Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing

Information in the Roman World

Andrew Riggsby
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/mosaics-of-knowledge-representing-information-in-th
e-roman-world-andrew-riggsby/
Mosaics of Knowledge
ii

Classical Culture and Society

Series Editors
Joseph Farrell and Robin Osborne

Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome

Robert A. Kaster

Making Mockery: The Poetics of Ancient Satire

Ralph M. Rosen

Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire:

A Study in Elite Communities
William A. Johnson

Apollonius of Rhodes and the Spaces of Hellenism

William G. Thalmann

The Captor’s Image: Greek Culture in Roman Ecphrasis

Basil Dufallo

Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition

Emma Gee

Gift and Gain: How Money Transformed Ancient Rome

Neil Coffee

Mosaics of Knowledge: Representing Information in the Roman World

Andrew M. Riggsby
Mosaics of Knowledge
Representing Information in the
Roman World

Andrew M. Riggsby

1
iv

1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2019

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

CIP data is on file at the Library of Congress

ISBN 978–​0–​19–​063250–​2

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Printed by Sheridan Books, Inc., United States of America

For Mom and Dad
vi
CONTENTS

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
List of Plates xiii
Acknowledgments xv

A Brief Orientation 1
1. Lists 10
Ordered Lists 11
Indexed Lists 15
Tables of Contents 22
Nested Lists 29

2. Tables and Tabular Organization 42

Actual Tables 50
Not Tables 54
Outliers 70
Conclusions 73

3. Weights and Measures 83

How Does Roman Measurement Work? 85
Standards and Standardization 100
Direct Standardization 107
Indirect Standardization 115
Complications 120
Conclusions 125
Chapter Appendix 129

4. Representing Three Dimensions 130

Perspective and the Theory of Space 131
The Corpora 135
Space in the Landscapes 138
Two Comprehensive Examples 147
Conclusions 149

5. Representing Two Dimensions 154

Data Graphics 154
Plans 164
viii

viii { Contents

What Is a “Map”? 172

Ancient Maps 180
Maps as Information Technology 194
Chapter Appendix 201

6. Conclusion 203
Where Are We Now? 203
Going Forward I: Power and Other Topics 210
Going Forward II: An IT Revolution in Late Antiquity? 216

References 223
Index 245
FIGURES

1.1 Supposed theater token from Pompeii 32

1.2 Supposed amphitheater token from Arles 33
1.3 Inscription on a theater seat from Verona; token from the amphitheater
at Frosinone 35
2.1 Organization of status theory 43
2.2 Schematic diagram of Roman centuriation 50
2.3 Military duty roster from Egypt 53
2.4 Military duty roster from Egypt 54
2.5 Victorius, Calculus 63
4.1 Landscape from the columbarium of Villa Doria Pamphilj 142
4.2 Landscape from room 14, Villa A, Oplontis 143
4.3 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina 145
4.4 Fall of Icarus 153
5.1 Roman portable sundial 156
5.2 Schematic illustration from a land-​surveying manual 158
5.3 More naturalistic illustration from a land-​surveying manual 158
5.4 Inscription detailing rights to draw water 159
5.5 Inscription showing plans for the funerary complex of Claudia Peloris and
Ti. Claudius Eutychus 166
5.6 “Map” from Dura Europos 173
5.7 Population-​adjusted map illustrating the outcome of the 2016
U.S. presidential election 174
5.8 Stylized map illustrating the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential
election 175
5.9 Network rendering of places named in Caesar 178
5.10 Schematic, two-​dimensional rendering of places named in Caesar 179
5.11 Forma Urbis Romae, detail 182
5.12 Forma Urbis Romae, detail 182
5.13 Scale of FUR implied by individual comparisons with modern measurement
and magnitude of each measurement 183
5.14 Fragment of inscribed map depicting the centuriation at Arausio 187
5.15 Tabula Peutingeriana, detail 192
5.16 Tabula Peutingeriana, detail 192
6.1 Jerome, Chronicle 219

ix
x
TABLES

1.1 Early references to the supposed Arles amphitheater token 34

1.2 Supposed form of reference to a centralized catalog of Roman public
statuary 39
1.3 Data about three American cities, arranged in tabular form 41
2.1 Varro illustrates linked proportions with numbers 52
2.2 Varro uses linked proportions to structure the declension of an
adjective 52
2.3 Modern declension of the phrase hic Marcus 59
3.1 Multiple meanings of symbols used in systems of measurement 92
3.2 Variations in actual weights with respect to presumed standard values 103
3.3 References to measured lots of grain in TPSulp 117
3.4 Standard reference values for several Roman units of measurement 129
5.1 Concordance of Roman building plans 202

xi
xii
PLATES

1 Fasti Amiternini, with color coding

2 Riot in the Amphitheater, Pompeii
3 Landscape from the columbarium of Villa Doria Pamphilj
4 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina, walkway
5 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina, cubiculum
6 Landscape from a villa at Boscotrecase
7 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina, triclinium
8 Fragment of marble map of Rome (“via Anicia” fragment)

xiii
xiv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project, at least some parts of it, dates back a long time. The seminar alluded to
at the beginning of ­chapter 2 was offered in the late 1990s, and I suspect that some
of the thoughts here probably first arose before I finished graduate school, while
I was reading Edward Tufte’s books from my mother’s book shelf. I have acquired
an unusually large number of scholarly debts over that time (and unfortunately
have doubtless forgotten others equally important). I got particularly extensive as-
sistance and commentary from Klaus Geus, Paul Keyser, Michael Koortbojian,
Rabun Taylor, and the readers for Oxford University Press. Tony Corbeill, Serafina
Cuomo, Tony Grafton, Joseph Howley, Nate Jones, Stephanie Frampton, John
Clarke, Eric Orlin, Liz Robinson, Philip Stinson, and Tyler Travillian all read
and commented on chapters in draft. I have also gotten other help, particularly
in the form of penetrating questions or advance access to work in progress from
Dorian Borbonus, Alan Cameron, C. Michael Chin, Megan Goldman-​Petri, Julia
Hejduk, Alexander Jones, Duncan McRae, Reviel Netz, Carlos Noreña, Laura
Novick, Dan-​el Padilla Peralta, Tim Parkin, J.-​B. Piggin, Phil Resnik and Jiesi Shi,
Jane Sancinito, Josh Sosin, and a seminar which covered this material (Gabrielle
Bouzigard, Timothy Corcoran, Eli Fleming, Vera Leh, Will Shrout, and Alain
Zamarian). I would also like to thank audiences at Brown, Chicago, Columbia,
Duke, Johns Hopkins, Maryland-​ Baltimore County, Minnesota, NYU, North
Carolina, Penn, Princeton, Texas Tech, Yale, and the Finnish Institute in Rome for
subjecting various parts of the argument to friendly scrutiny. And, of course, I need
to thank Joe Farrell, the series editor, and Stefan Vranka, the sponsoring editor, for
their interest, encouragement, and assistance in transforming the “project” into an
actual book.
Finally, I would particularly like to signal the role in this project of my ongoing
interaction with two younger scholars. Seth Bernard and Sarah Bond in their dis-
tinct, inimitable ways provided a stream of questions, prods, prompts, and problems
and materials to work with. A project of this scope necessarily relies on the kind-
ness of strangers to have any hope of reaching the necessary breadth, but even be-
yond that the constant presence of these two kept me honest and on my toes.
While I have been working on parts of this project for many years, the core of
the research and writing took place over two academic years, and I am more than
happy to thank the funding entities that made that possible. In 2010–​11, I held
the NEH/​Roger A. Hornsby Rome Prize at the American Academy in Rome. In
addition to the scholars named earlier, I must thank the Academy for both the
xv
xvi

