What a pleasure to sit in my favorite velour La-Z-Boy after work, with a chamomile tea with a drop of honey added, and read the interesting new threads posted by the dear members of CT. Have you ever imagined what your life would be like without the ability to read and write fluently ? According to word atlas, the USA has a literacy rate of 86 percent and is number 125 on a list of 197 countries. But what was the situation of the Roman people 2000 years ago ? Young girl reading. Roman bronze statuette, 1st Century AD. Paris. According to William Harris' study, the literacy rate in the Roman world during the High Empire is estimated between 5-10 % of the adult population, with a maximum of 20 %. It was probably higher in the cities than in the countryside. Other scholars believe that a 30 % rate in more realistic. Harris also used the relative density of inscriptions to produce what he deems "a quite accurate ranking of provinces by literacy". You won't be surprised to learn that the "barbaric" citizens of the provinces of the empire were often unable to read or write a basic text. Anyways, in ancient Rome, boys and girls learned to read and write from a magister ludi, also called a litterator because the basis of his teaching consists in having the names of letters recited by heart. From grammaticus, they are then introduced to literature (for those who can attend secondary school), then to rhetoric (for those who access higher education). Roman school, 2nd Century AD, found in Treveri. If many funeral representations present an image of the deceased accompanied by a writing tablet or scrolls of parchment, this is undoubtedly a sign that writing remains a privileged source of prestige. They often take on a religious significance inspired by the idea that the intellectual life could assure the deceased a participation in the divine and make him accede to true immortality. In my opinion, one of the most interesting area of ancient coins collecting is trying to gather specimens with "TYPOs", or legend's errors. Is it possible that some workers in the different mints were illiterate, explaining the mistakes made during the coins production ? Or maybe Latin wasn't their mother tongue so spelling errors could occur from time to time ? I'm very curious to see your own examples. Please show us your "TYPO" coins ! My favorite Victorinus barbarous imitation. I think it's stylish after all, but someone had a problem with the "N" (also the reverse is showing Providentia, but the legend reads VICTORIA...) Talking about Victorinus and Providentia, here's an official issue but the goddess was rename PROVIDENTA... Another barbarous (aureus) imitating a Probus issue. I do not dare to try to read the legend, but I believe it contains the whole Latin alphabet !
A backwards or retrograde letter or word could have more to do with the engraver forgetting to inscribe the letters in reverse so that they appear right-reading on the coin. Rather than trash the die and start over, they probably just went with it, figuring that most people wouldn't notice — and most were illiterate anyway. Here are a couple of fun legend errors from the reign of Elagabalus: Elagabalus. AR denarius, Eastern (portrait style of Antioch), AD 219; 18mm, 3.17g. BMCRE 289 var (rev. legend abbreviated as FEL)., RIC 201 var (same)., RSC 278 var (same)., Thirion 369 var (R) (same). Obv: ANTONINVS ••• PIVS FEL AVG; laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust r. Rx: TEMDORVM FELI • [sic ; should be TEMPORVM]; Felicitas standing front, head l., holding patera and long caduceus. Elagabalus. AR denarius, Eastern, AD 219; 18mm, 3.21g. BMCRE 292 var (rev. legend)., RIC 202 var (tripod, rev. legend), RSC 306b var (no cuirass, rev. legend)., Thirion 374 var (AR)(same as previous). Obv: ANTONINVS PIVS FEL AV –G on bust; laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust r. Rx: VOTA – PVPLICA [sic ; should be PVBLICA] • ; Elagabalus standing front, head l., sacrificing out of patera over lighted altar and holding scroll at side.
