The Lapis Niger Enigma

[M. Porcius Cato]

In the early sixth century BC, some agent of the state carved a warning on a stele near the Lapis Niger:

Whosoever defiles this spot, let him be forfeit to the spirits of the underworld; whosoever contaminates it with refuse, after due process of law, it shall be proper for the King to deprive him of his property. And whatsoever persons the King shall discover passing on this road, let him bid the Herald seize the reins of their draught animals, to force them to turn aside forthwith and to take the approved detour. And whosoever shall fail to take the approved detour and shall persist in traveling this road, let him after due process of law be sold at auction to the highest bidder.

 

Now here's the enigma--the Lapis Niger inscription apparently predates any of the public inscriptions to be found at Athens, indicating that a large number of ordinary Romans (the kind who drove draught animals) were literate at least as early as the Athenians. Yet over the next few centuries, the literature of Athens skyrocketed, whereas the literature of the Romans lay relatively dormant.

 

Why didn't literature flourish in Rome as it did in Athens?

[Furius Venator]

A good question. To which I don't know the answer!

 

Perhaps the inscription is not an indication that the majority of Romans were literate, it might be that most couldn't read it (and perhaps suffered the penalty). But the lawmakers could say fair warning had been posted. It not being their fault that the general populace couldn't read it...

 

Perhaps the Romans were simply a more 'practical' people. Those with leisure time being more inclined to pursue politics and the law than the arts (that is the 'traditional' explanation I believe.

 

Or maybe the older literature simply did not come down to us, in the same way that we know some of their histories existed but have been lost.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Maybe it was not intended for common people to read, but for those who

[Andrew Dalby]

In the early sixth century BC, some agent of the state carved a warning on a stele near the Lapis Niger:

Whosoever defiles this spot, let him be forfeit to the spirits of the underworld; whosoever contaminates it with refuse, after due process of law, it shall be proper for the King to deprive him of his property. And whatsoever persons the King shall discover passing on this road, let him bid the Herald seize the reins of their draught animals, to force them to turn aside forthwith and to take the approved detour. And whosoever shall fail to take the approved detour and shall persist in traveling this road, let him after due process of law be sold at auction to the highest bidder.

 

Now here's the enigma--the Lapis Niger inscription apparently predates any of the public inscriptions to be found at Athens, indicating that a large number of ordinary Romans (the kind who drove draught animals) were literate at least as early as the Athenians. Yet over the next few centuries, the literature of Athens skyrocketed, whereas the literature of the Romans lay relatively dormant.

 

Why didn't literature flourish in Rome as it did in Athens?

 

It's a good question, Cato. In trying to formulate an answer I would follow up on one of Furius Venator's points: maybe the literature did not come down to us, specifically because it was oral literature -- poetry, prose saga, whatever -- and nobody at first saw any need to write it down. Notice that Greek literature started to be written down at the time when Greeks were expanding far away from their home country. I suspect writing became necessary to them as a means of transmitting culture because they were so widely scattered. Could that help explain the Roman case too? I'm not sure.

 

I was so surprised by some details in your quote that I tried to check the original text, and it seems a bit shorter than your translation, according to

 

http://www.lanuovaitalia.it/~hynie/miliari.../lapisniger.htm

 

The Latin text is

 

QUOI HON

[M. Porcius Cato]

All fair hypotheses, though I don't think all equally probable.

 

Perhaps the inscription is not an indication that the majority of Romans were literate, it might be that most couldn't read it (and perhaps suffered the penalty). But the lawmakers could say fair warning had been posted. It not being their fault that the general populace couldn't read it...

 

Cute idea--reminds me of an incident from Caligula's reign, in which he reportedly forbade some sort of common activity under penalty of confiscation, yet placed the announcement so high in the Forum that it was impossible to read, thereby providing Caligula with pretext to seize anyone's property at will. (The US tax code strikes me as similar in effect if not in intent.)

 

There are a couple of problems with this explanation, however. For one, if the stele existed merely as a pretext for seizing citizens that they could be sold into slavery, it's an awfully ineffecient mechanism: why bother building the rest of the shrine complex for a ruse that requires so little? Second, the 'solution' to the enigma is simply to deny that a problem exists in the first place, and it does so through an opportunistic inconsistency--denying the implications of public inscriptions for the literacy of the Roman populace but not for the Athenians. While I suppose it is theoretically possible that Roman kings were simply more arbitrary than Athenian leaders, there is no evidence in favor of the assumption, so the hypothesis implicitly produces a number of assumptions in service of avoiding a hard problem. I don't think this hypothesis will do.

 

Perhaps the Romans were simply a more 'practical' people. Those with leisure time being more inclined to pursue politics and the law than the arts (that is the 'traditional' explanation I believe.

 

Even granting this premise, there is a strong incentive to provide a written record of works of law, politics, and engineering, so the very practicality of the Romans should have led to at least SOME written record. Yet precious little exists.

 

I also find this explanation to be awfully dubious on other grounds, as it tends to circularity. After all, how do we know that the Romans of the 6th century were more "practical" than the Athenians of the 6th century? The evidence is only from the fact that the Athenians of the 5th century left a greater literary legacy than the 5th century Romans. It's a coherent argument, but so are all circular arguments (by definition).

 

Or maybe the older literature simply did not come down to us, in the same way that we know some of their histories existed but have been lost.

 

But there are no mentions of lost 6th century histories are there?

 

I have a slightly different hypothesis about the cause of the cultural difference: trade. The alphabet and all the mechanics and conventions of writing largely developed for purposes of trade, which spread knowledge of writing through the populace, who could use the technology for other purposes, such as to gossip with neighbors, to humiliate foes with graffiti, and to write love notes and curses and recipes and advice and all the rest. Literature--from Homer to Danielle Steele to JK Rowling--is simply a refinement of these everyday uses of writing. During the 6th century, Athens developed a large trading network throughout the near East, whereas the literate at Rome remained relatively more isolated than their Athenian neighbors and thus less integrated within a larger writing culture. Further, commercial ties brought not only wealth and an increased demand for luxury goods and entertainment, but also new ideas. This flow of information from Ionia to Athens led to a flowering of the literary arts, whereas Rome remained cut off from the circuit of ideas being exchanged through writing technology.

 

Thoughts?

[Furius Venator]

Essentially then the Romans were more insular than the Athenians and hence less creative? Seems plausible.

 

The inscription need not be an attempt to 'trick' the population into slavery, merely an attempt to inform. Today local authorities post notices in obscure and unvisited locations (like town halls and public libraries), not so that the populace won't read them but rather because they are genuinely making a (poor) effort to inform. Perhaps it's the same here, except rather than obscuure location being the problem it may have been a semi-literate population.

[M. Porcius Cato]

But maybe some new fragment has turned up?

 

The translation I gave is a reconstruction, and probably no reconstruction is definitive, but Bill Thayer has a bit more of the Lapis Niger text at his site:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...lsen*/2/17.html

[Favonius Cornelius]

Maybe it was not intended for common people to read, but for those who

[M. Porcius Cato]

Maybe it was not intended for common people to read, but for those who

[Andrew Dalby]

 

Seems like no one likes my theory.

 

It's not very romantic I know, but why couldn't it be the case?

 

It could be the case, but the placement of the stele was so readily accessible to the public that it seems odd it was meant to be read by priests alone.

 

I'll go for the Favonius Cornelius theory, more or less. In modern times, laws are written for lawyers, and public notices are written for law-enforcers. In our neighbouring town, you park on the left side of the street during days 1-15 of the month, on the right during days 16-31. If I didn't see or can't understand the parking sign, or don't know what the date is, I don't get exempted from the penalty. It's up there, A. for me to read it if I can, but, B. principally so that the gendarme can point to it when giving me my fine notice.

 

The act of placing the notice is legally accepted as sufficient. After that it's up to the citizen to find out the rules, and if the citizen can't read or can't interpret the law, he or she is just going to have to ask a friend, a lawyer (or in the ancient case maybe a priest) what the law is.

Edited March 12, 2006 by Andrew Dalby

[M. Porcius Cato]

Let us suppose that Favonius' theory were correct. Even still, the same interpretation would apply to the Athenian public inscriptions--and the enigma remains unsolved: Why didn't literature (even PRIESTLY literature) spread more widely in Rome than in Athens by the 5th century?

[Viggen]

i am probably outing myself as a complete novice to this Lapis Niger szenario, but here it goes anyway...

 

How do we know this is so old (the stone) and if the stone is for some reason be dated correctly, how do we know the inscription hasnt been carved in later... (because then we knew why there was such a long gap, right?)

 

cheers

viggen

[M. Porcius Cato]

i am probably outing myself as a complete novice to this Lapis Niger szenario, but here it goes anyway...

 

How do we know this is so old (the stone) and if the stone is for some reason be dated correctly, how do we know the inscription hasnt been carved in later... (because then we knew why there was such a long gap, right?)

 

For one, the writing doesn't go left-to-right followed by another line of left-to-right, but uses the archaic method of left-to-right/right-to-left/left-to-right/etc. (the way you'd plow a field). Also, the Latin is very old. So, just in terms of the writing, it seems likely that it's 6th century at least.

[Pantagathus]

But maybe some new fragment has turned up?

 

The translation I gave is a reconstruction, and probably no reconstruction is definitive, but Bill Thayer has a bit more of the Lapis Niger text at his site:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gaze...lsen*/2/17.html

I'm glad this post existed... I'm reading Forsythe's Critical History of Early Rome right now (great book BTW) and his mentioning of the Lapis Niger really piqued my interest.

 

I will say that Forsythe treats any translation very cautiously and presents it tersely like Andrew has posted with only a few words being marginally translated for certain.

 

The first thing that struck me about it was that it appears to be a sort of Hermae as known throughout Greece; marking the area as sacred, probably by decree of the King and then giving instructions how to drive ones draught animals through/around the site; then what would happen to you if you didn

[M. Porcius Cato]

But, considering that the archaeological evidence points to a established presence of Greek aristocratic traders living (and being buried) in Rome around this time, perhaps the enigma can be explained as the result of one or more of these resident aliens acting as sort of a