Ancient Roman soldier carved a phallus with a personal insult in this stone
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Brian: It..it says, "Romans, go home"!
Centurion: No, it doesn't! What's Latin for "Roman"? [grabs Brian's ear] Come on, come on!
Brian: Romanus!
Centurion: Goes like?
Brian: Annus!
Centurion: Vocative plural of annus is...?
Brian: Anni?
Centurion: [writes] Romani. And eunt? What is eunt?
Brian: "Go"! Let-
Centurion: Conjugate the verb "to go".
Brian: Ire; eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt!
Centurion: So eunt is...?
Brian: Third person plural, present indicative. "They go!"
Centurion: But "Romans, go home" is an order, so you must use the...?
Brian: The... imperative!
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: I!
Centurion: [twisting Brian's ear] How many Romans?
Brian: [yelling] I.. Plural, plural! Ite, ite!
Centurion: [writing] Ite. Domus? Nominative? But "go home", it is motion towards, isn't it, boy?
Brian: Dative, sir! [The centurion promptly draws his swords and presses it against Brian's throat.
Brian yells:] No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! The... accusative, accusative! Domum, sir, ad domum!
Centurion: Except that domus takes the...?
Brian: The locative, sir!
Centurion: Which is?
Brian: Domum!
Centurion: [writing] Domum... -um [sheathing his sword] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times!
Brian: Yes, sir, thank you, sir! Hail Caesar!
Centurion: Hail Caesar. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off!
Brian: Oh, thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar and everything, sir!
Classically, a phallic representation can disrupt a curse or evil eye. After all, how can you maintain an evil eye when you see a big honking cock in your field of view? It’s like a bad vibe disrupter.
Read more about the “fascinating” magic of big fake dicks in antiquity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinus
Perhaps there is a better analysis available, but the lines of the phallus appear to me to have been cut by the same author of the letters in the words.
Besides that, having dated an archeology student who left their interesting books around, I seem to remember there being a standard for identifying the cut of these objects. Perhaps it was more easily verified than we might think.
Somebody had to be really hard-core to do it in stone.
(Apologies for the doubles-entendres! Really, they write themselves.)
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Ignorance, today, is a choice. You may dispense with it anytime you like. Or not; "nescio id quod sciam," as it were.
Why is it so unlikely that the aggrieved person carved this himself?
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.
In Brazil we have the expression "cagão" which can translated as "big shitter" to refer to someone who encourages or announces a firm, dangerous or exemplar behavior but recedes back when need to assume it arrives.
*kakka- also kaka-, Proto-Indo-European root meaning "to defecate." According to Watkins, "imitative of glottal closure during defecation."
Another example is "to eat" or "tasty": English yum, Russian nyam etc.
My iraqi friends say baba and arabic is certainly not originated from latin.
Interestingly, in American English, we would refer to someone who lies a lot as a "bullshitter" or "full of shit", but someone who is cowardly is a "chickenshit". It sounds like "cagão" is a bit of a combination. Either way it seems like one of those universal human cultural tendencies.
The joke goes: A young man visits the family of his girlfriend for the first time. At one point the father of the girl pulls him aside and tells him that he is no good for his daughter. The father wants a rich man for his daughter. He tells the young man "you can't buy my daughter a nice house, you can't buy her a nice car, you can't buy her nice clothes, I bet you can't even afford to buy her toilet paper". Later, as the young man and girl drive home she notices he is upset. She asks if her dad maybe said something to him. He said, yes, he told me you are a big shitter.
After all, these are the people that brought us cattulus 16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16
Man had range
This small phrase give us clear view that this girl's death was probably in a terrible situation... Poor child.
In this case, the author wasn’t sending Secundus good luck :)
8==D
Actually, point of fact - this is one of humanity's most honest historical tomes.
Perhaps this would be a nice starting point for a new version of Twitter or any forum.
probably Secundinus had insulted him by shouting at him, making a hand gesture or spilling his beer. But whilst such low effort insults can drive people crazy, they're unlikely to achieve results quite as impressive as worldwide media coverage in future millennia, or historians musing on why Secundinus was considered to be a shitter as they figure out a caption for the centrepiece for a new museum.
That result might impress you, but I think everyone involved would have considered the insult a bigger success if, say, Secundinus' engagement fell through and no one in the future ever heard about the dispute.
Abbreviations on paper just save on paper. In stone, you can count hammer blows saved.
Guessing "Secundinus" is an insulting diminutive of "Secundus". Extra work for a serious purpose!
See Fascinus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinus