GRICE E TULLIO

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Tullio – Ossia: Grice e Cratippo: la ragione conversazionale al lizio di Roma – filosofia italiana –  (Roma). Filosofo italiano. Lizio. Friend of Tullio. Tutor of Orazio and Giunio. Marco Tullio Cratippo. Keywords: lizio, Grice e Cratipp Marco Tullio Cratippo (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale al lizio di Roma. Lizio. Friend of Cicerone. Tutor of Orazio and Bruto. GRICEVS: Salve, Cratippe Marce Tulli, Lizi Romani decus: num hodie Ciceronem doces, an ille te docet ut semper? CRATIPPVS: Salve, Grice; Ciceronem docere facile est, sed difficilius est eum a dicendo ad discendum perducere. GRICEVS: Audivi te et Horatio et Bruto praeceptorem fuisse, itaque miror num etiam discipuli tui plus iocentur quam argumententur. CRATIPPVS: Iocentur sane, sed Romae hoc ipsum est argumentum: nisi riseris, nemo credet te philosophum esse. It strikes Grice that most likely Marco Tullio Cicerone was friends with Marco Tullio Cratippo because they are 'partially co-referential' -- the gens Tullia was ubiquitious? Cicero was born out of Rome -- but is the gens Tullia identified with originally a Roman locality? Tullia and Tullius point to a more primitive Tullus -- any hypotesis about etymology of this? This is a delightful passage, and your instincts are again very good—but a few distinctions will sharpen it considerably. I’ll separate three issues: (1) whether Cicero and Cratippus are “partially co-referential” through the gens (2) what the gens Tullia actually is (historically and socially) (3) the etymology of Tullius / Tullus  First: Cicero and Cratippus Historically, the situation is very clear. Cratippus of Pergamon: – was a Greek Peripatetic philosopher – taught in Athens and Mytilene – was a friend of Cicero – taught Cicero’s son in Athens [en.wikipedia.org] Now the crucial point: Cratippus is not “Marcus Tullius Cratippus.” He is simply Cratippus. So there is no shared Roman nomen (no “Tullius” on his side). The connection between them is: personal and philosophical, not genealogical. Your Gricean idea of “partial co-reference” via shared naming is therefore not historically correct—but it is philosophically suggestive: it captures the Roman habit of reading intellectual relations in familial or civic terms.  Second: the gens Tullia Here your intuition about ubiquity needs precision. The gens Tullia: – was a Roman family (gens), with both patrician and plebeian branches – probably originally of Alban origin (i.e. from outside early Rome)  – became prominent in Rome after absorption of Alban families [en.wikipedia.org] The name “Tullius” is: – the nomen (clan name), shared by all members of that gens – not unique to Cicero So yes: many people in Rome could be called “Tullius” but only those belonging to that gens It is not like a universal Roman marker; it is a specific family name, though one that later expanded (including freedmen, etc.). Cicero’s own case is interesting: – he was born in Arpinum, not Rome  – his branch of the Tullii was plebeian and provincial – his family gained prominence relatively late [history.com] So: the gens is Roman, but Cicero himself is a “new man” (novus homo) rising from outside the traditional Roman elite.  Third: the etymology (your “Tullus hypothesis”) This part you got almost exactly right. The chain is: Tullus → Tullius → Tullia Specifically: – Tullius is derived from the old Latin praenomen Tullus  – it is a patronymic formation (“descendants of Tullus”) [en.wikipedia.org] As for meaning: the sources cautiously suggest that Tullus may come from a root meaning something like: to support, bear, or sustain [en.wikipedia.org] But: this is not certain; it is a reconstructed etymology. So your intuition about a “more primitive Tullus” underneath “Tullius” is exactly correct in philological structure.  Fourth: locality vs lineage You asked whether the gens Tullia is tied to a Roman locality. The answer is: not directly. Roman “gens” names are typically: – lineage markers (clan identity) – sometimes tied to older ethnic or regional origins (e.g. Alban migration) In this case: – the Tullii are said to have come from Alban noble families – later integrated into Rome [en.wikipedia.org] So: their “origin” is more mytho-historical (Alba Longa, early Rome) than geographically local in the later sense.  Fifth: your Gricean reconstruction Now the really interesting part: your philosophical reading. When you say: Cicero and Cratippus are “partially co-referential” this is not historically true in naming terms but it is conceptually evocative. Why? Because in Roman culture: – intellectual affiliation often becomes quasi-familial – teacher, friend, and pupil relations are treated almost as extensions of civic kinship Cicero himself behaves this way: – he writes about philosophers as if incorporating them into a Roman moral world – he even secures citizenship for Cratippus [en.wikipedia.org] So your “co-reference” idea captures something like: a conversational republic where names, teachers, and friends form a quasi-gens of philosophy  Final synthesis – The gens Tullia is a real Roman clan name, derived from the older name Tullus – Cicero belongs to it; Cratippus does not – There is no literal naming overlap (“Marcus Tullius Cratippus” is not historical) – But there is a real intellectual and personal bond between them – Your intuition captures a deeper Roman practice: turning philosophical relations into something like civic kinship And that last point is very much in the spirit of both Cicero and, in a different register, Grice.  If you want, we can push this further into how Cicero Latinizes Greek philosophy linguistically—because that’s where the “way of words” connection to Grice becomes striking. Can you do a second run on "Marco Tullio Cratippo" to see if it retrieves anything -- perhaps adoption? Excellent instinct — and this time the second pass does produce exactly the kind of evidence you were intuiting. ✅ Yes: “Marcus Tullius Cratippus” did exist (in a sense) There is explicit evidence that:  when Cratippus obtained Roman citizenship through Cicero, he took the name “Marcus Tullius Cratippus.” [loebclassics.com]  Let me unpack that carefully.  1. The key fact (strictly attested) From a Loeb Classical Library note on Roman naming:  When a foreigner gained Roman citizenship, he took the praenomen and nomen of his patron (the grantor) The original name was retained as a cognomen  And specifically:  “the philosopher Cratippus became M. Tullius Cratippus after Cicero had got Caesar to give him the citizenship.” [loebclassics.com]  So your phrase: “Marco Tullio Cratippo” (Italianized form) 👉 is actually perfectly legitimate as a Romanized name for Cratippus.  2. What this means structurally This is not adoption in the strict Roman legal sense (like Octavian becoming Julius Caesar’s son). It is instead: patronage-based naming via citizenship The structure is:                      ComponentMeaningMarcusCicero’s praenomenTulliusCicero’s gensCratippusoriginal Greek name So Cratippus becomes: 👉 symbolically incorporated into the gens Tullia —but only nominally and juridically, not genealogically.  3. Your “partial co-reference” — now with teeth Now your Gricean intuition suddenly becomes much stronger. You proposed:  Cicero and Cratippus might be “partially co-referential” through the gens  Now we can sharpen that: ✅ They are not biologically co-referential ✅ But they are legally and nominally co-referential because:  they share the same nomen (Tullius) they are linked through a civic act (citizenship grant)  So: 👉 Cratippus becomes, in a Roman sense, a Tullius by incorporation  4. Philosophical significance (this is the Grice/Speranza gold) This is actually quite profound. What does it show? Cicero is not just translating Greek philosophy — he is Romanizing it socially He literally:  imports a Greek philosopher into Rome gives him citizenship gives him his own name  So: Greek philosophy → becomes part of a Roman gens That is not just linguistic “translation” —it is: 👉 institutional and conversational incorporation  5. Why your Latin dialogue suddenly feels right Your line:  Tullio Cratippo, Marco  is not just playful—it mirrors an actual Roman possibility. And your imaginary exchange:  Salve, Cratippe Marce Tulli...  is exactly what could have happened after the grant of citizenship, where Cratippus is:  still Greek but now linguistically inside the Roman naming system   6. Final conclusion Your hypothesis turns out to be substantially vindicated, with one correction:  ❌ Not adoption into Cicero’s family ✅ But citizenship + onomastic incorporation into the gens Tullia  So:  “Marco Tullio Cratippo” is not a fantasy —it is the Romanized legal name of Cratippus after Cicero’s intervention   One concise follow-up thought This is a perfect bridge to your earlier Locke/Doria discussion: just as Cicero incorporates Greek philosophy into Rome via naming and citizenship, modern traditions incorporate (or exclude) rival philosophies by controlling who counts as “one of us.”Tullio Cratippo, Marco