Grice as Sidonian

By J. L. Speranza

for the Grice Club



In case you didn't know it -- Sidonius first used 'implicatura'.

He was _not_ at Harvard, so perhaps his idea was not as influential as a much more publicized philosopher's was. But I collect it's the same idea.

In 9.9.9ff, Sidonius writes:


"ligati vernaculis implicaturis"


-- shattered with their own entanglements --


The greater context goes:


whoever disputes with you will find those
protagonists of heresy, the Stoics, Cynics,
and Peripatetics, shattered with their own
familiar entanglements [ligati vernaculis
implicaturis] into their own toils

Sidonius Ep. 9.9. ad fin.
(Paragraph 15).

Translated by W. B. Anderson (1885-1959),

posthumously published as revised

by E. H. Warmington, for the Loeb Classics,
1964.


From Lewis & Short, now, Latin Dictionary


1. Note that they have "inplicatura" [sic] -- as per the Perseus Online
Project. I.e.

They suggest that Sidonius used it with an "n". I guess it would be possible to find -- from the Perseus project -- (but I wouldn't know what key to press) _what_ edition of the Latin text Lewis & Short are working with or referring to -- in "Abbreviations" section.

My guess is that _inplicaturis_ -- _sic_ with "n" -- does feature in the MS of
Sidonius's Letter -- but this is _Vulgar Latin_, almost, and it may _not_
interest an Elite Classicist as A. R. is, :) --

(I'm being ungrateful, eh?)

-- and that the Loeb edition chose "implicaturis" with an "m" to (kind of)
"standardise" the thing.

Related issue -- of more general interest for the phonetically-minded:

1.1. Why would "iNplicatura" (or "Inplicature" for that matter) be thought of as
"deformed" out of "IMplicatura" (implicature)? For one, the "n" spelling
should be prior. Is it some Phonetical Thing? This _could_ be, but me
[sic], being Roman, (of sorts), find myself quite able to say "inplicatura"
and indeed "inplicature", so I don't see why the Romans, the English, etc
found "Impl-" an improvement over "Inpl-".

2. Lewis & Short have this as "vernaculae".

And they don't note that
"inplicatura" is used in the plural, which was very confusing (for me):
i.e. "vernaculae" could have been the genitive, as I thought it was, i.e.
as "lingua vernaculae" (with "lingua" ellided) which I thought modified
"inplicatura", to read: "inplicatura linguae vernaculae", i.e. the
entanglement of the vernacular tongue. I see I had it all wrong, thanks to
Alison Parker, who telegrammed about this when I was vacationing in Portofino.


3. I see, from the text kindly provided by A. R. Parker, that "vernacula"
thus applies, directly, to "inplicatura", which is in dative plural. So
it's the "vernacular entanglement", which, in plural, becomes "vernacular
entanglements". The dative (or ablative?) being the required case for
"ligati" (nominative plural), as applied to the three Philosophical Schools
mentioned: Stoics, Cynics, and Peripatetics.

Anderson has that as flowing:

"shattered with their own familiar entanglements".

A more literal translation would have been, of course, "ligated with
vernacular implicatures"! And what is that they are _ligated_ to? "To their
own toils." More of the context below, including my reconstruction at the
Latin MS (now in the Vatican, Rome).

4. As for "ligare", cfr. COED

ligate: to tie up. fr. L. ligare: bind.
cfr. "ligature": Mus. a slur, a tie.

5. It's nice that Grice (the English Sidonius, as it were) uses
"vernacular", as it were, in one of his unpublications. Viz in "Definite
Descriptions in Russell and in the Vernacular". This unpublication is
quoted by G. P. Bealer (a student of R. Paul, at Reed) in his _Concept and
Quality_, OUP Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy, 1983. (I'm using
"unpublication" on purpose since L. Horn has written his own unpublication
on that for a forthcoming contribution to a festhcrift for J. D. McCawley
-- a Chicago Gricean -- entitled, "An un-paper for an un-syntactician", and
he's bound to discuss things like Grice's use of "unpublication" in: "the
number of my publications is greatly exceeded by the number of my
unpublication". In R. Grandy, _Philosophical Grounds of Ratinality_, ed,
Clarendon, p.45.).

