How the ancient Romans managed their toilets
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
For example, one graffito reads: "Ut bene cacaret, ventrum palpavit Solon," which translates to "To shit well, Solon rubbed his belly."
Another says, "Durum cacantes monuit ut nitant Thales," which translates to, "Thales admonished those shitting to strain hard."
Another: "Vissire tacite Chilon docuit subdolus", or "Sly Chilon taught to fart silently."
To get the modern cultural connotation, substitute "Thales" or "Solon" for "Einstein" or "Abraham Lincoln".
Some of the other graffiti do not reference the Seven Sages. The Seven Sages graffiti use a higher register --- past tense and a meter associated with comedies. But the other graffiti are in a lower register --- present tense and no meter. One of these others recommends "shake yourself about so you'll go faster."
One of these also references the tersorium, or sponge on a stick, that the article discusses. (Also called a xylospongium.) The graffito reads "No one talks to you much, Priscianus, until you use the sponge on a stick."
In standard English, the verb "substitute" would have to have the names reversed: "substitute 'Einstein' ... for 'Thales'" as opposed to the other way around.
Or change the verb and preposition: "replace 'Thales' ... with 'Einstein' ...."
Precision matters: Ambiguity is perhaps the leading reason that parties to contracts find themselves embroiled in costly, dragged-out lawsuits: When a term in a contract could plausibly be interpreted in multiple ways, and there's money riding on the outcome, the lawyers for both sides will come up with all kinds of arguments why their client's interpretation should win.
Here, the GGP's misuse of the language doesn't really matter. But it's still better to stick to the standard, so that when it does matter, the meaning will be clear.
You play like you practice.
> Substitute X for Y
I would read this as saying "use X instead of Y". In contrast, I would use this wording for the opposite intention:
> Substitute Y with X
This discussion also adds support to the side that "substitute X for Y" is the correct terminology: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23360/substitute...
> This is probably the source of the confusion you noticed: > “Substitute…for…”—first replaces second. > “Substitute…with…”—second replaces first.
> The preposition controls the meaning. "Substitute X for Y" means what you think it does: the X will replace Y. > "Substitute X with Y", however, reverses the meaning: Y will replace X.
> The traditional construction is like this: > The mechanic had to substitute a generic steering wheel for the original Bentley wheel. > The substitute is the thing you substitute; the original is what you substitute it for. It is perhaps easier to remember if you know the origin of the construction. The word substituo means "to place under, to substitute" in classical Latin. From statuo, "to place, to cause to stand", and sub-, "under". The prefix sub- is used in a way similar to supplant, suppose, the latter meaning "to take a theory in place of a fact" (we suppose something because we don't have the facts). > It is also possible to mention only the substitute: > The recipe said she needed "bacon". She hated bacon. She decided to substitute parma ham. > Because some people have forgotten how to use the construction, probably caused in part by contamination with replace, you will sometimes see it used in various other ways; however, because confusion is quick to ensue, style guides recommend that you use it like this.
I would agree that there is debate, and that your suggestion is the standard (edited as I misread your and the original commenter's sides of the debate)
What matters is that the meaning was conveyed correctly, and it was. Your prescriptivism may be welcome when drafting contracts meant for other lawyers who speak "Legalese English", but not here.
That's a misconception. Contracts are supposed to be drafted so that non-lawyers can readily understand and follow them (and so that, when necessary, ordinary-citizen jurors can understand and enforce them).
It's certainly true that some lawyers like to use legalese mumbo-jumbo. Maybe they want to make themselves look important. Or justify the hours they bill. Maybe they're terrified of deviating from what's been done before. But good lawyers aren't that way.
I found the initial use of "substitute" very jarring, started wondering how common this backwards use of "substitute" might be nowadays, and when I saw GP's remarks on it thought "Ah, it's not just me then!".
It's not a question of "Legalese English". People should used words in the proper order to convey an idea, instead of using them in a backwards or random order.
s/Thales/Einstein/> “Worse, the tersoria were probably reused and shared by all fellow butt-wipers who came and went throughout the day.”
Ok, I’m logging out for the day.
Before I go, here’s a list of sane alternatives in case any of you find yourselves in ancient Rome by accident (snow and lamb’s ears are the Rolls Royce of natural TP, but pinecones and rocks work quite well in a pinch): http://ultralightbackpackintips.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberat...
Which may add some depth to this passage:
> About three in the afternoon [while being crucified] Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[c] lema sabachthani?” ... Immediately one of [those standing near] ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink.
Anyway, the text implies that the sponge was soaked first, and then put on a stick (maybe because the cross was too tall). If it had been an actual xylospongium it would have been already on a stick.
This article has a few more photos from Pompeii and Rome including the Cloaca Maxima, as well as a map of public and private latrines discovered in the ruins: https://theconversation.com/talking-heads-what-toilets-and-s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Register_%28sociolinguistics%2...
Basically, a manner of speaking depending on to whom you're talking to or who you're addressing or how you mean it to be interpreted.
In English a similar concept is formality, but register is a generalized concept.
