H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZIONE -- I VERBALI: Q

 

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

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Quattromani – Ossia: Grice e Quattromani: la ragione conversazionale, le conversazione, e la la meta-fora come implicatura conversazionale in Catone, Virgilio ed Orazio  Sertorio Quattromani (Cosenza, Calabria): la ragione conversazionale, le conversazione, e la la meta-fora come implicatura conversazionale in Catone, Virgilio ed Orazio. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains how hearers move from what is said to what is meant by treating conversation as a cooperative, purposive activity constrained by rational expectations (relevance, adequate informativeness, sincerity, and clarity), so that metaphor, indirection, and “saying less” generate conversational implicatures that are in principle inferable, cancellable, and sensitive to context. Quattromani, as you frame him, belongs to an Italian humanist and rhetorical lineage in which ragionare is already close to conversare and where translatio is not decorative surplus but a disciplined means of access: the speaker transfers an evaluation (“you are my pride and joy”) into a domestic image (“you are the honey in my wine”) so that praise can be conveyed with measure, tact, and social intelligibility, much as Telesian natural philosophy is “restricted in brevity” and rendered in Tuscan to circulate beyond the learned Latin public. The comparison, then, is that Grice supplies an explicit inferential model for why Quattromani-style figurative praise works in conversation (the hearer assumes cooperation, notices the deliberate choice of an apparently gastronomic predication, and rationally reconstructs the intended compliment as an implicated proposition), whereas Quattromani supplies a rhetorical-philological account of why such transfers are culturally apt and ethically effective (they let affect travel without posing, they align with classical exemplars in Cato, Virgil, and Horace, and they treat linguistic form as a civil instrument). In Gricean terms the “honey in my wine” move exploits the hearer’s rational capacity to recover a non-literal speaker-meaning under shared conversational norms; in Quattromanian terms it exemplifies the older art by which conversation and metaphor are already fused, with reason showing itself less as an abstract calculus than as the practiced social intelligence of choosing a form that can be received. Grice: “My father used to say, ‘Forearmed is forwarned, now I know he was causally referring to Quattromani!” -- Keywords: Catone, Petrarca, Virgilio, Telesio, Orazio. Filosofo italiano. Cosenza, Calabria. Essential Italian philosopher.  It can be said that Sertorio Q.’s most important contribution to the history of Italian philosophy is his  discussion and dissemination of Telesio's philosophy. Q. is a key figure in the "Accademia Cosentina" and, after Telesio's death, became his successor as the head of the academy. Q.’s primary contribution is ensuring the accessibility and dissemination of Telesio's groundbreaking, anti-Aristotelian natural philosophy, which emphasizes empiricism and challenged metaphysical speculation.  Q.’s specific contributions include: Publication of a synthesis: He publishes La filosofia di Telesio ristretta in brevita et scritta in lingua toscana, a synthesis of Telesio's thought written in Italian (Tuscan dialect) rather than Latin. This made Telesio's complex ideas accessible to a wider, non-scholarly audience. Dissemination of ideas: Along with Persio and Campanella, Q. is one of Telesio's most important students and friends who actively spread his ideas throughout Italy and beyond. Defense of Telesio: Q.’s work, along with that of other "Telesians," helped to establish Telesio as a key figure in the late Renaissance intellectual milieu, influencing later major thinkers such as Bacon, Hobbes, and Cartesio. While Q. is also a humanist and a poet, the scholarly consensus points to his role in promoting and interpreting Telesio's radical empiricism as his most significant and enduring philosophical legacy.  implicature, la philosophia di Telesio, Orazio, Poetica, tratatto della metafora, You’re the cream in my coffee +> You are my pride and joy; Il Quarto di Virgilio, Petrarca, Catone.  Grice: “St. John’s, 1963. I’m thinking of giving a seminar on the philosophy of life, since Wittgenstein has rather abused the phrase with his line that “language is a form of life”; but I don’t mean it in that sense—more in the Italianate sense. I noticed in the Merton Library a title that caught my eye, Quattromani, Ragionamenti sopra la vita, but Pears, who happened to be browsing elsewhere, warned me: Italians don’t use ragionamento the way you do, Grice; ragionare is closer to talking things through, to conversing—and I filed that away.” Editor’s note: Grice’s later seminars on conversation made full use of that connection, which Quattromani himself did not think worth pressing. Grice: Quattromani, proprio ieri ho avuto uno scambio recente con Speranza: mi ha fatto un complimento così ben congegnato che lui stesso l’ha chiamato “da poeta latino in borghese”. E io gli ho risposto che, se continua così, finiremo per citare Catone anche quando ordiniamo da bere. Quattromani: A Cosenza succede: tra Catone, Virgilio e Orazio, la lode non arriva mai “nuda”; arriva vestita, e spesso cambia abito a metà strada. È il bello della translatio: la cosa resta, ma il recipiente muta. Grice: Speranza e io ci siamo ritrovati a ridere su una sua frase, che non posso ripetere senza che si senta il trasporto. Mi ha detto, più o meno: “Tu sei il miele nel mio vino.” E lì ho capito perché funziona: non sta facendo gastronomia, sta spostando il peso di “sei il mio vanto” su una coppa, così l’affetto passa senza mettersi in posa. E infatti la formula “sei il X nel mio Y” non è un sinonimo: è un trasferimento, come quando Virgilio ti fa capire una cosa enorme con un’immagine piccola e domestica. Quattromani: Implicatura traslativa la vostra, come Speranza la chiamerà volentieri — evitando a ogni costo quel grecismo, μεταφορά, quando translatio fa il lavoro meglio e con più decoro romano. Perché qui non avete “abbellito” una frase: l’avete trasferita in un altro campo per farla dire con misura. E questa è la lezione che io trovo in Catone, Virgilio e Orazio: la translatio non serve a fare ornamento, ma accesso — proprio come quando io rendo Telesio “ristretto in brevità” e in lingua toscana, perché la sostanza circoli. Se poi Speranza insiste che “miele nel vino” vale più di una definizione, io non lo contraddirò: in certe conversazioni, la prova migliore è che la frase resta in bocca senza far rumore. Grice’s weekly essay assignment as Tutor in Philosophy, St. John’s: .” Is Quattromani the name of ONE philosopher? (A) If ‘Yes’: justify your answer in terms of his known oeuvre; (B) If ‘No’: supply the other Quattromani [(C) Would that not make him Ottomani? Counter‑justify.] (D) State a corollary that would follow from your declining to give a yes‑or‑no answer to the original question.Quattromani, Sertorio (1624). Ragionamenti sopra la vita. Cosenza: Tipografia Cosentina.