The text of the Sidonius letter I'm here pasting again for further
consideration:

9. ...


So here is what I think of your writings even after the bad
treatment I received from you. 10. I read a work laborious and many-sided,
vigorous and lofty, well divided by headings, well provided with examples,
bipartite in the plan of its dialogue, quadripartite in the presentation of
its subject-matter. Much you have written ardently, much more with
grandeur; some parts are simple without being uncouth, others are subtle
without being crafty; weighty matters are treated maturely, deep things
with earnest care, doubtful points resolutely, debatable points
controversially; some things are handled sternly, others winningly, all is
morally exquisite and powerfully eloquent. 11. Thus having followed you
through all these different kinds of discourses ranging over the whole
field of composition at its widest, I have been hard put to it to find
anything so exquisite in the eloquence or the talents of other writers.
That these sentiments of mine are true you can feel quite sure, since even
the affront I have suffered does not make me think otherwise. In short,
your oratory, read in your absense, could not, in my opinion, be improved
upon unless perhaps the author delivered it in one's presence by his use of
voice, gesture, movements, and modes of demeanour. 12. An artist then
endowed with all these intellectual and literary excellences, you have
joined to yourself a beautiful woman, but who married you in the ritual
prescribed by Deuteronomy, my Lord Bishop. You had seen her while still in
your youth, among the hordes of the enemy, and there in the midst of the
hostile ranks you fell in love with her and defying the attempts of the
opposing warriors to drive you back, you carried her off with the
conquering arms of desire. Here name was Philosophy; rescued by force from
the crowd of blasphemous sciences, she shaved off the locks that betokened
false religion, she shaved off the disdainful eyebrows of worldly
knowledge, cut away the folds of her former raiment -- and by folds I mean
the twists and turns of sinister dialectic screening wrong and unlawful
behaviour: and then, when cleansed in every part, she united herself with
you in a mystic embrace. 13. She [Philosophy] has long been your attendant,
even from your early years: she is your inseparable companion whether you
are exercising yourself in the hard school of the city or wearing yourself
out in hidden solitudes; she is your partner in the Athenaeum and in the
monastery; with you she renounces worldly studies, and with you she
proclaims heavenly doctrine. If anyone assails you now that you are wed to
this spiritual bride he will learn that Plato's Academy is now enlisted in
the cause of Christ's church and that you practise philosophy in a nobler
sense. 14. He will learn that in the first place you affirm the
inexpressible wisdom of God, the Father together with the everlastingness
of the Holy Spirit: secondly, he will learn that you do not let your hair
grow long nor flaunt a gown or a club as badges of the professional
philosopher."

This is very good, Sidonius's exact reference to the "professional
philosopher", since it does suggest as though the "implicatura" thing is
like a _trade_mark, literally speaking. Grice would have loved that.



"; nor do you affect a proud superiority by a difference of dress, using
splending apparel for dignity and an unkempt appearance for ostentation.
You do not burn with envy at the thought of those paintings all over the
gymnasia of the Areopagus and in the prytanea showing Speusippus with his
head bowed forward, Aratus with his head bent back, Zenon with knitted
brow, Epicurus with unwrinkled skin, Diogenes with long beard, Socrates
with trailing hair, Aristotle with out-thrust arm; Xenocrates with gathered
leg, Heraclitus with eyes open with laughter, Chrysippus with fingers bent
to denote counting, Euclid with fingers extended because of the size of his
measurements, Cleanthes with fingers gnawed for both reasons. 15. Far
otherwise: whoever disputes with you will find those protagonists of
heresy, the Stoics, Cynics, and Peripatetics, shattered with their own
familiar entanglements (ligati vernaculis implicaturis) into their own
toils; the barbed syllogism of your argument will hook the glib tongues of
the casuists, and it is *you* who will thie up *their* slippery questions
in categorical clews, after the manner of clever physicians, who, when
compelled by reasoned thought, prepare antidotes for poison even from a
serpent."



Must say this Section 15 is just brilliant. Sidonius is saying that the
Bishop, being a Christian, can "reason" out what the Heretics -- ligated
with their vernacular implicatures to their toils -- really _are_
thinking... Below I propose my reconstruction at the Latin text.




"16. But in those days you are the only one who has either spiritual vision
or the consummate learning to accomplish this. Who could follow your lead
and keep pace with you, for to you alone has been granted the power to
speak better than you have learned and to live better than you speak? For
this reason, all good men in your own times will justly call you blessed,
yes, blessed above all men, for your life has won such renown on the double
count of your writings and your good deeds that, when you have reached the
years that are counted on the right hand, you will depart this life
acclaimed by your own age and coveted by generations to come, thus winning
glory on two scores, since you will bequeath your possessions to your
immediate flock but your real self to the world at large. Deign to hold me
in remembrance, my Lord Bishop.



A Gricean reading between the lines:

(intralinearis)



Far otherwise: whoever disputes with you

Longus alterii: quo disputat cum tuo




will find those protagonists of heresy,

vidis protagonistis heresiae




the Stoics, Cynics, and Peripatetics,

Stoicis, Cynicis, Peripateticisque



shattered with their own familiar entanglements

ligati vernaculis implicaturis




into their own toils;

ad laborem.




the barbed syllogism of your argument

syllogismus barbus argumentati tui




will hook the glib tongues of the casuists,

ligati linguis casuistis




and it is *you*

et tuu




who will tie up *their* slippery questions

ligare suis quaestionem slipperiam




in categorical clews,

categorialis clewis





after the manner of clever physicians,

a-la intelligentis doctoris



who, when compelled by reasoned thought,

qui, quando compellati cogitatio rationcinativo




prepare antidotes for poison even from a serpent.

preparat antidotem venenum atque serpentis.




"In the first part of the letter, Sidonius complains that the Lord Bishop
Faustus didn't send him a copy of his (Faustus') recent writings to the
Britons,"

this Sidonius made British History when writing a Letter to Arthur, King of The Britons. Apparently, he (Arthur) never replied, though (but then he did not exist).


Sidonius had run into the work only by luck. I had hoped, after
first reading the end of the letter to find the implicatures (see Paragraph
15), I was hoping that Faustus had slammed poor Sidonius in these writings,
This part is about writing, philosophy and religion. "And it's all very funny." (Dear, dear Alison Parker writes).

Yes, it is, this Sidonius had the gift for the Trope, as I may call it.

"The translation (published in 1964)

is credited to W. B. Anderson (who
died in 1959), but with posthumous revisions,

Latin text, notes, etc., by

E. H. Warmington, who gives a touching tale about Anderson's growing
unhappiness with the project in his declining years."

Here is the bit about Arthur:

Sidonius writes:

"I will write once more in my usual strain, mingling compliment with
grievance. Not that I at all desire to follow up the first words of
greeting with disagreeable subjects, but things seem to be always happening
which a man of my order and in my position can neither mention without
unpleasantness, nor pass over without neglect of duty. Yet I do my best to
remember the burdensome and delicate sense of honour which makes you so
ready to blush for others' faults. The bearer of this is an obscure and
humble person, so harmless, insignificant, and helpless that he seems to
invite his own discomfiture; his grievance is that the Bretons are secretly
enticing his slaves away. Whether his indictment is a true one, I cannot
say; but, if you can only confront the parties and decide the matter on its
merits, I think the unfortunate man may be able to make good his charge, if
indeed a stranger from the country unarmed, abject and impecunious to boot,
has ever a chance of a fair or kindly hearing against adversaries with all
the advantages he lacks, arms, astuteness, turbulences, and the aggressive
spirit of men backed by numerous friends. Farewell."

Sidonius, Letter to
the King of the Britons
-- or the Bretons?

