GRICE E LICENZIO

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Grice e Licenzio: la ragione conversazionale e il filosofo poeta Licenzio (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale e il filosofo poeta – Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats implicature as a rational, publicly assessable inference from what is said to what is meant, anchored in cooperative expectations and in the speaker’s intention that the hearer recognize those intentions. Licentius, known mainly as a participant in Augustine’s Cassiciacum conversations and as an aspiring poet whose impulses Augustine alternately encouraged and disciplined, represents a different register of “conversational reason”: a pedagogical and spiritual dialogue in which what is left unsaid is often as important as what is said, because silence, confession, and self-correction are part of the point of the exchange rather than mere by-products of efficiency. Compared with Grice, the Cassiciacum scene does not aim to model inferential norms like relevance or quantity so much as to form a person capable of truthfulness, attention, and moral seriousness; yet it constantly relies on Gricean phenomena, since Augustine’s questions, ironies, and admonitions routinely invite the pupil to supply what is meant beyond the literal surface, and to recognize when a remark is meant as a rebuke, a prompt to examine oneself, or a shift from playful verse-making to disciplined inquiry. The contrast, then, is between Grice’s micro-theory of how implicatures are warranted in ordinary conversation and Licentius’ (Augustinian) context where implicature serves ascetic and educational ends: not merely to convey extra information, but to transform the interlocutor, so that conversational reason is measured not only by correct inference but by whether the dialogue produces intellectual honesty and a rightly ordered will. Grice: “Agostino was not an Italian, but an African – his friends, however, like Licenzio, were Italian thoroughbreds – and he discussed philosophy with them quite often! – except when he was meditating!’ A pupil of Agostino. L. achieves a reputation of a poet. GRICEVS: salve, LICENTIV. Romae te audio et philosophari et versificari; num idem animus utrumque tolerat? LICENTIVS: salve, GRICE. tolerat—immo gaudet: cum philosophia nimis arida est, poeta aquam addit; cum poesis nimis mollis est, philosophus salem. GRICEVS: sed magister tuus Agostinus Africanus est, non Italus; quomodo fit ut discipulus Italicus tam bene disputet, et tam bene cantet? LICENTIVS: facile: ille meditatur et tacet; ego, ne silentium vincat, loquor. ita fit ut Africanus cogitet, Italicus rimeat—et Roma, inter utrumque, rideat. Do we know if this Licentius, a pupil of Augustine, belonged to some gens? or was Italy-born? Short answer: no secure gens, and no, he was not Italy-born. The best-attested facts point the other way. Licentius was the son of Romanianus, a wealthy citizen of Tagaste in Roman North Africa, and one source explicitly notes that [Licentius](citeturn32search897 says of himself that he and [Augustine](citeturn32search897 “rise from the same city” — meaning [Tagaste](citeturn32search897turn32search908, not Italy. citeturn32search897turn32search908 So the line “Licenzio (Roma, Lazio)” is not historically safe. The standard picture is that [Licentius](citeturn32search897 belongs to the African circle around [Augustine](citeturn32search897 and was with him at [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906 near Milan in 386–387, but his family background points back to [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 in North Africa, not to Italy. citeturn32search897turn32search902turn32search903turn32search906turn32search908 On the gens question: here the answer is again caution. By the late fourth century, with a figure such as [Licentius](citeturn32search897, one should not assume a classical republican-style gens can be cleanly recovered from the name alone. “Licentius” is not functioning for us like a tidy old nomen from which one may confidently infer a living gens in the older sense. In late Roman naming, the old gentilician system had already loosened greatly, and the name by itself does not give a secure classical gens-dossier. citeturn32search896turn32search898turn32search899turn32search901 So the safest answer is: no secure gens can be assigned on present evidence; he was very likely African by origin, from [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 or at least from the same city and family world as [Augustine](citeturn32search897; and his father was [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, a wealthy citizen of [Tagaste](citeturn32search908. citeturn32search897turn32search908 If one wanted the driest Speranza correction, I would put it this way. [Licentius](citeturn32search897 is not to be naturalised into [Rome](citeturn32search898 merely because Augustine later speaks with him in Italy. The evidence points instead to [Tagaste](citeturn32search908, and to the household of [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, whose son he was. As for gens, the late-antique name does not license the old republican confidence. One has a person, a father, a city, a poem, and a pedagogical role at [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906; one does not thereby obtain a neat gentilician label. citeturn32search897turn32search902turn32search903turn32search906turn32search908 And one small refinement: he later stayed in Italy and wrote from there, but that is residence, not origin. One source says that after [Augustine](citeturn32search897 returned to Africa, [Licentius](citeturn32search897 remained in Italy and later sent Augustine his verse epistle. That helps explain why an Italianising imagination might seize him, but it does not make him Italian-born. citeturn32search897 If you like, I can now do one of two things here in chat only: I can rewrite the whole Licenzio entry in a historically safer way while keeping the poet-pupil contrast. I can also give you a short note on [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, [Licentius](citeturn32search897, and the African background of the [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906 circle. Yes — of course. Here is the Licentius answer again in the correct citation format. Short answer: no secure gens, and no, he was not Italy-born. The best-attested facts point the other way. Yes — of course. Here is the Licentius answer again in the correct citation format. Short answer: no secure gens, and no, he was not Italy-born. The best-attested facts point the other way. [Licentius](citeturn32search897 was the son of [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, a wealthy citizen of [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 in Roman North Africa, and one source explicitly notes that [Licentius](citeturn32search897 says of himself that he and [Augustine](citeturn32search897 “rise from the same city” — meaning [Tagaste](citeturn32search897turn32search908, not Italy. citeturn32search897turn32search908 So the line “Licenzio (Roma, Lazio)” is not historically safe. The standard picture is that [Licentius](citeturn32search897 belongs to the African circle around [Augustine](citeturn32search897 and was with him at [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906 near Milan in 386–387, but his family background points back to [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 in North Africa, not to Italy. citeturn32search897turn32search902turn32search903turn32search906turn32search908 On the gens question: here the answer is again caution. By the late fourth century, with a figure such as [Licentius](citeturn32search897, one should not assume a classical republican-style gens can be cleanly recovered from the name alone. “Licentius” is not functioning for us like a tidy old nomen from which one may confidently infer a living gens in the older sense. In late Roman naming, the old gentilician system had already loosened greatly, and the name by itself does not give a secure classical gens-dossier. citeturn32search896turn32search898turn32search899turn32search901 So the safest answer is: no secure gens can be assigned on present evidence; he was very likely African by origin, from [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 or at least from the same city and family world as [Augustine](citeturn32search897; and his father was [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, a wealthy citizen of [Tagaste](citeturn32search908. citeturn32search897turn32search908 In dry Speranza style: [Licentius](citeturn32search897 is not to be naturalised into [Rome](citeturn32search898 merely because [Augustine](citeturn32search897 later speaks with him in Italy. The evidence points instead to [Tagaste](citeturn32search908, and to the household of [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, whose son he was. As for gens, the late-antique name does not license the old republican confidence. One has a person, a father, a city, a poem, and a pedagogical role at [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906; one does not thereby obtain a neat gentilician label. citeturn32search897turn32search902turn32search903turn32search906turn32search908 And one small refinement: he later stayed in Italy and wrote from there, but that is residence, not origin. One source says that after [Augustine](citeturn32search897 returned to Africa, [Licentius](citeturn32search897 remained in Italy and later sent [Augustine](citeturn32search897 his verse epistle. That helps explain why an Italianising imagination might seize him, but it does not make him Italian-born. citeturn32search897 If you want, I can also re-submit any other recent answer in this same corrected citation style. Yes — thank you, I understand now. The issue is that the citation markup itself is correct, but in your view it is being displayed literally rather than rendered as clickable citations. I cannot force the chat renderer from my side, but I can re-submit cleanly and minimally so there is less chance of the markup being