 

GREX GRICEIANA -- Verbalia: QUINZIO -- Grice e Quinzio Quinzio Flaminino, T. A.U.C. DLKNDI Move 1 (Philippus V of Macedon): "Graecia mea est; quomodo eam tollere potes?" Move 2 Flaminin [cum gravitate]: "Isthmia Sollemnia Graecos liberos esse nuntiabunt." Abbott-Style Translation: Philip V: "Macedon has owned Greece for generations; you can’t just walk in and take it." Flamininus: "The upcoming Isthmian Games will feature an announcement that Greece is now 'free'—under our exclusive, heavily armed management." +> IMPLICATURA: That Roman liberation is merely a polite euphemism for replacing Macedonian hegemony with a subtle protectorate. Does this Latin utterance by Quinctio (Treccani: Quinzo?) have historical attestation. Grice and Speranza like it for the pun on 'free' -- Passage: This is another very fine reconstruction—and here the answer is especially instructive, because unlike Mucius or Mummius, we do have very close ancient evidence—but not your exact wording. Let’s separate things cleanly.  1. Is your Latin attested? Your sentence:  Isthmia sollemnia Graecos liberos esse nuntiabunt  Not attested. No ancient author gives this formulation. But:  it is grammatically sound Latin and, more importantly, it is an accurate condensation of what actually happened   2. What is historically attested? We have the proclamation from:  Polybius (Greek original) Livy (Latin) Plutarch (Greek narrative)  All agree on the central content: A herald announces at the Isthmian Games:  “The Roman Senate and Titus Quinctius Flamininus… declare the Greeks free, without garrisons, without tribute, and governed by their own laws.” [heurist.huma-num.fr], [lexundria.com]  So the historical core is:  formal proclamation at the Isthmian Games (196 BC) declaring multiple Greek peoples liberi / ἐλεύθεροι   3. How your sentence relates to the sources Let’s map: Your versionAncient realityIsthmia sollemniatrue settingnuntiabuntindeed a herald announcesGraecos liberos esseexact core concept So your sentence is not a quotation—but a synthetic summary of:  herald + festival + proclamation + “freedom”   4. The key word: liberos This is where your Gricean reading becomes very powerful. Ancient proclamation:  “free” defined explicitly as:  no garrisons no tribute own laws [heurist.huma-num.fr]    That sounds very strong.  5. The irony (already ancient!) Even in antiquity, people saw the tension. Plutarch reports criticism:  Greece had exchanged one “shackle” for another a smoother but heavier fetter [lexundria.com]  That is almost exactly your implicature. So:  your reading is not modern cynicism → it is already embedded in ancient response   6. Gricean analysis: the pun on “free” You are right to focus on “liberi”. Literal content  absence of Macedonian control  Implicated content (Roman perspective)  entry into Roman sphere under Roman “protection”  So:  LevelMeaningsaid“free”implicated“free under Rome” This is classic:  strategic underdetermination   7. Type of utterance Your reconstruction behaves like:  compressed indirect discourse with a quasi-Livian tone  Livy actually gives a much longer formal decree-style statement. You compress it into:  event + verb of announcement + predicate “free”   8. Final synthesis  There is no direct attestation of “Isthmia sollemnia Graecos liberos esse nuntiabunt.” However, ancient sources (Polybius, Livy, Plutarch) do preserve the formal proclamation at the Isthmian Games declaring the Greeks “free.” [heurist.huma-num.fr], [lexundria.com] Your sentence is therefore a faithful rhetorical condensation, not a quotation. The ambiguity of liberi—independence vs. controlled autonomy—is not an anachronistic reading: ancient critics already pointed out that the “freedom” might be only a more polished form of domination. In short: Your line is not historical Latin—but it is historically true in structure, and your Gricean “pun on free” captures a tension already recognized in antiquity itself.  If you want, we can try to reconstruct a version closer to Livy’s syntax (with senatus populusque Romanus… liberum esse iussit‑style phrasing). And how does Treccani spell this man's name? Quinzio? And can you parse the Latin utterance by Quinzio in detail thanks? Because Grice played on Isaiah Berlin free to, free from, sugar-free, alcohol free and never thought he could reach a Kantian kingdom of ends where one chooses his own ends! Input? Feedback? Thanks. is Q. the gens, and his birth gens, at that? Great cluster of questions — philological, philosophical, and a bit Berlin–Grice all at once. Let me go step by step.  1. How does Treccani spell his name? In Italian (Treccani-style): Tito Quinzio Flaminino  Quinzio = Italianized form of Quinctius / Quinctius Latin spelling: Titus Quinctius Flamininus  So:  Quinctius = nomen gentilicium (the gens Quinctia) Titus = praenomen Flamininus = cognomen  ✅ Yes:  Quinctius names the gens (his birth-family lineage)  The Italian “Quinzio” simply reflects phonetic simplification (ct → z).  2. Parsing your Latin sentence in detail Your sentence:  Isthmia sollemnia Graecos liberos esse nuntiabunt  Let’s dissect rigorously.  (A) Subject Isthmia sollemnia  neuter plural nominative “the Isthmian Games” (solemn festival)  Strictly:  “the Isthmian festivals”   (B) Verb nuntiabunt  3rd person plural future active “will announce / proclaim”  Note:  real historical agent = praeco (herald) but your sentence assigns agency to the event itself  → mild personification / institutional shorthand  (C) Accusative + infinitive clause Graecos liberos esse This is the key construction.  Graecos = accusative plural (subject of infinitive) liberos = accusative plural predicate adjective esse = infinitive (complement of nuntiare)  So:  “that the Greeks are free”   (D) Full translation  “The Isthmian Games will announce that the Greeks are free.”  More idiomatically:  “At the Isthmian Games it will be proclaimed that the Greeks are free.”   3. Where the philosophical fun is: liberos You are absolutely right to bring in Berlin. (A) Latin liber is underdetermined It can mean:  not enslaved → free from constraint self-governing → free to act politically autonomous → (almost Kantian, rarely in Roman usage)   (B) The Roman proclamation (historical meaning) The actual proclamation specified:  no garrisons no tribute own laws  So:  “free from Macedonian control”  But not:  fully sovereign in Berlin’s “positive liberty” sense   (C) Gricean underdetermination Your sentence leaves liberos unqualified. So the hearer (Greek audience) may enrich it:  “free from Philip” “free to govern ourselves” perhaps even: “free in every sense”  But Roman intent likely narrower:  politically free, but within Roman hegemony   (D) Berlin’s distinction applied ReadingVersionNegative libertyfree from MacedonPositive libertyfree to determine endsRoman practicecontrolled autonomy So yes:  the utterance invites a positive reading but is operationally negative (and limited)   4. Is there a “pun”? Not a lexical pun, but a pragmatic ambiguity. Like your examples:  “sugar-free” “alcohol-free”  → depend on what dimension is negated Similarly:  liberi = free (from what? to what?)  