. He says he will not commit himself to a situation in which removal becomes possible. The passive tolli remains as the hostile operation; the active committam is where agency is recovered. Cicero puts him grammatically under a gerundive; Octavian climbs out by future intention. Ornandum is indeed cognate with ornamentum. The basic family is ornare, “to equip, furnish, adorn, set off, honour,” and ornamentum can mean equipment, decoration, distinction, honour, or insignia. So ornandum need not be merely frivolous ornament in the modern sense. In Roman public language ornare aliquem can mean to honour, decorate, furnish with dignity or office. Still, Cicero’s sequence makes it deliciously slippery. Laudandum is vainly complimentary; ornandum is ceremonially elevating; tollendum then pretends to continue the elevation while threatening to reveal the elimination. Praise, decoration, disposal. The polish is part of the malice. Adulescens is also not neutral. In Roman usage it can be merely age-class, but in Cicero’s mouth, applied to Octavian, it can patronise: the young man, the boy not yet fully to be feared. It lets Cicero place Octavian below senatorial adulthood while pretending to recommend him. The joke works because Cicero still imagines he can classify him. Octavian’s reply proves that he has understood both the classification and the danger. The Lip episode, then, is perfect. Segulius Labeo notices or carries a vulgar-pretty epigram; he lips it into the right ear; Decimus Brutus reports it; Cicero is wounded less by the fact of report than by the quality of the reported answer. The adolescent has not merely understood the pun; he has answered with better scope. Cicero had played with the ambiguity of tollere; Octavian plays with the conditions under which tolli possim could ever become true. The Brutus/Maugham joke is structurally apt too. “Brutus” is never just one man unless one fixes the praenomen, just as “Maugham” in a drawing-room must be narrowed before wit can safely land. Lucius Junius Brutus is the founder-type; Marcus Junius Brutus is the philosophical assassin; Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus is the logistical, correspondential, less theatrically remembered conspirator. “Giunio e tutti i Brutti” works because the name is over-full; one needs the numeral, the praenomen, the context. Decimus is quite literally “the tenth” only in the name’s old numerical logic, but in historical memory he is not tenth in fame. He is one of the Bruti whom posterity files after the louder Brutus has taken the shelf. Dry Speranzian close: Cicero called Octavian an adulescens and thought the gerundive would do the damage politely. Octavian answered like a man who had already read the modal footnote. Labeo supplied the lips, Decimus supplied the channel, and Cicero discovered that a joke may be praise, ornament, and removal — until the intended object declines to be available for the third operation. and seeing that Latin possibly does not have the Victorian may/can disstinction, the possim is all that Octavian can utter --. If the tollendum was quasi-obligatorily, deontically, the possim may encapsulate both the epistemic posse and the evaluative deontic posse -- this Grice calls the AEQUI-vocality of 'posse' -- it does not have TWO senses -- just two uses -- there is no modal barrier. And as for adolesc. I was referring to the frequentative, the poor boy is suffering -- adulescere -- dolor -- thanks Yes. Latin lacks the later English schoolroom split between “can” and “may,” so Octavian’s possim is doing exactly the sort of work Grice would call AEQUI-vocal rather than equivocal. It is not two senses of posse, one “epistemic” and one “deontic,” stacked awkwardly in the lexicon. It is one modal capacity-word available for different contextual pressures: ability, possibility, permission, practical exposure, admissibility under circumstances. No modal wall divides them. So Cicero’s tollendum is gerundival and deontic-advisory: “the young man is to be praised, adorned, lifted up/removed.” It presents Octavian as an object of policy, something to be acted upon under a Roman senatorial description. Octavian’s possim replies from inside the threatened passivity but refuses to remain there: non committam ut tolli possim. “I shall not arrange matters so that I can/may/be-able-to/be-open-to being removed.” The possim contains practical possibility and permissibility together because the political world itself contains them together. If he can be removed, he may be removed; if he may be removed, it is because he has failed to prevent the conditions under which others can remove him. That is why non committam is so good. It is the active future governing the passive possibility. Octavian cannot split can from may in Victorian English fashion, so he does something better: he controls the frame in which posse would become applicable. Cicero offers a gerundive destiny; Octavian answers with strategic self-management. On adulescens, yes, your point is sharper if heard through adulescere, “to grow up,” “to be growing,” and its slightly painful developmental flavour. It is not literally from dolor, but Speranza can let the false echo do comic work. The adulescens