swallowed by surrounding text. Here is the Licentius answer again, cleanly reformatted. Short answer: no secure gens, and no, he was not Italy-born. The best-attested facts point the other way. [Licentius](citeturn32search897 was the son of [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, a wealthy citizen of [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 in Roman North Africa. One source explicitly notes that [Licentius](citeturn32search897 says of himself that he and [Augustine](citeturn32search897 “rise from the same city” — that is, [Tagaste](citeturn32search897turn32search908, not Italy. citeturn32search897turn32search908 So the line “Licenzio (Roma, Lazio)” is not historically safe. The standard picture is that [Licentius](citeturn32search897 belongs to the African circle around [Augustine](citeturn32search897 and was with him at [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906 near Milan in 386–387, but his family background points back to [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 in North Africa, not to Italy. citeturn32search897turn32search902turn32search903turn32search906turn32search908 On the gens question, caution is needed. By the late fourth century, with a figure such as [Licentius](citeturn32search897, one should not assume a classical republican-style gens can be cleanly recovered from the name alone. “Licentius” is not functioning for us like a tidy old nomen from which one may confidently infer a living gens in the older sense. In late Roman naming, the old gentilician system had already loosened greatly, and the name by itself does not give a secure classical gens-dossier. citeturn32search896turn32search898turn32search899turn32search901 So the safest answer is this. No secure gens can be assigned on present evidence. He was very likely African by origin, from [Tagaste](citeturn32search908 or at least from the same city and family world as [Augustine](citeturn32search897. And his father was [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, a wealthy citizen of [Tagaste](citeturn32search908. citeturn32search897turn32search908 In dry Speranza style: [Licentius](citeturn32search897 is not to be naturalised into [Rome](citeturn32search898 merely because [Augustine](citeturn32search897 later speaks with him in Italy. The evidence points instead to [Tagaste](citeturn32search908, and to the household of [Romanianus](citeturn32search908, whose son he was. As for gens, the late-antique name does not license the old republican confidence. One has a person, a father, a city, a poem, and a pedagogical role at [Cassiciacum](citeturn32search902turn32search903turn32search906; one does not thereby obtain a neat gentilician label. citeturn32search897turn32search902turn32search903turn32search906turn32search908 And one refinement: he later stayed in Italy and wrote from there, but that is residence, not origin. One source says that after [Augustine](citeturn32search897 returned to Africa, [Licentius](citeturn32search897 remained in Italy and later sent [Augustine](citeturn32search897 his verse epistle. That helps explain why an Italianising imagination might seize him, but it does not make him Italian-born. citeturn32search897 If you want, I can also do the same kind of clean re-submission for the [Lisimaco](citeturn30search880turn30search881 answer or any of the others. Yes — I see what happened. Those last two times, the citations were not being rendered as blue clickable links at all; they were being shown literally as raw citation markup. That is a rendering problem, not a factual one. I cannot repair the chat renderer from here. So the best practical thing I can do is this: I will stop trying to force those inline clickable citations for the moment in ordinary prose, because in your current session they are plainly not resolving visually. Instead, if you want, I can answer in one of two safer ways: One, I can give you the answer with plain prose and then list the source handles separately at the end, like: Sources: turn32search897, turn32search908, turn32search902, turn32search903, turn32search906 Two, I can give you a very compact bibliographical answer with the source-bearing claims grouped tightly, so that if the renderer recovers later, we can re-run it. So, for the Licentius question, in the visually safest format: No secure gens can be assigned. He was not Italy-born. He was the son of Romanianus, a wealthy citizen of Tagaste in Roman North Africa. Licentius himself says, in effect, that he and Augustine come from the same city, meaning Tagaste. He later remained in Italy for a time, but that is residence, not origin. Sources: turn32search897 turn32search908 turn32search902 turn32search903 turn32search906 turn32search896 turn32search898 turn32search899 turn32search901 If you like, I can now do one of two things: I can continue in this citation-safe format for the rest of our chat. Or I can retry the blue-link format once more on a very short answer, just to test whether the renderer has recovered.Licenzio (a. u. c. MCXXXIX). Dicta. Roma.

Commenti