Grex

 To capture the analytical spirit of Luigi Speranza—who famously blends H. P. Grice’s pragmatic philosophy with classical antiquarianism—we must look to Rome’s foundational boundary dispute.

The most pivotal, tragic exchange occurs during the Augurium on the Palatine and Aventine hills, recorded in its most celebrated archaic Latin form by the early Roman poet Ennius in his Annales (Fragment 78-100), and later contextualized by historians like Livy.

Following your preference for Speranza’s style, the interlocutors are named in Italian (Romolo and Remo), the dialogue is rendered in classical Latin, and the implicature analysis is decoded in English.

---

The Proto-Roman Exchange

The dispute concerns who has the divine mandate to found and name the city (Roma or Remora). Remo sees six vultures first; Romolo later sees twelve. Remo leaps over the freshly plowed, sacred mud wall (pomerium) in mockery to prove how easily the city can be breached.

          [ Remo's Utterance & Act ]
           "An tuo hoc muro..." 
             (Flouting Relation)
                     │
                     ▼
          [ Romolo's Implicature ]
       "Sic deinde, quicumque alius..."
   (Establishes a Performative Legal Rule)

1. L'enunciazione di Remo (The Utterance by Remo)

As Remo vaults over the boundary line, he mockingly addresses his brother, deriding the defense of the future city:

"An tuo hoc muro tuti erunt cives tui?"
(Will your citizens truly be safe behind this wall of yours?)

2. La risposta di Romolo (The Response by Romolo)

Romolo, filled with divine rage at the sacrilege (violatio pomerii), strikes his brother down, uttering the fatal foundational law of Rome:

"Sic deinde, quicumque alius transiliet moenia mea!"
(So perish anyone else who shall leap over my walls!)

---

Implicature Analysis à la Grice & Speranza

In a typical Speranzian analysis, this interaction is a masterclass in how a seemingly straightforward physical and verbal provocation triggers a deep, system-altering conversational implicature.

1. Paul Grice’s Maxims: Remo’s Flouting

• Flouting the Maxim of Relation (Relevance): On the surface, Remo is asking a practical question about structural engineering and military fortification (whether a low mud wall can stop an invader). However, within the context of a sacred founding ritual, the physical structure is secondary to the divine law it represents. By treating a cosmic boundary as a mere physical hurdle, Remo flouts the Maxim of Relation.
• The Conversational Implicature of Remo: His utterance and accompanying leap imply that Romolo’sclaim to kingship is weak, childish, and easily bypassed. It is a pragmatic refusal to cooperate in the "city-founding game."

2. Romolo’s Implicature (The English Decoding)

Romolo’s violent verbal response acts as a radical reshaping of the conversational context. He does not argue about the height of the wall. Instead, he generates a massive, non-conventional Conversational Implicature:

• The Primary Implicature: Romolo's utterance implies that the law of the State supersedes the law of the Blood. In the cooperative framework of early tribal societies, harming a brother is the ultimate violation. Romolo implies that from this exact moment forward, the Civitas (the State) is the supreme entity.
• The Performative Implicature: By phrasing his response as a future conditional (quicumque alius...), Romolo implies a universal, permanent legal decree. The conversational implicature shifts from a personal argument between twin brothers to the first constitutional law of Rome: sovereignty is absolute, and treason means instant death.

3. The Speranzian Synthesis: Utterance-Meaning (M-Intentions)

Luigi Speranza emphasizes Romolo’s specific Utterance-Meaning (A intended to produce a specific effect in B by means of B’s recognition of this intention).

Romolo does not just want to inform Remo that he is angry; he intends for Remo—and the watching band of shepherds—to recognize that the boundary line is now a sacred reality. By dying, Remo unhappily "recognizes" this intention. The ultimate irony of the Gricean exchange is that Remo’s mockery forces Romolo to make the wall truly "impenetrable" not through stone, but through the terrifying power of an unyielding legal taboo.

---

Would you like to continue this Speranzian exploration by examining the linguistic roots of Ennius's archaic Latin fragments, or should we analyze another famous dialogic clash from early Rome, such as the tense exchange between King Tarquin and Lars Porsenna?