So the “wit” is:  a politically useful semantic openness   5. Is the formulation Livian? Your Latin is actually quite elegant, but:  Livy prefers:  explicit agents (senatus populusque Romanus… iubet) formal decree style    Your version is:  condensed slightly more abstract almost epigrammatic   6. Final synthesis  Treccani uses Quinzio for Latin Quinctius, which indeed names the gens Quinctia. Your sentence parses cleanly as a future proclamation with an accusative‑infinitive (Graecos liberos esse). The crux lies in liberos, whose semantic openness allows exactly the kind of interpretation Grice and Berlin would worry about: it can suggest both “freedom from” and “freedom to,” while Roman policy likely intended only a limited, controlled version of autonomy. In short: Your line is not historically attested, but philologically sound—and philosophically spot‑on in exposing how a single word (liberi) can carry an entire spectrum of liberty claims.  If you like, we can compare this directly with later Roman uses of libertas (e.g. in Cicero and the Imperial period), where the ambiguity becomes even more politically loaded. And what role does Quinzio have and in what capacity, too, is freedom granted to the Greeks according to the Senatus formulation preferred by Livio -- or in history as a matter of fact? Input? Feedback? Thanks This is the decisive point where your philological reading meets Roman constitutional reality. The answer is subtle but very clear in the sources.  1. Who is “Quinzio / Quinctius” here?  Titus Quinctius Flamininus His capacity at the time of the proclamation:  originally consul (198 BC) then (crucially) proconsul with extended imperium in Greece [encyclopedia.com]  So at the Isthmian Games (196 BC):  he is a Roman magistrate exercising delegated authority abroad  He is not sovereign himself, but:  commander of the army executor of senatorial policy public face of Roman power   2. Who actually “grants” freedom? This is the key point. The proclamation, as preserved by Livy/Polybius/Plutarch, begins:  “Senatus Romanus et T. Quinctius …” → “The Roman Senate and Titus Quinctius…” [heurist.huma-num.fr]  So: Authority structure: AgentRoleSenate (Senatus Romanus)source of policyFlamininus (Quinctius)executor / announcer ✅ Therefore:  the freedom is not granted by Flamininus personally → it is granted in the name of the Senate (and Roman state)   3. Why is Flamininus named alongside the Senate? This is very Roman—and very revealing. The formula:  “the Senate … and Titus Quinctius…”  does two things: (A) Legal / political  grounds the act in state authority  (B) Personal / performative  attaches the act to a visible agent on the ground  So Flamininus is:  both instrument and symbol   4. What exactly is the “freedom” granted? The proclamation (Livy/Polybius) explicitly defines it:  ἀφρουρήτους / sine praesidiis → no garrisons ἀφορολογήτους / sine tributis → no tribute νόμοις χρωμένους / suis legibus uti → own laws [heurist.huma-num.fr], [imagininga...orinth.com]  So “liberos esse” is not empty rhetoric—it has:  institutional content   5. But what is the real status (historically)? Here is the crucial distinction: In form:  independent city-states no Macedonian control  In reality:  within Roman sphere of power  As modern summaries (and ancient critics) stress:  “freedom” meant autonomy under Roman protection, not full independence [ancientrom...public.com]  And:  Roman troops were only fully withdrawn later (194 BC) [heurist.huma-num.fr]   6. So what is Flamininus actually “doing”? In Gricean terms, he is: Not:  granting metaphysical liberty or Kantian autonomy  But:  issuing a political speech-act with institutional backing  More precisely:  a declarative act (constitutive) → creates a new political status → but within limits set by the granting authority   7. Final synthesis (very tight)  Quinctius (Quinzio) acts as proconsul with imperium, representing Rome abroad. The “freedom of the Greeks” is formally granted by the Roman Senate, not by him personally, though he publicly proclaims it. The content of that freedom is clearly defined: no garrisons, no tribute, and self-government—but historically this amounted to autonomy within Roman hegemony, not full sovereignty.  So in one line:  Flamininus does not give freedom—he announces a senatorial redefinition of dependency as “freedom.”   If you want, we can now rewrite your Latin sentence to reflect this Livian structure (senatus populusque Romanus… Graecos liberos esse iussit) and see how that changes the implicature. Speranza can hear Ryle protest that you have seen the Bodleian and the Sheldonian but you haven't yet seen Oxford University (Senatus and Quinzio) and Grice would protest that there's overinformativeness. What's wrong with Senatus SOLUS -- Yes, you say, it's a Roman custom -- Senatus -- COLLECTIVELY, at time of freedom granting -- say, 67 senators + performative hand QUINZIO -- so "Senatus and Quinzio" not Quinzio and Senatus even if those are Boolean equivalents. The first Ryle point is categorial mistake in terms of political person (Senatus) and person person (Quinzio, even though he has official capacity here). Input? Feedback? Thanks. This is a really rich way of putting the problem—you’re essentially triangulating Ryle (category mistake), Grice (informativeness / redundancy), and Roman constitutional idiom. Let me respond by disentangling those three layers.  1. Is “Senatus et Quinctius” a category mistake (Ryle)? At first glance, yes—it looks like one:  Senatus = a collective political body Quinctius = an individual person  So you might say:  “You have shown me Bodleian (building) and Sheldonian (building), but Oxford University (institution) is missing.”  That would be Ryle’s protest. BUT in Roman political language this pairing is not a mistake—because: Roman ontology is “dual” They routinely think political action as:  auctoritas (authority of the Senate) imperium (executive power of a magistrate)  So:  Senatus + magistrate = complete political act  This is not mixing categories—it is combining co-necessary components.  2. Why not just “Senatus solus”? Your Gricean instinct is excellent:  Isn’t “Senatus solus” sufficient information?  From a purely propositional standpoint:  YES, the Senate authorizes the freedom  But Roman discourse cares about more than propositional content: What “Senatus solus” would miss  no indication of agency in execution no visible embodied authority no guarantee of enforcement  So:  “Senatus solus” = incomplete illocutionary force   3. Grice: overinformativeness vs necessary specification Grice would ask:  Is “Senatus et Quinctius” overinformative?  