5 ms·

It takes nothing to get a can of spray paint and deface a wall with an insult or any crude depiction. Imagine the commitment required to carve an insult on ston

It takes nothing to get a can of spray paint and deface a wall with an insult or any crude depiction. Imagine the commitment required to carve an insult on stone. This man was truly angry.

sorokod 4y ago
The execution could be "delegated" to someone lower on the social ladder.
- nescioquid 4y ago
  This is your rebuttal for "This man was truly angry"? That he might have hired it out to a sculptor (doesn't really look like it, frankly) and _therefore_ wasn't truly angry? Your surmise depends on whether some random provincial soldier at the shit-end of the empire would really be socially superior to a skilled craftsman, that this was the work of a skilled craftsman, that the soldier could afford the sculptor's commission, that this sort of act really was delegated sometimes, and finally, that he wasn't truly angry because he could afford to hire out the curse? Or -- said soldier had status to compel some aliquis to inscribe an insult and therefore wasn't really angry? Your idea sounds like an aborted Plautus plot. To paraphrase a Brian (not the one mentioned in the top comment), I hope you stood up before pulling this out of your ass. Pardon me while I scrape something into the nearest concrete.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    No. Assigned it to a slave. Yes, soldiers could have slaves, and did. Often enough, claiming slaves was the point. Slaves were very frequently much more literate than their keepers. An enormous amount of what is attributed to famous authors was written or compiled by their slaves. I take the serifs as evidence for the surmise. Even a slave can have pride.
    - nescioquid 4y ago
      Do you have any attested sources that suggest soldiers farmed out their curses to slaves? Did it ever occur to you that certain things in the classical world had to be transacted in person? Do you somehow have reason to believe that curses, magic, religion rites were farmed out? The sort of literate slave you are suggesting, BTW, would be fit for a patrician and command a price beyond what a provincial soldier could afford. Of what use would such a slave be to such a soldier anyway? You're really stretching it to preserve this fantasy of yours.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Literate slaves were literally for the taking. One didn't inquire about education when taking them. They might be sold to a patrician, later. Anyway, any soldier might be son to a patrician, and be sent out with a slave retainer. Slaves by definition had to do as they were told. Even if it was carving in stone, grammatically, serifs or no. Curses, especially, were routinely farmed out. Executing curses oneself was considered dangerous, like practicing law today. Priests were consulted. Like today. Very, very often -- indeed, absolutely conventionally -- literate slaves were kept as teachers. Any soldier with aspirations to advancement would need education. You are really stretching to avoid trivially obvious inferences. Read some history? Maybe a literate slave could help you out. Advancement could be yours!
        nescioquid 4y ago
        Oh, tell me about all the literate and latin-speaking people available for enslavement by Roman soldiers garrisoned to stop cattle-thieving at the literal end of empire! Take a step back and look at the claim and counter-claim: guy must have been mad to carve that in stone; nu-uh, could have been delegated. I've given many reasons to doubt this is likely. Now you've got "priests" in the mix (this is suddenly a state function, I guess) to hold up this house of cards? The chain of contingencies your "remarkably obvious inference" depends upon is remarkable. And you are inferring all this from a single piece of epigraphic evidence? Good grief.
        4y ago
  - sorokod 4y ago
    Any specific reason you believe that a soldier was involved?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      There is of course no such indication. All we know is that somebody was aggrieved enough about somebody they knew as Secundinus to have committed substantial resource to recording the fact.
aaomidi 4y ago
Keep in mind that our expectations of how much effort we should put into things have changed throughout history.
- seclorum_wien 4y ago
  Yes indeed, and let us not forget that the Romans had slaves.
  - pharrington 4y ago
    No no, you get the slaves to serve you the wine and grapes while you carve the phallus.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    A necessary evil in a world lacking technology.
drdiego 4y ago
It would take about 1 minute to carve the phallus, with a chisel and a hammer. Sandstone is very easy to chisel - try it!
monkeybutton 4y ago
Given the amount of modern day graffiti carved into benches and tables in parks and scratched onto bus windows, probably not that angry?

It takes nothing to get a can of spray paint and deface a wall with an insult or any crude depiction. Imagine the commitment required to carve an insult on stone. This man was truly angry.

sorokod 4y ago

The execution could be "delegated" to someone lower on the social ladder.

nescioquid 4y ago
This is your rebuttal for "This man was truly angry"? That he might have hired it out to a sculptor (doesn't really look like it, frankly) and _therefore_ wasn't truly angry? Your surmise depends on whether some random provincial soldier at the shit-end of the empire would really be socially superior to a skilled craftsman, that this was the work of a skilled craftsman, that the soldier could afford the sculptor's commission, that this sort of act really was delegated sometimes, and finally, that he wasn't truly angry because he could afford to hire out the curse? Or -- said soldier had status to compel some aliquis to inscribe an insult and therefore wasn't really angry? Your idea sounds like an aborted Plautus plot. To paraphrase a Brian (not the one mentioned in the top comment), I hope you stood up before pulling this out of your ass. Pardon me while I scrape something into the nearest concrete.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  No. Assigned it to a slave. Yes, soldiers could have slaves, and did. Often enough, claiming slaves was the point. Slaves were very frequently much more literate than their keepers. An enormous amount of what is attributed to famous authors was written or compiled by their slaves. I take the serifs as evidence for the surmise. Even a slave can have pride.
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    Do you have any attested sources that suggest soldiers farmed out their curses to slaves? Did it ever occur to you that certain things in the classical world had to be transacted in person? Do you somehow have reason to believe that curses, magic, religion rites were farmed out? The sort of literate slave you are suggesting, BTW, would be fit for a patrician and command a price beyond what a provincial soldier could afford. Of what use would such a slave be to such a soldier anyway? You're really stretching it to preserve this fantasy of yours.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Literate slaves were literally for the taking. One didn't inquire about education when taking them. They might be sold to a patrician, later. Anyway, any soldier might be son to a patrician, and be sent out with a slave retainer. Slaves by definition had to do as they were told. Even if it was carving in stone, grammatically, serifs or no. Curses, especially, were routinely farmed out. Executing curses oneself was considered dangerous, like practicing law today. Priests were consulted. Like today. Very, very often -- indeed, absolutely conventionally -- literate slaves were kept as teachers. Any soldier with aspirations to advancement would need education. You are really stretching to avoid trivially obvious inferences. Read some history? Maybe a literate slave could help you out. Advancement could be yours!
      - nescioquid 4y ago
        Oh, tell me about all the literate and latin-speaking people available for enslavement by Roman soldiers garrisoned to stop cattle-thieving at the literal end of empire! Take a step back and look at the claim and counter-claim: guy must have been mad to carve that in stone; nu-uh, could have been delegated. I've given many reasons to doubt this is likely. Now you've got "priests" in the mix (this is suddenly a state function, I guess) to hold up this house of cards? The chain of contingencies your "remarkably obvious inference" depends upon is remarkable. And you are inferring all this from a single piece of epigraphic evidence? Good grief.
        4y ago
- sorokod 4y ago
  Any specific reason you believe that a soldier was involved?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    There is of course no such indication. All we know is that somebody was aggrieved enough about somebody they knew as Secundinus to have committed substantial resource to recording the fact.

aaomidi 4y ago

Keep in mind that our expectations of how much effort we should put into things have changed throughout history.

seclorum_wien 4y ago
Yes indeed, and let us not forget that the Romans had slaves.
- pharrington 4y ago
  No no, you get the slaves to serve you the wine and grapes while you carve the phallus.
- xwdv 4y ago
  A necessary evil in a world lacking technology.

drdiego 4y ago

It would take about 1 minute to carve the phallus, with a chisel and a hammer. Sandstone is very easy to chisel - try it!

monkeybutton 4y ago

Given the amount of modern day graffiti carved into benches and tables in parks and scratched onto bus windows, probably not that angry?