What Benefit is Conferred by the Inclusion of a Gerundive in an Ablative-Absolute (AA) Construction?

Question

In his answer to Q: Can Gerundives be predicates of Ablative Absolutes?, Seb offered a number of examples, the second of which:

"quo senatus consulto recitato cum [populus] more hoc insulso et novo plausum meo nomine recitando dedisset, habui contionem." (Cic. Att. 4.1.6) =

"With the recommendation of the Senate having been read out, when the people had applauded in this tasteless and new manner, with my name read out I spoke to the assembly."

Apart from the clumsy repetition of "recitato", why deploy a gerundive, in an ablative-absolute construction, ("meo nomine recitando"), as opposed to a conventional AA-construction, "meo nomine recitato" = "with my name (having been) read out"?

EDIT: 14/1/2021:

This is incorrect: "meo nomine recitato...habui contionem" has "my" (from "meo"), included in the AA, and "I" (in "habui") in the subsequent clause. This violates the grammatical rule that a species, in an AA, cannot be referred to again in the following clause.

Seb continued: "Hofman & Szantyr accept these examples only grudgingly as AAs, while gerundives are often and freely used in late Latin taking on the role of future-passive participles."

Is this example an AA, at all; or, simply an agreement of case-endings as directed by the grammatical rule governing gerundive constructions (noun/ pronoun must agree in case, number & gender with the gerundive)?

This would give: "meo nomine recitando" = "with my name (reading-out) calling....I spoke to the assembly.".

EDIT 11/1/2021:

In his answer to Q: What is the difference in meaning/usage between "nasciturus" and "nascendus"?, Mitomino offered an example of Cicero's use of the gerundive, in this way, which also demonstrates how the ablative case negates the gerundive's passive and deontic qualities:

"placet contra gaudere nosmet omittendis doloribus" (Cic. Fin. 1.56) =

"but on the other hand one is to rejoice by releasing pains".

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

Has Cicero made a mistake?

In "meo nomine recitando...habui contionem" there is "my" (from "meo") in the AA, and "I" (in"habui") in the following clause.

This is a grammatical violation for the AA (see EDIT: 14/1/2021). That, or this is not an ablative absolute, contrary to the opinion of Hofman & Szantyr. Therefore, what can it be but an agreement of case-endings, dictated by the grammatical rule for the gerundive?

An example of this in my elementary text (Oulton):

"navibus eorum delendis hostes vicimus." =

"We conquered the enemy by destroying their ships."

This may look like an AA (ordinarily it would be "navibus deletis") but it isn't. If it was "eorum" (= "of these" [the enemy]) would be ablative-plural, "eis"--a grammatical violation because the enemy ("hostes") is referred to again, in the following clause.

Here, "navibus... delendis" is an agreement of case-endings dictated by the gerundive.

Similarly, in Mitomino's example (Comments in the 2nd. linked Q.) "omittendis doloribus" = "by releasing the pains".

EDIT: 15/1/2021:

This latter example is not an ablative-absolute either, as Mitomino has been good enough to remind me.

Concluding: there does not appear to be an advantage in the inclusion of a gerundive in an AA-construction. The gerundive, in the oblique cases, may lose its passive & deontic qualities but it will require an agreement of case-endings. This symmetry may have suited some Roman writers who used this technique e.g. Cicero.

***EDIT: 2/3/2021:

Thanks to Mitomino for a discussion on the well-known AA "mutatis mutandis" in Q: On the alleged ambiguity of the Ablative Absolute "Mutatis mutandis" the accepted translation of which is:

"with the things which ought to be changed (having been) changed".

This, more succinctly (Joonas in Q: Why does the substantive come second in 'mutatis mutandis'?

"having changed what had to be changed".

Therefore, there is a role for the gerundive in an AA-construction in which the gerundive retains its deontic and passive qualities. However, as Mitomino indicates:

"... "mutandis" retains its passive and deontic meaning when it is the subject of the AA. However, it lacks these properties when it is the predicate e.g.

"mutatis mutandis tribunatum gessit." =

"He spent the tribunate in changing what had been changed."

Therefore, if "mutatis" is the subject it is "the things that were (having been) changed"; gerundive, "mutandis", the predicate, is "by changing"; giving:

"by changing what had been changed" (Joonas)."

In "mutandis" = "by changing", it could be argued that the gerundive, in losing its deontic & passive qualities (in the ablative case) is functioning as a gerund ("by [the] changing") while continuing to dictate agreement in number, case and gender.

Both Mitomino & Joonas appear to agree that "mutatis mutandis" is ambiguous though there is some debate about when, in Roman history, each expression might have been accepted.