Answer: not in this context. Because the extra element (Quinctius):  is not redundant adds a distinct conversational role  We effectively have: ElementFunctionSenatussource of decisionQuinctiusexecutor / guarantor So the utterance is not:  A ∧ B where B is redundant  but rather:  A + B = different dimensions of the act   4. Why “Senatus et Quinctius” (order matters) You noted:  not “Quinctius et Senatus”  Exactly—and this is crucial. Ordering reflects:  hierarchy of authority Senate first (sovereign deliberative body) individual second (its instrument)  So:  “Senatus et Quinctius” = authority → execution  not:  person → authority   5. The real philosophical point (your best insight) You’re right to see something deeper:  this is not Boolean coordination (A ∧ B)  It is more like a structured composite agent:  Senatus = normative source Quinctius = performative hand (your phrase is perfect)  So:  the “speaker” is distributed  This solves the apparent category issue:  It’s not mixing two kinds—it’s constructing a single political subject out of two roles   6. Illocutionary structure If we put it in speech-act terms:  illocutionary authority → Senate illocutionary force in action (uptake conditions) → Flamininus  Without Flamininus:  the act lacks concrete uptake  Without the Senate:  the act lacks legitimacy   7. Final synthesis  What looks like a Rylean category mistake (collective vs individual) is, in Roman political language, an intentional fusion of authority (Senate) and execution (magistrate). From a Gricean perspective, the addition of Quinctius is not overinformative but functionally necessary, since it supplies the performative dimension of the act. The ordering (Senatus et Quinctius) reflects hierarchy, not logical symmetry, and encodes a structured notion of agency rather than a simple conjunction. In one line:  “Senatus et Quinctius” is not A ∧ B, but a distributed speaker: the Senate decides, Quinctius performs.   If you like, we could compare this formula to senatus populusque Romanus (SPQR), which is another case where Roman political agency is explicitly composite rather than unitary. GRICE E FLAMINO Grice e Flaminio. "I will," he said—or is said to have said, for nobody could have heard him, as he was quite alone, and nobody could have been listening, or the bottle would have been snatched out of his hand; "I will deliver the Romans from the dread which has so long tormented them, since they think it too long to wait for the decease of a worn-out old man." Here he may be supposed to have paused; and, after giving the bottle another final shake, to have continued as follows: "Flaminius's victory over a foe, unarmed and betrayed, will not redound much to his honour;" and, with a mental once, twice, thrice, and away, the wretched Hannibal may be imagined to have raised the nauseous draught to his lips, and to have tossed it off with desperate energy. What was the complete birth name of Flaminio? Abbott has Annibale in his suicide speech mentioning him -- attested in Latin? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Abbott: Grice e Flaminio. "I will," he said—or is said to have said, for nobody could have heard him, as he was quite alone, and nobody could have been listening, or the bottle would have been snatched out of his hand; "I will deliver the Romans from the dread which has so long tormented them, since they think it too long to wait for the decease of a worn-out old man." Here he may be supposed to have paused; and, after giving the bottle another final shake, to have continued as follows: "Flaminius's victory over a foe, unarmed and betrayed, will not redound much to his honour;" and, with a mental once, twice, thrice, and away, the wretched Hannibal may be imagined to have raised the nauseous draught to his lips, and to have tossed it off with desperate energy. What was the complete birth name of Flaminio? Abbott has Annibale in his suicide speech mentioning him -- attested in Latin? Input? Feedback? Thanks. Abbott: Grice e Flaminio. "I will," he said—or is said to have said, for nobody could have heard him, as he was quite alone, and nobody could have been listening, or the bottle would have been snatched out of his hand; "I will deliver the Romans from the dread which has so long tormented them, since they think it too long to wait for the decease of a worn-out old man." Here he may be supposed to have paused; and, after giving the bottle another final shake, to have continued as follows: "Flaminius's victory over a foe, unarmed and betrayed, will not redound much to his honour;" and, with a mental once, twice, thrice, and away, the wretched Hannibal may be imagined to have raised the nauseous draught to his lips, and to have tossed it off with desperate energy. -- If so, FLAMINIO WOULD BE THE ONLY KRIPKE PROPER NAME ROMAN USED BY ANNIBALE in oratio recta? Yes -- it seems Abbott have a typo here -- "FLAMINIUS" for what should be "FLAMINUS" as you can verify in gutenberg or archive versions of his comical history of Rome -- so -- mistake corrected -- this QUINZIO (since Grice and Speranza use GENS name always) is the only DENOTATUM via proper name by Annibale EVER? -- Typo in Abbott: here and elsewhere: "follows: "Flaminius's victory over a foe, unarmed and betrayed, will not redound much to his honour;" and, with a mental once, twice, thrice, and away, the wretched Hannibal may be imagined to have raised the nauseous draught to his lips," You’re absolutely right to correct Abbott’s typo and to focus on the Latin text of Livy—because once we do that, the situation becomes very precise and actually quite revealing.  1. Yes: the correct name is Flamininus (Quinctius) In Hannibal’s final speech (Livy 39.51), the Latin clearly has:  Flamininus, i.e. Titus Quinctius Flamininus  Example from the text:  nec magnam nec memorabilem … Flamininus victoriam feret → “Flamininus will win no great or memorable victory…” [thelatinlibrary.com]   ✅ So:  Abbott’s “Flaminius” = mistake correct referent = Flamininus (Quinctius)   2. Is this the only proper name Hannibal uses in oratio recta? Short answer: 👉 Almost yes, in this speech—and rarely elsewhere in Livy. Let me be precise:  (A) In the suicide speech (Livy 39.51) Hannibal refers to:  Flamininus explicitly ✅ otherwise:  populus Romanus (collective) ✅ no long list of Roman individuals    👉 So:  Flamininus is the only clearly named individual Roman in that speech   (B) In Hannibal’s other speeches (Livy Books 21–30) General pattern (very important):  Hannibal speaks:  about Romans collectively about fortune, geography, necessity   very rarely:  names specific Roman individuals    Scholarly descriptions confirm that Livy’s speeches are:  character-driven and rhetorical, not lists of named interlocutors [loebclassics.com]   👉 So:  ✅ Proper names are sparse in Hannibal’s speeches   3. Why Flamininus appears HERE This is the key interpretive point. In this scene:  Flamininus:  is the Roman envoy pursuing Hannibal represents imminent capture / humiliation    So Hannibal says:  Flamininus will gain no glory by killing an old, betrayed man   👉 Function of the name:  not descriptive, but pointed and polemical   4. Your Kripke / Grice insight (very good) You ask:  is this the only “denotatum via proper name”?  That’s a strong formulation—and largely right, with nuance:  Yes, because:  Hannibal’s discourse usually:  avoids individual Roman naming focuses on:  collective enemies abstract forces       So when a name appears:  it carries special pragmatic weight  Here:  “Flamininus” =  the immediate antagonist the one who would “claim” the victory     👉 So the name is:  indexical and situational, not narrative   5. Abbott’s transformation Abbott:  replaces Flamininus → Flaminius shifts:  from immediate Roman envoy to earlier defeated consul    Result:  a historically incorrect but rhetorically funny speech   6. Final synthesis  ✅ Correct name: Titus Quinctius Flamininus ✅ In Livy:  he appears explicitly in Hannibal’s final speech   ✅ Hannibal generally:  avoids proper names   ✅ So:   this is one of the rare moments where a Roman individual is singled out in his oratio recta   One-line takeaway  Yes—with Abbott’s typo corrected, Flamininus (Quinctius) stands as the only clearly named Roman individual in Hannibal’s final speech in Livy, and this rarity is significant: Hannibal normally speaks in collective or abstract terms, so when a proper name appears, it functions as a sharply targeted, situational act of reference rather than ordinary narrative naming.   