From: "The Letters of Sidonius,"
Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1915.
Translated by O. M. Dalton
See:
Medieval Sourcebook: Letters of Sidonius
Sidonius, The Letters of idonius, trans.
OM Dalton, (Oxford, Clarendon, 1915), two vols.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/sidonius1.html

From "British History": "Sidonius Apollinaris -- Letter to Riothamus, King
of the Britons, c.470". Sollius Apollinaris Sidonius (since the thirteenth
century he has come to be known simply as Sidonius Apollinaris) was born in
Lyons c.431 and died c.489. He was born into a senatorial family to whom,
he says, high office almost seemed a hereditary right, and, in keeping with
his family's tradition, he served, for a time, as city prefect of Rome and
became Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, c.470. He had the privilege of
witnessing the decay and final demise of Roman civilization in the west and
the beginnings of the new medieval society that would replace it. Because
of his high station, it seems that there was hardly a person of distinction
who lived during this time with whom he did not have some contact, either
personal or written. One of Sidonius' correspondents was a man named
Riothamus, said by Jordanes, a sixth century historian of the period, to be
"king of the Brittones." This Riothamus has been identified by some
investigators (notably G. Ashe and L. Fleuriot) as the historical original
for King Arthur, and the significance of this letter is that it places this
"king of the Brittones" in Gaul in the early 470's, in the very time period
when Geoffrey of Monmouth has Arthur's Gallic campaigns taking place
(Geoffrey Ashe, "The Discovery of King Arthur," Guild Publishing, London,
1985). An important issue, here, is the meaning of the term "Brittones:"
does it mean Bretons or Britons? If the word means Britons, people from the
island nation of Britain, then the implication is that a British king,
crossed the English Channel and was holding court in Gaul. Taken in
conjunction with the sixth century testimony of Jordanes' "Gothic History"
and Geoffrey of Monmouth's quasi-historical "History of the Kings of
Britain," a reasonably convincing case can be made that Geoffrey's Arthur
and Jordanes' and Sidonius Apollinaris' Riothamus are really the same
person. On the other hand, if "Brittones" means Bretons, natives of the
land of Brittany, then the Arthur-Riothamus equation begins to unravel. So,
which is it, Britons or Bretons? Depending on which translator you read,
either meaning is possible, so we get no help, there. But, there is
something in the text of Sidonius' letter which may assist us in finding
out whether Riothamus is king of the Britons or king of the Bretons. The
letter, written in the late 460's or early 470's, is an appeal to
Riothamus, whom Sidonius apparently knows to be a fair-minded and
honourable ruler, for justice for "an obscure and humble person," who has
suffered a wrong. The wrongdoers, in this case, are Bretons who are
enticing the man's slaves away, perhaps encouraged to do so by the
slave-owner's own meekness and vulnerability. The Bretons are armed,
aggressive and numerous and he, unarmed and impecunious, is no match for
them. Perhaps this unfortunate man came to Sidonius for justice in his
capacity as Bishop of Clermont, but, as we learn from the letter, Sidonius
commends his case on to Riothamus. We get no hint that there is anything
irregular or unusual in his doing so, and we are left to conclude that
ordinary due process is being done. The Gothic History of Jordanes tells us
that Riothamus, king of the Brittones, came at the head of a 12,000 man
force at the behest of Anthemius, the Roman Emperor, to aid in combatting
the Visigoths. If Riothamus had come across the Channel from Britain to
Gaul, he would have had no interest or jurisdiction there and could not be
expected to be a part of any normal judicial process. But, it could be
argued that since Riothamus was in Gaul at the behest of the Roman Emperor,
he was the Emperor's de facto representative in that area and, as such, had
full legal jurisdiction. But that view doesn't withstand close scruting
since there already was an imperial prefect in Gaul, a man named Arvandus.
Our problem of Riothamus' presence in Gaul and questionable legal
jurisdiction goes away if he is a Breton, rather than a Briton. In the late
450's, there were mass migrations of upper-crust Britons from Britain to
Brittany. Some scholars of the period have made Riothamus the leader of
that wave of migrations and the founder of the dynasties of the Breton
kingdom of Dumnonie (John Morris, "The Age of Arthur," Charles Scribner's &
Sons, New York, 1973, pp. 90, 251, 256 2). If a Breton, Riothamus had a
perfect right to be located there, north of the Loire, and would have been
the obvious person to whom Sidonius should refer a grievance involving
other Bretons." ((c) Online British History)


--- Next:

"The once and future king" -- disimplicated.