This is interesting as I learned this from Reddit a few years ago.
A slight wiggle of the butt while pooping really does improve the movement.
Or I guess seminary school will teach you if law isn’t your thing…..
Sure most roots are the same (so you can recognize most words, if taken singularly) but the construction and use of cases and the various declinations makes it tough to read a whole sentence and translate it correctly, also because there may be "false friends".
On the other hand, with some (possibly better than the ones I did) Latin studies, a whole number of Latin derived languages (Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Romanian) become more accessible, at least in written form, because they all use the same (but somnetimes different) Latin roots, i.e. two different Latin words (meaning the same thing or even the same word in a different case/declination) may have become used in different languages, so knowing the "common ancestor" helps.
You could start with a beginning textbook to get basic grammar and vocabulary, then eventually move up to advanced grammar and then actual ancient texts. These would probably be transcribed to a familiar font with hints to help through things like common abbreviations.
There are some conventions to learn before being able to read actual artifacts - when you’re paying to have stone carved by the letter, abbreviations are going to be frequent.
— Einstein, probably
"Even worse, these public latrines were notorious for terrifying customers when flames exploded from their seat openings. These were caused by gas explosions of hydrogen sulphide (H2S) and methane (CH4) that were rank as well as frightening. Customers also had to worry about rats and other small vermin threatening to bite their bottoms. And then there was the perceived threat of demons that the Romans believed inhabited these black holes leading to the mysterious underbelly of the city."
Sounds like it was far better if you could hold it until you got home to your own private toilet, which was probably in the kitchen right next to where your slaves were preparing your next meal[2].
[1] https://phys.org/news/2015-11-toilets-sewers-ancient-roman-s...
[2] https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/hires/2015/564dcb76b9497.jpe...
I get that they might not haven been aware of germs or correlated bathrooms with disease or whatever, but just based on the odors alone, it seems a strange decision...
Most people learn about Romans from the Christians as the story of Jesus is with the backdrop of Roman rule. However the Christians inherited their nudity views from the Jews. Thus in the biblical areas there would be less nudity because of the Jews, and then the biblical writers would have censored the nudity parts even more to keep it christian friendly. Thus our cultural attitudes around nudity despite coming from a Roman area have nothing to do with what Romans would have felt.
I think its just the Anglosaxons :)
I'm no expert in Rome, but I found tons of things that screamed this can't be right (in the article).
Also the claim that these toilets were for the unwashed masses, yet those same people supposedly wore togas on a day-to-day basis.
Who even writes this crap?...
<principle software engineer> comes out of the bathroom. Wife says "Don't you know how to use the toilet brush?" "Yes", he says, "but I prefer the paper"
feel free to substitute a different minority group if you don't like poking fun at principle software engineers.
Roman toilets usually had a slot cut into them allowing access from the front underneath: https://i0.wp.com/followinghadrian.com/wp-content/uploads/20... sometimes right down to the floor.
You can see how someone might get the idea. Though honestly it could have been just to make it easier to clean them.
The toga thing has been addressed by others as our cultural mores being projected on people with different values...
Otherwise, I found the article interesting and entertaining.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's not about projecting cultural values. It's about a supposedly trustworthy publication that published rubbish. The author of the article doesn't know basic things about the life of the people they are discussing.
I'm sorry that it seems to be so problematic.
This piece seems interesting and illuminating regarding a specific aspect of a culture that we are thousands of years removed from. It's a pop-piece, meant to be approachable and to stir the curiosity of the reader.
I can't imagine how many different ways it probably gets things wrong... and I guess that in itself is interesting to think about... but because it's impure does it mean that it has no value?
Is anything with a hint of inaccuracy (according to our own perspective and understanding) deigned unworthy of inclusion and distribution?
Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?
Yes. Because there is nothing esoteric about knowing how people dressed if you are going to talk about their lives.
> Does one need to be perfect in order to be published?
No. Just honest and at least slightly competent.
Judgements of competence and honesty are subjective; we can all fail to distribute them fairly (especially when it comes to ourselves).
Rarely, when it comes to a history of an entire culture that spans hundreds of years and thousands of miles, can we find one perspective that describes a universal "truth."
All we have are shades of approximation.
That doesn't mean that there's no value in that approximation, it just means that we have to be a little patient with each other while each of our generalizations don't necessarily conform to the ineffable complexity of such a large group of people over such a large area over such a large timespan.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
I do find the use of euphemisms in the USA such has 'bathroom' (mate, where is the bath?) or 'restroom' (I don't need a rest, I need a shit) a little odd. Here in Blighty, it is perfectly fine to ask the butler in Buckingham Palace where the toilet is. Or the bog for that matter :-)
And toilet itself is a washing-related euphemism like bath or lavatory. It comes from the French word toilette (little piece of cloth).
A more well spoken person in Britain will always say 'lavatory' instead of 'toilet'.
https://theconversation.com/toilet-or-lavatory-how-words-bri...
People find the idea awkward to talk about but I find it funny and necessary - Apparently one of the Seven Sages agrees with me according to the article.