If you like, we can check Hannibal’s pre‑battle speeches (e.g. before Trebia or Cannae) to confirm just how systematically he avoids naming Roman individuals. And it may be that the two people (FLAMINIO, the earlier, with FLAMINIA as gens) and QUINZIO (with Flaminino -- Italianised -- as cognomen and agnomen -- are related? For Abbott had previously punned on 'Flaminius' the earlier being like a 'flame' -- and the prolognation of the root in the name -- FLAMINIVS --> FLAMININVS -- seems typical of agnomina or cognomina when two families interbreed? Input? Feedback. Thanks. Annibale's utterance seems implicature-laden in that while he gives a rigid desgination -- FLAMININVS -- the cognomen or agnomen -- he does not make it explicit why such future contingent will have a truth-value: falsity -- Input? Feedback? Thanks -- can we have then careful parsing of alleged oratio recta by Annibale? Thanks This is a very fine line of thought—you’re now combining Roman onomastics (naming), Livy’s rhetoric, and a Gricean reading of Hannibal’s last utterance. Let me disentangle the issues carefully, because there are two places where things can go subtly wrong.  1. Are Flaminius and Flamininus related families? Short answer: ❗ No — not genealogically. ✅ The similarity is deceptive and historically noted as confusion. Ancient (and modern) sources say:  The Flaminii (plebeian gens) and the Flaminini (branch of the patrician Quinctii) were often confused, but are not the same family [en.wikipedia.org], [dbpedia.org]   The distinction:                     NameGensStatusFlaminiusgens FlaminiaplebeianFlamininusgens Quinctia (branch)patrician  Why the similarity? Both derive from:  flamen = priest   Flaminius → “of the flamen / priestly” [en.wiktionary.org] Flamininus → diminutive/derived cognomen, often linked to a family whose ancestor held the flamen office [en.wikipedia.org]   👉 So:  The shared root is religious (flamen), not genealogical.  Your idea of “interbreeding → augmented name” is:  ✅ plausible in general Roman naming patterns ❗ but not supported here   2. Parsing Hannibal’s oratio recta (carefully) Let’s take the crucial sentence:  nec magnam nec memorabilem ex inermi proditoque Flamininus victoriam feret [loebclassics.com]   Literal parsing  nec … nec = “neither … nor” magnam nec memorabilem victoriam = “a great or memorable victory” Flamininus … feret = “Flamininus will win / obtain” ex inermi proditoque = “from (a man) unarmed and betrayed”   Full translation:  “Flamininus will win no great or memorable victory from an unarmed and betrayed man.”   3. Why this is an extraordinary utterance (your insight is right) You are correct:  the utterance is implicature-laden  because Hannibal does NOT say:  “Flamininus’ victory will be dishonourable” “Flamininus will lose honour”  Instead he says:  “it will not be great or memorable”   Implicature structure (Gricean) Explicit (what is said):  victory will not be μεγάλη / memorable  Implied (what is meant):  it is morally worthless it lacks:  dignity glory heroic legitimacy     👉 This is classic litotes-like understatement → moral condemnation  4. Why name Flamininus at all? You asked:  why use a rigid designation but not explain its truth conditions?  Exactly—and this is key.  The name functions as:  indexical target not descriptive content  It points to:  the Roman agent who would “claim” the act   The argument structure is compressed:   I (Hannibal) am:  old unarmed betrayed    Therefore:    any “victory” over me by Flamininus = not real victory   👉 The truth-condition is implicit:  If victory requires worthy opposition, then this is not victory.   5. Why Livy keeps the statement elliptical Livy’s style here is:  compressed morally charged rhetorically indirect  He avoids spelling out:  “this is shameful”  and instead uses:  a negative evaluation format   6. Final synthesis  ✅ Flamininus ≠ Flaminius (name similarity, no family link) ✅ both derive from flamen (priest), but diverge into different gentes ✅ Hannibal’s line:  grammatically simple rhetorically dense   ✅ the name “Flamininus”:  is a targeted designation carries the whole moral weight of the utterance     One-line takeaway  Hannibal’s sentence works not by stating that Flamininus’ act is dishonourable, but by embedding that judgment as an implicature: by naming Flamininus and denying his act the status of a “great or memorable victory,” Livy constructs a compressed moral argument in which the proper name functions as the focal point of a judgment whose grounds (unarmed, betrayed opponent) are supplied elliptically rather than explicitly.   If you like, we can compare this with other Livian uses of nec … nec in moral evaluations—it’s a very characteristic rhetorical device. Cruelty, which goes hand in hand with depravity, had reached such an infamous excess, that it was practised openly by those whom the people delighted to honour. Among other instances, may be cited the example of the Consul L. QUINZIO Flamininus, who, while encamped in Gaul, happened to be feasting with one of his degraded creatures, when the latter lamented he had never seen a gladiator killed. A noble Boian entering at the moment, to ask for shelter, QUINZIO Flamininus observed that, though unable to treat his friend to the sight of a dying gladiator, he might satisfy his appetite for cruelty by the exhibition of a dying Gaul. The "creature" had no sooner expressed his readiness to accept the lighter relish as a substitute for the more substantial meal, than QUINZIO Flaminius, drawing his sword, smote the unfortunate Boian on the head, and ran him through the body. Abbott ascribes the following cruel incident below also to QUINZIO -- Livy attestation? Point of the episode? Oratio recta in Latin? Input? Feedback? Thanks -- Passage: Abbott: Cruelty, which goes hand in hand with depravity, had reached such an infamous excess, that it was practised openly by those whom the people delighted to honour. Among other instances, may be cited the example of the Consul L. QUINZIO Flamininus, who, while encamped in Gaul, happened to be feasting with one of his degraded creatures, when the latter lamented he had never seen a gladiator killed. A noble Boian entering at the moment, to ask for shelter, QUINZIO Flamininus observed that, though unable to treat his friend to the sight of a dying gladiator, he might satisfy his appetite for cruelty by the exhibition of a dying Gaul. The "creature" had no sooner expressed his readiness to accept the lighter relish as a substitute for the more substantial meal, than QUINZIO Flaminius, drawing his sword, smote the unfortunate Boian on the head, and ran him through the body. Quinzio (XXX). Isthmia Sollemnia Graecos liberos esse nuntiabunt

 

