Grice and Davidson: derangement of epithaphs

Dale notes aptly in his ch. iv to his PhD:

"[T]he Davidsonian eschews the project of giving necessary and sufficient conditions for meaning, that is, for analyzing the concept of meaning as a Gricean is interested in doing. But in any event, the Davidsonian program seems to be quite inadequate for helping out the Gricean."

Indeed. On the other hand allow me to provide the contraposition for that:

"The Griceian programme seems to be quite adequate for helping out the Davidsonian."

I was saddened when I saw that Davidson's contribution to Grice's festchrift, "A nice derangement of epitaphs" (a malaprop, implicating, 'a nice arrangement of epithets') Davidson cared to reprint elsewhere. With the effect that Hacking commented, etc.

Similarly, Strawson reprinted HIS contribution to the festschrift in a book of his.

What is the moral point of contributing to a festschrift if you are going to excerpt your contribution and publish it elsewhere?

But Davidson's essay is a good one. It is of course all about Grice and how important and adequate Grice is to understand _stuff_. I loved Davidson for bringing in a solution to a puzzle that had exercised me, otiosely, for some time (vide Speranza in Jabberwocky).

Alice: So?
Humpty Dumpty: There's glory for you.
Alice. I don't know what you mean by 'glory'.
Humpty. Of course you don't until you ask. By glory, I mean 'a nice knockdown argument'

Davidson notes that this, appropriately, is nonsense (it's from a book by nonsense master Lewis Carroll). Davidson suggests that Humpty Dumpty is a parody on Grice (but Lewis Carroll wrote in the nineteenth century).

Davidson wants to say that

"By uttering 'There's glory for you', Humpty Dumpty m-intended that there was a nice knockdown argument for Alice"

is nonsense. And Humpty recognises this much when he exclaims,

"Of course you don't know -- what 'glory' means -- until you ask!"

I mean, what kind of actual-language relation can THAT be???!