3 ms·

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'

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.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        You really could read up on some historical facts. They are not jealously guarded anymore, and can in fact be found via simple automated search services. You might even know of one such. Ignorance, today, is a choice. You may dispense with it anytime you like. Or not; "nescio id quod sciam," as it were.
        DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        What you are calling their ignorance is their careful rebuttal. And what is so obvious and true to you is just an unbelievably liberal interpretation of history, and then going, for little to no reason, “I think it happened this way.” Why is it so unlikely that the aggrieved person carved this himself?
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.

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.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      You really could read up on some historical facts. They are not jealously guarded anymore, and can in fact be found via simple automated search services. You might even know of one such. Ignorance, today, is a choice. You may dispense with it anytime you like. Or not; "nescio id quod sciam," as it were.
      - DiggyJohnson 4y ago
        What you are calling their ignorance is their careful rebuttal. And what is so obvious and true to you is just an unbelievably liberal interpretation of history, and then going, for little to no reason, “I think it happened this way.” Why is it so unlikely that the aggrieved person carved this himself?

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.