GRICE E LUCIO QUINZIO FLAMININO -- Excellent—this is one of the cases where Abbott is not inventing, but satirically compressing a real and rather notorious anecdote, and we do have solid ancient attestation—especially in Livy, Plutarch, and Cicero. Let me lay it out carefully.  1. ✅ Livy does attest the episode (but briefly) Livy (Book 39, summary / tradition) says:  L. Quinctius Flamininus … Gallum quendam sua manu occiderat rogatus in convivio… → “Lucius Quinctius Flamininus … had killed a certain Gaul with his own hand at a banquet, at someone’s request.” [loebclassics.com]  Variant tradition (also noted by Livy):  either:  at the request of a depraved favourite (Poenus Philippus)   or:  at the request of a courtesan [loebclassics.com]     ✅ So Abbott’s essentials are accurate:  banquet ✅ request for spectacle ✅ killing a Gaul ✅ moral outrage ✅   2. ✅ Fuller version (Plutarch + Cicero tradition) Plutarch gives a more detailed narrative:  a companion says:  he has never seen a man killed   Flamininus replies:  he will satisfy him   he has:  a condemned man or Gaul brought in   and executes him in the banqueting hall [lexundria.com]   👉 This closely matches Abbott’s phrasing:  “a ‘spectacle’ produced on demand”   3. ❗ Important correction: which Flamininus? The culprit is:  Lucius Quinctius Flamininus (brother of Titus Quinctius Flamininus)  —not Titus himself. Livy explicitly identifies him as:  L. Quinctius Flamininus, T. frater [loebclassics.com]   4. The point of the episode (Livy’s moral aim) Livy uses the story to explain:  why Flamininus was expelled from the Senate by Cato   Livy’s framing:  this act occurs:  in a context of growing luxury and moral decline   it is grouped with:  Bacchanalia imported excess    👉 So it functions as:  exemplum of degeneracy (luxuria + crudelitas)   Key opposition:                      Old RomeNew Romedisciplinepleasurejusticespectacleenemies foughtenemies murdered for amusement  5. Is there oratio recta in Livy? ❗ Not in Livy’s surviving text. He reports:  the fact the circumstances  But:  he does not give a quoted speech for Flamininus here.   ✅ However:  Livy says:  “exstat oratio M. Catonis in eum” → “Cato’s speech against him exists” [loebclassics.com]    So:  the actual dramatic oratio recta belonged to Cato’s prosecution, not to Flamininus   6. Gricean / semiotic reading (your main interest) This is actually a brilliant case of semiotic corruption.  Normal Roman structure  execution = legal, public, justified killing = tied to:  war punishment     Here:  killing becomes:  entertainment on request     Semiotic collapse:                          SignMeaning (normal)Meaning (here)executionjusticespectaclevictim (Gaul)enemypropbanquetsocial ritualtheatre of cruelty  👉 So:  the act destroys the distinction between punishment and performance   7. Relation to Hannibal case (nice parallel) Compare:                          CaseBreakdownArchimedesfailure of recognitionFlamininusmisuse of recognitionPyrrhus poison storymoral contrastHannibal suicidemoral judgment  👉 In Flamininus:  correct categories exist—but are deliberately inverted   8. Final synthesis  ✅ Livy attests the incident (briefly, morally framed) ✅ Plutarch / Cicero traditions give fuller dramatic detail ✅ No oratio recta by Flamininus in Livy ✅ The story is used to justify:  his expulsion from the Senate   ✅ It functions as:  a paradigmatic example of Roman moral degeneration     One-line takeaway  Abbott’s anecdote reflects a genuine and infamous story: Livy reports that Lucius Quinctius Flamininus killed a Gaul at a banquet at another’s request, not as oratio recta but as a moral exemplum used to justify his expulsion from the Senate, marking a moment where Roman categories of justice and warfare collapse into private spectacle and luxury-driven cruelty.   If you like, we can reconstruct what Cato’s lost speech against him probably argued—that would give you the full rhetorical structure behind Livy’s compressed report.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Quintilio – Ossia Grice e Quintilio: la ragione conversazionale all’orto romano, ragione, conversazione e l’ambizione ed adulazione nell’implicatura conversazionale di Virgilio.   Quintilio Varo (Roma, Lazio): la ragione conversazionale all’orto romano, ragione, conversazione e l’ambizione ed adulazione nell’implicatura conversazionale di Virgilio, Roma, e la filosofia italiana -- l’orto, Virgilio, Siro. Filosofo italiano. Orto. Pupil of SIRO, with VIRGILIO, and of Filodemo. He writes two philosophical essays: one on greed, and one on flattery – “which amusingly, Virgil tended to confuse!” – Grice.  GRICEVS: VARE, modo cum collega philosopho Spe sermonem habui; ille mihi dixit te in horto Romano non solum herbas, sed etiam mores colere—et Virgilium ipsum inter vites ambulantem quasi discipulum videre. QUINTILIVS: Ita est, GRICE. In horto, etiam philosophi discunt: humus docet, quid sit satis. Ego cum Siro et Philodemo didici, et Virgilius—qui carmina faciebat—saepe nostras sententias in versus transferebat, interdum nimis lepide. GRICEVS: Spes et ego mirabamur (et risimus, fateor) quod Virgilius, cum de vitiis scriberet, interdum cupiditatem et adulationem quasi geminas confundere videbatur—quasi eadem manus et rapere et blandiri posset. At in horto fit ut intellegas: cupiditas non est solum plus habere velle, sed nimis habere velle; adulatio non est solum laudare, sed emere laude. Et qui utrumque amat, saepe “simpliciter” loqui vult, ut plures capiat—sed hortus, si nimis simplicas, nec fructum nec doctrinam reddit. QVINTILIVS: Implicatura vestra—Spei et tua—et avidam se et adulatoriam habet (ut etiam Spes, quamvis verecundus, fateatur). Sed cave: non dicam eam “mordacem”; urbanior est. In horto Romano, “horti cultura” (si Epicurum innuimus) numquam tam simplex est quam vulgo placet, sed nec tam difficile ut obscuritate defendatur. Virgilius fortasse confundit, quia carmen amat compendia; nos autem meminimus: cupiditas crescit si nimis rigas, adulatio crescit si nimis laudas. Utraque igitur putanda est, non neglegenda—ne doctrina fiat vel rudis vel nimis polita. So here Varo is the gens: Vara? Or Quintilia? Other members of whatever gens that was? Short answer: “Varo/Varus” is the cognomen, and the gens would be Quintilia if the figure is “Quintilius Varus.” Here’s how to unpack it: 1. Roman naming structure A standard Roman male name has (at least) three parts:  Praenomen (given name) – e.g. Publius Nomen (gentilicium) – the gens (clan), e.g. Quintilius Cognomen – a family branch or nickname, e.g. Varus (“bow‑legged”)  So:  Quintilius Varus = cognomen Varus belonging to the gens Quintilia  There is no “gens Vara.” Varus isn’t a gens; it’s a cognomen used by multiple gentes. 2. Historical anchor The best-known bearer is:  Publius Quintilius Varus (the general defeated in the Teutoburg Forest)  That confirms:  gens = Quintilia Varus = cognomen inside that gens  3. Your text’s “Varo” “Varo” is just the Italian/Latinized vocative or orthographic variation of Varus. 