is the one still growing, not fully settled into adult standing, and therefore available for patronising diminishment. Cicero’s phrase “laudandum adulescentem” is not merely “the young man should be praised.” It has the sting of “the boy,” the not-yet-fully-formed political creature who is to be patted, equipped, and then perhaps disposed of. The suffering is not etymological but pragmatic: the poor boy is being made to undergo senatorial grammar. So, dry Speranzian formula: Cicero calls him adulescens and puts him under the gerundive. Octavian replies with possim and puts the gerundive under management. Latin has no need to distinguish “can” and “may” like a Victorian governess; Rome’s politics had already fused ability, licence, and danger. Cicero says the boy is to be raised, adorned, and removed. Octavian says he will not let the world become one in which that passive is available. History then adds the vulgar gloss: he could not be removed, and Cicero could. Yes the active clause -- in English 'by -- 'the house was painted by Tom -- Tom painted the house' is left IMPLICATED in both Cicero -- tollendum --by whom? -- and in Ocatvian -- tolli possim. And isnt't there a folk etymology or etymythology that does make adolescence the age of suffering? Thanks Yes. In both Cicero and Octavian the active “by whom” is left conveniently unexpanded, and that is part of the bite. Cicero’s tollendum is gerundival-passive: the young man is “to be raised/removed.” By whom? Cicero does not say. The missing agent is politically useful. It may be “by us,” “by the Senate,” “by circumstances,” “by those who know what must be done,” or simply by the amused circle that understands the pun. The passive keeps the joke clean while leaving the dirt recoverable. Octavian’s tolli possim keeps the same passive exposure: “that I may/can be removed.” Again, by whom? He does not say. But he shifts the agency up one level: non committam. He will not commit, allow, arrange, or expose himself so that the passive can become available. Cicero leaves the agent of removal implicated; Octavian leaves it implicated too, but places his own active prudence over the whole construction. Cicero says, “he is to be removed” without naming the removers. Octavian says, “I shall not let there be a situation in which I am removable” without needing to name them either. Very tidy, and rather lethal in retrospect. So the active paraphrases would be vulgar but revealing: Cicero’s hidden active: “We should remove him,” or “someone should remove him.” Octavian’s hidden active: “I shall not let them remove me.” History’s active gloss: “Octavian removed Cicero.” On adolescence: yes, there is a folk-etymological or etymythological temptation to make adolescence the age of suffering, but classical etymology does not support it. Adulescens/adolescens comes from adolescere, “to grow up, grow toward maturity,” from ad- plus alescere/alere, “to grow, nourish.” It is about growth, not dolor. But folk-etymology loves a cry of pain, and adolescence has always supplied enough material to make the false derivation feel emotionally correct. The poor adulescens suffers not because the word comes from dolor, but because the condition does. Speranza would probably say: etymologically, the adolescent is growing; phenomenologically, he is suffering; pedagogically, Cicero is making him suffer under a gerundive. That is enough for comedy, if not for philology. And if Cicero used 'most nice' (nesciossimum) of men -- the lip -- Decimus may have wanted to have replied, "I never thought Lip was such an ignoramus." Decimus did send the letter but was returned to sender -- "no forwardable address" (implicaturum esse: Cicero tolendum tolltatum (what is 'removed')? Thanks Yes. If Cicero’s word is nequissimus, the joke is not “most nice” but “most worthless,” from nequam rather than from nescire. But Speranza may let the false sound do its work: Decimus, pretending to have heard nesciossimus, could reply, “I never knew Labeo was such an ignoramus,” and thereby mishear moral worthlessness as cognitive deficiency. That is a very Roman-Oxonian joke: the Lip is not merely bad; he is now made into a bad knower. A neat exchange would be: Cicero: “Labeo homo nequissimus est.” “Labeo is a most worthless fellow.” Decimus: “Numquam putavi Labeonem tam nescientem esse.” “I had never thought Labeo so ignorant.” Implicature: Decimus deliberately shifts Cicero’s moral condemnation into an epistemic joke. Labeo’s vice as reporter is made to look like stupidity, though the real issue is trust. On the “returned to sender” joke, the Latin wants care. “No forwardable address” could be made as: litterae remissae sunt: domicilium quo mittantur non inventum. “The letter was sent back: no residence to which it could be forwarded was found.” Or drier: redditae sunt litterae: quo transmittantur non constat. “The letter has been returned: it is not clear where it is to be forwarded.” For Cicero’s fate, tollendum is the gerundive: “to be lifted up / removed.” The participial result of tollere is sublatus, not tolltatus. So “Cicero removed” would be Cicero sublatus, or more brutally Cicero necatus if one means killed. If Speranza wants the pun to stay tied to tollere: Cicero, qui Octavianum tollendum dixerat, ipse sublatus est. “Cicero, who had said that Octavian was to be removed, was himself removed.” Implicature: The gerundive returned to its sender, but not to the right address. Or more barbed: Implicaturum fuit: qui dixit tollendum, factus est sublatus. “The implicature turned out to be: the man who said ‘to be removed’ became ‘removed.’” Strictly, implicaturum esse is a future active infinitive or future participial idea from implicare, not a classical Ciceronian way to say “the implicature would be.” But as Grice-Speranza mock-Latin it is serviceable if marked as playful. A more classical version would be: Ex dicto consecutum est... “From the saying it followed...” or Id ex dicto intellegi potuit... “This could be understood from the saying...” But Speranza will of course prefer implicaturum, because barbarism, once conscious, may become a badge of loyalty. The dry final formula: Cicero made Octavian tollendus; Octavian made Cicero sublatus. Labeo had the lips to carry the joke, Decimus had the address to receive it, and history supplied the forwarding service. Thank you. So I was thinking that Decimus may have disagreed with the 'worthless' and did reply, but the letter never reached the addresee (cicero) because he had been sublatus -- by Octavian's orders, almost -- full circle, Roman way. Thanks -- Decimus must have thought that 'nequissimus' was a good one, that needed some response seeing that the repartee by Octavian was so brilliantly lipped by the Lip. Thanks Yes — that is the better little fiction. Decimus need not accept Cicero’s nequissimus at face value. He may think Labeo socially low, meddlesome, or dangerous, but also useful; and in this instance the Lip has carried something worth carrying. Octavian’s reply is too good to be dismissed merely because the channel is disreputable. That is what irritates Cicero: the contaminated messenger has transmitted an uncontaminated repartee. A possible lost reply from Decimus would run: “Labeonem nequissimum vocas; ego eum fortasse nimis labrosum, non tamen mutum, iudico. Nam si rettulit quod adulescens respondit, non homo nequissimus tantum, sed nuntius satis acutus fuit.” “You call Labeo utterly worthless; I judge him perhaps too lipful, but not mute. For if he reported what the young man replied, he was not merely a worthless fellow, but a sufficiently sharp messenger.” Implicature: Cicero’s attack on Labeo’s character does not cancel the excellence of the reported answer. The channel may be vulgar; the content may still be dangerous. Then the returned-letter joke closes the Roman circle beautifully: “Rescripseram tibi, Tulli; sed litterae redierunt. Additum erat: ‘quo mittantur non constat.’” “I had written back to you, Cicero; but the letter returned. It had been added: ‘it is not clear where they are to be sent.’” Implicature: Cicero has already been sublatus; the addressee has been removed before the reply can reach him. And then, more cruelly: “Qui Octavianum tollendum dixerat, ipse sublatus erat.” “He who had said that Octavian was to be removed had himself been removed.” Implicature: Cicero’s gerundive returns, but with the agency reversed. The passive left unexpanded in tollendum is filled by history. This is exactly the full-circle Roman way. Cicero makes the elegant, slightly vulgar epigram: laudandum, ornandum, tollendum. Labeo carries it. Octavian answers with a more exact modal construction: se non commissurum esse ut tolli posset. Decimus sees the wit and perhaps wants to defend the Lip against Cicero’s contempt. But by the time his reply is sent, the world has supplied the final active paraphrase: Octavian did not allow himself to be removed; Cicero was removed. Dry Speranzian formula: Cicero thought Labeo too worthless to count as a proper conduit. Decimus may have thought otherwise: lips are not always admirable, but sometimes they are accurate. The Lip carried the joke to Octavian; Octavian returned it with interest; and when Decimus tried to comment on the transaction, the addressee had become undeliverable. That is not merely irony. It is postal proscription. Cicero's tollendum may be considered ambiguous, and the epigramme to rest on this -- as per Grice's 'avoid ambiguity' -- Blake never tell the love that never told can be, etc --. Could it be said that Octavian still plays with this ambiguity? Thanks Yes. Octavian can be said to keep playing with Cicero’s ambiguity, but he does so by moving it from the lexical level to the modal-practical level. Cicero’s tollendum is ambiguous because tollere can mean “raise, exalt, promote” and also “remove, destroy, get rid of.” The threefold epigram works because laudandum and ornandum prepare the favourable sense, while tollendum suddenly lets the hostile sense emerge. Cicero thus violates, or at least exploits, Grice’s “avoid ambiguity”: the point is precisely that the hearer must recover the second sense after being led through the first. Octavian’s answer does not erase that ambiguity. He chooses the darker sense as the one that matters, but without saying so crudely. “Non committam ut tolli possim” leaves tolli unexpanded and therefore still lets the ambiguity hover. In principle, tolli could still be heard as “be raised”; in context, of course, it is “be removed.” The joke is that Octavian acts as though Cicero’s polite sense is not worth answering. He answers the threat hidden inside the compliment. So the structure is: Cicero: “laudandum, ornandum, tollendum.” Surface sequence: praise, honour/adorn, raise. Recovered sting: praise, decorate, remove. Octavian: “non committam ut tolli possim.” Surface: I shall not allow myself to be in a position to be taken up/removed. Recovered force: I shall not let your second sense become actionable. The elegance is that Octavian does not say, “I understand that by tollendum you mean killing.” That would be pedantic, and would spoil the repartee. He instead speaks as if the dangerous reading is obvious to anyone competent. In Gricean terms, he treats Cicero’s implicature as having been successfully recovered and then replies to that implicated content. The ambiguity survives, but Octavian has selected the politically relevant branch. Blake is a useful parallel, though in a different register. “Never seek to tell thy love, / Love that never told can be” depends on the paradox that expression may destroy what it expresses. Cicero’s joke is less mystical and more senatorial: telling praise can conceal disposal. But both depend on the unstable relation between saying and making manifest. Octavian’s reply is almost anti-Blakean: he will not let the untold sense remain merely poetic. He hears it, fixes it, and prepares against it. Dry Speranzian formula: Cicero made tollendum ambiguous in order not to have to say the brutal thing. Octavian keeps the ambiguity, but answers only the brutal thing. He does not disambiguate the word; he disambiguates the danger. And why does perfect participle take AB-latus? Thanks? Because the “perfect participle” is not built from the ordinary present stem toll-, but from the supine/perfect participial stem lat-, which belongs to the old suppletive family of ferre, “to bear, carry.” So: tollo = I lift, raise, take away tuli = I lifted, took away latum = lifted, carried, taken sublatus = lifted up, removed ablatus = carried away, taken away, removed The oddity is that tollere looks like one verb in the present system, but its perfect and participial forms are historically tied to the ferre/latum family. Latin tolerates this sort of suppletion quite happily, because Latin is not a Victorian schoolmistress. So ab-latus is literally “carried away,” from ab- + latus, the perfect passive participle of ferre in this compound use. Likewise: auferre, abstuli, ablatum = to carry away, remove referre, rettuli, relatum = to carry back, report deferre, detuli, delatum = to carry down/report/bring conferre, contuli, collatum = to bring together Tollere overlaps semantically with “raise” and “remove,” and its perfect participle is sublatus when the prefix sub- is involved: “lifted up,” then “removed,” “taken away.” For Cicero’s grim full circle, sublatus is better than ablatus if one wants the echo of tollere/tollendum: qui Octavianum tollendum dixerat, ipse sublatus est. “He who had said that Octavian was to be removed was himself removed.” Ablatus would also mean “taken away,” but it sounds more like simple removal or carrying off. Sublatus keeps closer to tollere’s own old pair of “raise/remove,” and therefore better preserves the ambiguity of Cicero’s tollendum. That is why history’s answer to the gerundive is not *tolltatus, but the perfectly Roman sublatus. But latus would be just as acceptable here -- for Octavian's tolli -- as in: Cicero ended up being himself 'latum' or latus? Thanks Yes, but I would not use bare latus as the neat result of Octavian’s tolli. Latin idiom wants either sublatus or ablatus, depending on the nuance. Latus by itself is simply the perfect passive participle of ferre, “borne, carried,” and also has the unrelated adjective latus, “broad,” which is an immediate nuisance. So Cicero latus est would most naturally risk meaning “Cicero was carried/brought,” but it is not the sharp idiom for “removed” after tollendum. It lacks the prefix that tells us what kind of carrying or taking is meant. For the full-circle joke, the best form is: Cicero, qui Octavianum tollendum dixerat, ipse sublatus est. Cicero, who had said that Octavian was to be raised/removed, was himself removed. Sublatus is best because tollere and sublatus are historically and idiomatically connected in the “lift up / take away / remove” field. It preserves the ambiguity of tollendum better than ablatus does. Ablatus would also be possible if the emphasis is “taken away”: Cicero ablatus est. Cicero was carried off / taken away. But that sounds more like removal from a place, not the elegant reversal of Cicero’s own tollendum. Latus alone is too bare. Latum is neuter, so not Cicero unless one is treating something like corpus Ciceronis latum est, “Cicero’s body was carried.” For the man: Cicero latus est = Cicero was carried/brought. Cicero sublatus est = Cicero was lifted up / taken away / removed. Cicero ablatus est = Cicero was carried away / removed. So Speranza’s dry formula should be: Cicero made Octavian tollendus; history made Cicero sublatus. The bare latus would carry him, but not carry the joke far enough.