Significant work has been done on whether medieval scribes could be illiterate. I think there's good evidence that scribes indeed might not have been able to read the texts they copied. Might one assume the same about Roman die engravers? I once did a paleography project in my class and reached the conclusion that the "illiterate scribe" was quite possible. This from an article I published on the matter: On the whole, the students made some interesting text selections. Three of the four groups chose Biblical texts.... But despite being in a Chaucer course, no group chose to copy a Chaucer text, or an English vernacular text for that matter. Three quires were copied in Latin and one in Italian, even though no student had formal training in either language. Nevertheless, the quires featured remarkably few errors despite students copying in unknown languages. Unexpectedly, the paleography project thus became a foray into experimental archeology by prompting an important research question: Could scribes be illiterate, if literacy is defined as the ability to read and write the languages they copied? Such a question has been explored by scholars such as Armando Petrucci in recent years and remains an important avenue of inquiry in medieval paleography. While the results of this student project could hardly be adduced in a refereed journal discussion of this question, simply from a pedagogical standpoint the project served as a useful intersection of theory and praxis for student and professor alike, arguing that illiterate “scribes” could indeed produce generally accurate manuscripts. See “Reading in the Middle Ages.” Writers and Readers in Medieval Italy: Studies in the History of Written Culture. Ed. and trans. Charles M. Radding. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995. 132-44, at 135:On the whole, then, one has the impression that the scribe of the early Middle Ages was scarcely sensible to the problems and practice of reading. This indifference can only come from the limited experience he himself had with the practice. In fact, the scribe of the early Middle Ages was destined and trained (if he received any training at all) for writing rather than for reading, which explains the high number of raw, unskilled, and uneducated scribes that characterize the production of books in the early Middle Ages. It is thus not surprising that the chronicler Ekkhard IV of San Gall tells us that in the second half of the tenth century his homonymous predecessor Ekkhard I assigned to copy books those young brothers whom he judged to be less intelligent and less adapted to study: “et quos ad literarum studia tardiores vidisset, ad scribendum occupaverat et lineandum” (and those whom he saw came later to the study of letters, he employed in writing or lining). The fact that this occurred in a monastery like San Gall, which at that time was a very active center for producing books, renders this practice still more significant.
Few can beat this Pisidia, Antiochia. Volusian. A.D. 251-253. AE 22 IMP CAE RASLLOVNAHNIR (?!), radiate, draped and cuirassed bust of Volusian right, seen from behind / ANTIOC- H- IOCLA [R], aquila between two legionary standards. Seems an obverse die match with this one https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=3187&lot=88 From what I read, this could also be Valerian.
Fascinating subject, @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix, with a no less roundly engaging expansion by @Gavin Richardson. ...Along with @benhur767's caveat about die engraving, obviously of equal relevance to both periods. Impressionistically, I have to wonder whether, in the case of both Romans and medievals, the controlling idea was to appeal to a known, literate minority --of whatever size, in the operant context. As the demographic that was likeliest to handle coins on a routine basis, they would be the ones the issuing authority would be most invested in, especially where propoganda was concerned.
Certainly there have been many attempts to evaluate the extent to which Pompeiian graffiti evidences (or not) literacy in the Ancient Roman world. A brief initial Google search yields, among other things, the following. I'm sure there's much more. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/03/adrienne-was-here/475719/ https://classicalwisdom.com/culture...he-surprising-insights-from-public-scribbles/ https://oxford.universitypressschol...3983.001.0001/acprof-9780199793983-chapter-12 Literary Literacy in Roman PompeiiThe Case of Vergil’s Aeneid Kristina Milnor DOI:10.1093/acprof: osobl/9780199793983.003.0012 This chapter looks at the placement and function of literary texts written as graffiti on the walls of Pompeii, focusing on Vergil and exploring how literacy speaks to the interests and attitudes of the ancient writers and readers. It presents the ways in which local interpretations of individual wall texts explains how wall writers saw the relationship between Vergil's text and their own. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the use of canonical literary texts where Vergilian graffiti is viewed less as a cultural product and more as a means of cultural production. https://pompeiinetworks.wordpress.com/tag/literacy/ Reading is Fundamental 5 Nov 2014vlcampbellLeave a comment One thing I have not addressed yet which may seem obvious for my work with epigraphic texts is the subject of literacy. Of course, much has been written about ancient literacy by scholars far more expert than I, but as the basis of this project on social network analysis is epigraphic material, it seems remiss not to make my own views on the subject available. The original scholarly argument regarding ancient literacy (which is greatly over simplified here), as developed largely in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in relation to Pompeii, goes something like this: Only the aristocratic upper classes were learned and literate. Think Livy, Cicero, Tacitus and Vergil. The graffiti of Pompeii – i.e. vulgar Latin texts – were not written by the upper classes. The aristocratic class would not be responsible for non-grammatically correct texts, spelling mistakes, and generally poor Latin, nor would they write sexual or otherwise lowbrow content. In other words, the lower classes are illiterate, and the upper classes would not write something like this: CIL IV 8898 T(h)iop(h)ilus canis / cunnu(m) lingere no/li puellis in muro. ‘Thiophilus, don’t be a dog and lick girls’ c----- against a wall.’ The question then must be asked, if the lower classes, of the sort who would make errors in their written Latin and engage in exchanging sexual jibes, were incapable of writing, then who wrote graffiti such as the one above? Here is my view (for what its worth): Whilst there are certainly varying degrees of literacy to be found, much as there are in any literate society, for the most part, the Roman world was literate on a level that was unparalleled until the modern era. Rome had, after all, a system that was based on professional and administrative writing. Laws, tax codes, calendars, trials, elections, and sundry other notices were posted publicly for all to see, not only in Rome but throughout the provinces. Dupont calls Rome ‘a civilization based on the book and the register,’ and rightfully so. Financial records of sales, leases, and property were kept on tablets. Archives of reports, magisterial actions, and court decisions were kept in administrative centres both in Rome and other cities. Aristocratic families kept their own records pertaining to ancestry, funeral orations, and other documents. Any family could be expected to have a small collection of writings containing tips on farming, remedies for illness, or prayers. Letters were exchanged with an incredible frequency, and there was even a postal system in place between provinces during the Empire. Possessing the time to write for leisure was viewed as an activity that showed a person’s wealth and standing in society. And I have not yet mentioned the public writing, the lapidary inscriptions on buildings, tombs, shrines, statues, and other edifices. Finally, add to this the graffiti, the dipiniti, and other temporary writings, and ancient Rome becomes a place covered with words – words that were meant to be read by the majority of the populace. That the Roman people expected to have their rules and regulations readily available, in a written format, is illustrated perfectly by the outcry raised over new tax laws. Caligula, Suetonius tells us (41), enacted a new tax code but did not display it (‘vectigalibus indictis neque propositis’) specifically to raise more revenue, and was subsequently criticised and forced to post them for all to see. In typical Caligula fashion, he of course then does this in a manner which is virtually illegible. For the thousands of texts scribbled on the walls that survive from Pompeii, there were once just as many to be found in Rome, Ostia, and other settlements. We know this because of ancient literature, which recounts such instances, demonstrating that graffiti was a normal and frequent means of communication in the ancient world. Often, in the city of Rome at least, the graffiti was political in nature: Suetonius Tib. 52.3 Propter quae multifariam inscriptum et per noctes celeberrime adclamatum est: “Redde Germanicum!” ‘Because of this the words, “Give us back Germanicus,” were posted in many places, and shouted at night all over the city.’ Suetonius Nero 39.2 Multa Graece Latineque proscripta aut vulgata sunt, sicut illa: Νέρων Ὀρέστης Ἀλκμέων μητροκτόνος. Νεόψηφον· Νέρων ἰδίαν μητέρα ἀπέκτεινε. Quis negat Aeneae magna de stirpe Neronem? / Sustulit hic matrem, sustulit ille patrem. Dum tendit citharam noster, dum cornua Parthus, / Noster erit Paean, ille Hecatebeletes. Roma domus fiet; Veios migrate, Quirites, / Si non et Veios occupat ista domus. Sed neque auctores requisiit et quosdam per indicem delatos ad senatum adfici graviore poena prohibuit. ‘Of these many were posted or circulated both in Greek and Latin, for example the following: “Nero, Orestes, Alcmeon their mothers slew.” “A calculation new. Nero his mother slew.” “Who can deny the descent from Aeneas’ great line of our Nero? One his mother took off, the other one took off his sire.” “While our ruler his lyre doth twang and the Parthian his bowstring, Paean-singer our prince shall be, and Far-darter our foe.” “Rome is becoming one house; off with you to Veii, Quirites! If that house does not soon seize upon Veii as well.” He made no effort, however, to find the authors; in fact, when some of them were reported to the senate by an informer, he forbade their being very severely punished.‘ Plutarch, Ti. Gracchus 8.7 τὴν δὲ πλείστην αὐτὸς ὁ δῆμος ὁρμὴν καὶ φιλοτιμίαν ἐξῆψε, προκαλούμενος διὰ γραμμάτων αὐτὸν ἐν στοαῖς καὶ τοίχοις καὶ μνήμασι καταγραφομένων ἀναλαβεῖν τοῖς πένησι τὴν δημοσίαν χώραν. ‘However, the energy and ambition of Tiberius were most of all kindled by the people themselves, who posted writings on porticoes, house-walls, and monuments, calling upon him to recover for the poor the public land.’ Other literature illustrates the role graffiti took in exchanges of love, not just of the physical act as illustrated in the Pompeian graffito above, but as a means of professing romantic sentiment: Plautus Mercator 409 Impleantur elegeorim meae fores carbonibus. ‘With their pieces of charcoal my door would be filled with elegies’ Ovid Amores 3.1.53-54 A quotiens foribus duris infixa pependi / non verita a populo praetereunt legi! ‘Oh, how often have I hung, fastened to unyielding doors, not fearing to be read by the passer-by!’ Whilst there may be little doubt as to the pervasiveness of the written word in ancient Rome, that still does not prove that a high proportion of the population could read. Rather than look to the ancient world to prove literacy levels, I think it is far more prudent to look to the world in which these judgements were made. As I noted last week, Charles Wordsworth suggested that to judge a different time or place by current standards was not only unfair, but likely wrong. He stated that though members of the Houses of Parliament may read Shakespeare, they were hardly writing it on the walls of the chamber. Wordsworth questioned whether any modern literature, if lost, could be reconstructed from the graffiti on the walls of country towns, unequivocally answering no, as ‘Our Pompeiis do not yet exhibit the words of our Virgils, nor does it seem probable that they soon will.’ One reason this is likely the case is due to the literacy rates of (modern) Europe. When Dante published the Divine Comedy in 1321, barely ten percent of the Italian population had the ability to read it. Only thirty percent of the adult population of the entirety of Europe was literate at the time Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. Statistics show that in the seventeenth century, men in France, England and Scotland had a literacy rate of thirty percent or less. A century later, this had more than doubled for Scotland (25% to 65%), doubled for England (30% to 60%), but increased at a far lower rate for France (29% to 48%). The first figures for female literacy do not appear until the eighteenth century, when England boasts a literacy rate of 37.5%, with France having 27%, whereas Scotland lags behind with just 15%. By the time of the nineteenth century, largely due to industrialisation and urbanisation, along with the start of the movement (at least in Britain) to educate all children, the literacy rates continued to climb with some regularity. What this means is this: in the eighteenth century, when Pompeii and Herculaneum were discovered and the graffiti came to light for the first time in seventeen hundred years, at least half (if not more) of the population of Europe was illiterate. Those involved in overseeing the early excavation and documentation of the sites (and thereby the texts), were educated, aristocratic, wealthy members of the European upper classes, who presumed, based on their own experiences, that the lower classes of Pompeii, like the lower classes of eighteenth century Naples, London or Paris, were illiterate. Wordsworth was, in a sense, ahead of his time in pointing out the fallacy of this type of judgement – one that would become a crucial aspect in the methodology of ethnographers and anthropologists in the twentieth century – the same standards, morals, or practices of one’s own culture cannot be applied when evaluating another. This, I believe, is exactly what happened in regards to ancient Roman literacy, whereas the evidence we are left, especially from a city like Pompeii, proves that this was a fully literate society, of proportions unrivaled until the modern era.
Nice thoughts and post @Ocatarinetabellatchitchix! I've wondered about the reason of the typo on this coin. It's struck during a massive celebration, the joys of which undoubtedly would have affected the workers at the mint. It's from the Rome mint, so these workers would have been able to read Latin... right? Massive quantities of coins would have been struck I imagine, to hand out to the masses. Perhaps an example of quantity over quality?
Terrific treatment, @DonnaML. Your observation about 18th-century assumptions being reducible to a kind of colective Freudian transference is very resonant. Intuitively, it sounds right from here.
I hope you don't think it's my observation, @+VGO.DVCKS -- I had hoped it was clear that I was quoting the article I cited.
...Well, okay, but you posted it here! That sort of counts, sort of.... I'm not sure anything I've ever said here was 100% original.
Quotation doesn't necessarily equal endorsement! Although I admit that the writer's argument makes sense to me.
This is my favorite spelling "error" -- VINO REGINA (wine the queen) instead of IVNO REGINA. I put error in quotes because I think it was done on purpose as a joke: Salonina, AD 253-268. Roman billon antoninianus, 4.64 g, 23.3 mm. Antioch, AD 264. Obv: SALONINA AVG, diademed draped bust right on crescent. Rev: VINO REGINA, Juno standing left, holding patera and scepter; peacock at feet left; star in left field. Refs: RIC 92 var.; Cohen 67 var.; RCV 10641 var.; Göbl 1619f var.
An IMITATIVE Augustus and CATO... blundered legend is out of control: Roman Republic Imitating Octavian-M. Porcius Cato AR quinarius 13.89 mm 1.29g imitating Octavian r blundered legend - Victory seated r patera Crawford 343 obv and 462 Rev
Interesting thread! Thank you. Typos on barbarous radiates of Tetricus are numerous, but here's a blundered legend on an official one : VIAORIA AV⅁ (I had doubts at first but both dies seems to be official). On the other side, here is an example of literacy, by some 2nd-1st century BC guy who was literate (and bored) enough to put his own name on a this as (39,02g). Can you see it? This cognomen also appear on a graffito in Pompei and on a few amphorae.