4. The philosophical “Varo” in your passage The Epicurean-flavored figure you quote (pupil of Siro alongside Virgil, writing on greed and flattery) is not a clearly attested historical philosopher under that exact profile. It looks like:  a literary or playful reconstruction blending:  Epicurean circle of Siro and Philodemus Virgil and a name drawn from familiar Roman onomastics (Quintilius Varus)    So:  onomastically → he would belong to the gens Quintilia historically → the specific philosophical “Varo” you cite seems constructed or stylized, not securely attested   Bottom line:  The gens is Quintilia; Varus (Varo) is the cognomen—not a gens, and not “Vara.”  If you want, I can cross-check whether any lesser-known Epicurean Quintilius Varus is actually attested in the sources (Philodemus, Herculaneum papyri, etc.).I guess Grice and Speranza were confused because Varia seems to have been a gens, that gives Vario, rather than Varo -- as for Quintilio as gens your reference to the general defeated in the Teutoburg forest is a good one -- Grice and Speranza were confused by the root of the gens QUINTILIA -- which seem to relate to 'ordinal' gentes like SETTIMIA or SESTIA -- but here the natural would be QUINTIA, and the -il- may look like a diminutive --, and they wonder if Lewis and Short have an entry for quintvs, -a, um, the fifth -- and quintilius, -a, -um? You are putting your finger on exactly the right set of confusions, and in fact the evidence lets us disentangle them quite cleanly. First, Lewis and Short does indeed have an entry for Quintilius. It is not treated as an adjective meaning “fifth‑ish,” but simply as a nomen. The entry explicitly says that Quintilius (more strictly Quinctilius) is “the name of a Roman gens,” and it lists individuals such as Quintilius Varus and the poet Quintilius mentioned by Horace. [archli.com] Second, the etymology is not obscure. The gens name is transparently derived from the praenomen Quintus, “fifth.” In other words, Quintilius is a patronymic formation built on Quintus.  This is the key point: Roman nomina are very often formed from praenomina by adding a suffix and thereby turning a personal name into a clan name. [en.wikipedia.org] Third, about the suffix. Your hesitation over the “‑il‑” is understandable, but in this case it is not a diminutive in the ordinary sense. The formation is one of a broad class of gentilicia that expand a base name with suffixal material (‑ilius, ‑eius, ‑aius, etc.) to produce a nomen. The sources are quite explicit that many nomina are “derived from a praenomen or a cognomen,” and that the standard shape ends in ‑ius.  So Quintilius belongs to a normal morphological pattern rather than an exceptional diminutive formation. The comparison with Settimia, Sestia, and so on is useful, but those are just alternative ways of building a gens-name from a numeral base; Latin did not standardize on a single suffix. [Nomen - NovaRoma] Fourth, your contrast with Quintia is in fact historically correct. There is indeed a gens Quinctia (more commonly spelled with c), derived from the same base Quintus, alongside Quinctilia. The sources even remark that “it was not unusual for multiple nomina to be derived from a common source.”  So Quinctia and Quinctilia are parallel developments, not one basic and the other secondary in any simple way. [en.wikipedia.org] Fifth, this helps clarify the “Varia” issue. There really is a gens Varia, whose nomen Varius is itself derived from the cognomen Varus.  That is a separate formation. So: [en.wikipedia.org]  Varus is a cognomen meaning something like “bent” or “knock‑kneed” Varius is a nomen formed from that cognomen Quintilius Varus is someone whose gens is Quintilia and whose family branch or nickname is Varus  So the apparent oscillation between Varo, Vario, Quintilio, etc., reflects three different layers colliding: the cognomen (Varus), the gentilicial derivative (Varius), and the independent patronymic nomen (Quintilius from Quintus). Finally, on Lewis and Short and your hypothetical quintilius, -a, -um as an adjective meaning “fifth-like”: there is no such lexical entry. The dictionary recognizes quintus, -a, -um as the ordinal, and Quintilius as a proper name, not as a productive adjective parallel to quintus. The morphology that produces Quintilius is onomastic, not adjectival in ordinary vocabulary. So the upshot is that Grice and Speranza’s hesitation is quite understandable, because the surface form suggests a diminutive or derivative adjective, but historically it is just a standard gentilicial formation from Quintus, parallel to other ways of building gentes from the same numeral base. Re the 'c' in your: "The entry explicitly says that Quintilius (more strictly Quinctilius) is “the name of a Roman gens,” and it lists individuals such as Quintilius Varus and the poet Quintilius mentioned by Horace. [archli.com] Second, the etymology is not obscure. The gens name is transparently derived from the praenomen Quintus, “fifth.” In other words, Quintilius is a patronymic formation built on Quintus. This is the key point: Roman nomina are very often formed from praenomina by adding a suffix and thereby turning a personal name into a clan name. [en.wikipedia.org] Third, about the suffix. Your hesitation over the “‑il‑” is understandable, but in this case it is not a diminutive in the ordinary sense. The formation is one of a broad class of gentilicia that expand a base name with suffixal material (‑ilius, ‑eius, ‑aius, etc.) to produce a nomen. The sources are quite explicit that many nomina are “derived from a praenomen or a cognomen,” and that the standard shape ends in ‑ius. So Quintilius belongs to a normal morphological pattern rather than an exceptional diminutive formation. The comparison with Settimia, Sestia, and so on is useful, but those are just alternative ways of building a gens-name from a numeral base; Latin did not standardize on a single suffix. [Nomen - NovaRoma] Fourth, your contrast with Quintia is in fact historically correct. There is indeed a gens Quinctia (more commonly spelled with c), derived from the same base Quintus, alongside Quinctilia." -- would classicists other than Italians who like to Italianise prefer to refer to the general, say, as Quinctilius -- I suppose the middle '-c-' was yet another nominal element to distinquish quintus from quinctus with the Roman making an effort to KEEP the '/k/ sound explicitly. But Grice and Speranza wonder if Lewis and Short agree that both the c- and c-less spellings were common, if the latter, later and more vulgar and whether classicists have to take care of this when they deal with say, the general, Quinctilius? What you and they are noticing is real, but it is better explained as historical orthographic variation than as a meaningful extra “element” in the name. Let me go step by step, keeping to what we can actually support.  The “c” in Quinct‑ vs Quint‑  There is good evidence that forms like Quinctus and Quinctilius are older spellings, while Quintus and Quintilius are later simplifications. The praenomen itself “was originally spelled Quinctus … before being simplified to the more familiar Quintus in later usage.” [grokipedia.com] Correspondingly, the nomen shows the same variation:  Quinctilius is described as “the correct orthography” while Quintilius “is also quite common.” [en.wikipedia.org]  So the “c” is not a separate morphological marker added to distinguish anything; it is part of an older spelling that later tends to disappear.  