3 ms·

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 ha

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?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        It is not unlikely at all. Carving it himself -- or herself, we don't have any indication who, or that it was even a soldier who was aggrieved -- is one of many possibilities. What is ignorant is to insist only the one alternative, among many, is possible, and that slaves were never ordered to do tedious chores, and that a soldier (or whoever) could not have had a slave, and that said slave could not be literate. All officious BS: what we have is a rock. What we know is, exactly, that somebody carved it.

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?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      It is not unlikely at all. Carving it himself -- or herself, we don't have any indication who, or that it was even a soldier who was aggrieved -- is one of many possibilities. What is ignorant is to insist only the one alternative, among many, is possible, and that slaves were never ordered to do tedious chores, and that a soldier (or whoever) could not have had a slave, and that said slave could not be literate. All officious BS: what we have is a rock. What we know is, exactly, that somebody carved it.