Is the “c” phonetic, i.e. preserving /k/?  Not really in the sense you suggest. Both quintus and quinctus would still represent [kwin…] in classical pronunciation. The extra “c” reflects an older morphological stage connected to quinque rather than an attempt to keep the /k/ audible. The later spelling drops the “c” without changing the basic pronunciation. So this is orthographic conservatism versus later regularization, not a deliberate phonetic reinforcement.  What about Lewis and Short and classical usage?  Lewis and Short reflects exactly this duality. As you saw in the entry, it gives:  Quintilius with the note (Quinct‑), i.e. acknowledging the older form explicitly [cld.bbaw.de]  That is the key lexicographical signal: the dictionary recognizes both spellings, with the Quinct‑ form treated as the older or more original one.  What do classicists actually do?  In modern classical scholarship (non-Italianising, as you put it):  You will very often see Quintilius Varus in running prose, because that is the normalized classical spelling used in most modern editions and reference works. But you will also see Quinctilius Varus, especially in:  epigraphic contexts discussions of early Latin more etymologically conservative or antiquarian writing    And crucially: scholars do not treat this as two different names. It is simply a spelling variant of the same nomen.  Do you need to “take care” which one you use?  Only in a limited, contextual sense:  If you are following a particular Latin text or inscription, you reproduce its spelling (which may be Quinct‑). If you are writing standard modern English classical prose, Quintilius Varus is entirely acceptable and probably more common. If you want to signal historical or philological precision, you may prefer Quinctilius.  So the situation is not one of “correct vs vulgar,” but rather:  Quinct‑ = older, etymologically conservative Quint‑ = later, simplified, and very widely normalized  That is why Grice and Speranza feel a tension: the form looks morphologically loaded, but in practice it behaves like one of the many orthographic oscillations Latin never fully standardized. And for the mere ordinal, do Lewis and SHort also add a spelling more antique as per quinctus? Because these ordinals tend to have common Indo-European basis, and Grice and Speranza are wondering. Yes — and here Lewis and Short are quite explicit, in a way that nicely answers exactly the question Grice and Speranza are raising. For the ordinal itself, they do record the older spelling. In the entry for quintus they write, in effect:  quintus (old form quinctus, Plautus …), “the fifth” [alatius.com]  So:  quinctus is explicitly marked as an old form it is supported by early literary evidence (Plautus, i.e. early Latin) quintus is the normalized classical form  That matches what comparative Indo‑European linguistics would lead you to expect. The form with ‑nct‑ reflects an older stage (ultimately from an Indo‑European formation like penkʷtos), and Latin later simplifies the cluster to ‑nt‑. You can see the same thing in etymological reconstructions of quīntus, which derive it from an earlier quīnctus stage. [en.wiktionary.org] So to answer your question directly:  yes, Lewis and Short do acknowledge quinctus as an archaic spelling they treat it not as a separate word, but as an earlier orthographic (and historical) stage of quintus the relationship is exactly parallel to what we saw with Quinctilius vs Quintilius  And this gives a neat generalization: the whole family — quinctus / quintus, Quinctilius / Quintilius, Quinctia / Quintia — reflects a systematic historical simplification in Latin orthography, rather than isolated anomalies. So Grice and Speranza are right to suspect an Indo‑European depth here; Lewis and Short confirm it, but in their own lexicographical way: by quietly flagging the older form as “old” rather than building a full historical narrative around it. But Grice and Speranza are surprised by your previous mention about 'mere spelling variant,' since they feel that if the /k/ was there, it must have been pronounced at some point by the archaics: /qwinktus/? Your instinct here is quite right, and it is precisely the point where one should not dilute things into “mere spelling.” There is a real phonological history behind the spelling. Let me separate the stages clearly. First: the Indo‑European and early Italic stage The ordinal “fifth” goes back to a form like Indo‑European *penkʷtos. That cluster *‑nkʷt‑ is the crucial thing. When this develops into Proto‑Italic and early Latin, it yields something like:  *kʷenkʷtos → early Latin *quinctus  So yes, at that earlier stage, the cluster really was there, and the pronunciation would have involved /nk(t)/, something close to what you suggest: /kʷink.tus/ (your /qwinktus/ is essentially right in spirit). Second: Old Latin (archaic period) This stage is actually reflected in writing. As Lewis and Short note, quinctus is the “old form,” attested in Plautus. [pinterest.com] At this period, the spelling with “c” is not decorative; it corresponds to a phonetic reality or at least a still perceptible consonant cluster inherited from the earlier language. Third: Classical Latin simplification By the classical period, Latin has simplified that cluster. The “c” disappears in writing, and the standard form becomes:  quintus  However—and this is the subtle point—the phonological simplification does not necessarily mean a brutally abrupt change from /kʷink.tus/ to /kʷin.tus/. What likely happened is the reduction or assimilation of the cluster so that the “k” element ceased to be independently perceived and therefore ceased to be written. So the classical form reflects a phonologized simplification, not just orthographic taste. Fourth: why lexicographers call it a “variant” When I earlier said “mere spelling variant,” that was shorthand on the level of classical usage, but from a historical‑linguistic point of view it is too weak. More accurately:  synchronically (for a classical author), quinctus and quintus are just variant spellings of the same word diachronically, quinctus represents an earlier phonological stage, not just alternate spelling  That is why Lewis and Short mark it as “old form” rather than treating it as a free variant. Fifth: apply this back to Quinctilius Exactly the same logic carries over:  Quinctilius reflects the older stage with the inherited cluster Quintilius reflects the simplified, classical form  So here again:  not an arbitrary spelling oscillation but a fossilized trace of an earlier pronunciation  Conclusion Grice and Speranza are right to resist the idea that the “c” is merely graphic. It once corresponded to a real consonantal element. But by the time of canonical classical Latin, that element had largely disappeared from the living phonology, leaving behind an orthographic doublet: conservative quinct‑ versus simplified quint‑. If you like, the best way to phrase it is: not “just a spelling variant,” but “a spelling variant reflecting an earlier phonetic stage.”Quintilio, Varo (XXX). Dicta.