xvi { Acknowledgments

Fellowship and the atmosphere uniquely hospitable to scholarship. Then in 2013–​

14, I was the Stanley Kelley Jr. Visiting Professor for Distinguished Teaching at
Princeton, a position which (perhaps ironically) carries quite modest teaching
responsibilities and which in turn allowed me to take advantage of the remarkable
research resources there. My thanks go to the University, the Classics Department,
and to Andrew Feldherr, who brought it all together.
I also need to thank several institutions which supplied other kinds of intellec-
tual resources. The Soprintendenza Archeologia del Veneto and Dott.ssa Brunella
Bruno, the director of its Nucleo Operativo di Verona, were kind enough to allow
me direct examination of the two bronze map fragments found there (and discussed
in ­chapter 5). The Bodleian Library in Oxford allowed me to inspect their manu-
script of Jerome’s Chronicle (discussed in the conclusion). Bruce Barker-​Benfield,
Senior Assistant Librarian in the Department of Special Collections and Western
Manuscripts there, was particularly generous with his time and expertise in
discussing the manuscript with me, and I hope to be able to publish further fruits of
those discussions in due course. The Bibliothèque municipale d'Avignon provided
images of an extremely rare volume on the antiquities of Arles. Finally, I (as every
academic) must thank the library staff at my home institution, especially Shiela
Winchester, the Classics bibliographer, and the InterLibrary Services Department
for providing (and often finding) an endless supply of research materials. Kristina
Schlegel did all the original drawings masterfully. Andrea Pittard provided assis-
tance with the manuscript and bibliography. Khoa Tran did heroic work with image
permissions. C. Berglie, the copy editor, had to deal with a rat’s nest of references.
It would probably not have been possible for me to write this book a decade
earlier. Modern information technology made it possible for me to gather the kind
of scattered evidence it relies on and to move into several areas that were previ-
ously unfamiliar to me. At the same time, it relied on the serendipity provided by
traditional library shelving, and I fear that in another decade or so it will again be
impossible to write a book of this sort, where the objects of inquiry and sources of
evidence were not givens from the beginning.
My wife, Lisa Sandberg, once again brought her formidable editing skills to bear
to grant this book such readability as it has, despite being subjected to the intermi-
nable process through which I brought the framework together.
My father was a scientist with a strong amateur interest in premodern history,
and was happy that he was able to read this whole book in manuscript before his
death. And even before learning of her career as a computer programmer, one
could spot my mother’s interest in data and design from the way she puts together
a quilt. It is to them that this book is dedicated.
Plate 1 Fasti Amiternini. Color coding indicates categories of information
DeA Picture Library, licensed by Alinari

 2

Plate 2 Riot in the Amphitheater (Pompeii, now in the Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Naples)
© Vanni Archive/​Art Resource, New York
Plate 3 Landscape from the columbarium of the Villa Doria Pamphilj (A/​XII)
Su concessione del Ministerio dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo—​Museo Nazionale Romano
 4

Plate 4 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina, walkway F-​G (inv. 1233)
Su concessione del Ministerio dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo—​Museo Nazionale Romano
Plate 5 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina, cubiculum D (inv. 1037)
Su concessione del Ministerio dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo—​Museo Nazionale Romano
 6

Plate 6 Landscape from a villa at Boscotrecase

© Marie-​Lan Nguyen /​Wikimedia Commons, used by permission
Plate 7 Landscape from the villa under the Farnesina, triclinium C (inv. 1080)
Su concessione del Ministerio dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo—​Museo Nazionale Romano
8

Plate 8 Fragment of a marble map of Rome (the “via Anicia” fragment)

Su concessione del Ministerio dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo—​Museo
Nazionale Romano
 A Brief Orientation

This book investigates information technologies in the classical Roman world—​

their invention, diffusion, and use, and the interactions among those processes. The
focus is on conceptual developments—​e.g., “mapping,” “weighing,” “listing”—​
rather than material ones—​e.g., “codex,” “abacus.” (Within the area covered, how-
ever, the interaction of concepts with the materiality of their actual uses will be a
recurring theme.) It also focuses principally on “high” technologies rather than, say,
literacy or numeracy in general. Perhaps paradoxically, this will end up setting the
book against most work to date on classical knowledge regimes. Scholarship has
typically dealt with intra-​elite and largely discursive phenomena. As a result, we
know a good deal about the intellectual history of antiquity’s formalized disciplines
(e.g., rhetoric, philosophy, law, literature, grammar) and how they competed with
and inflected one another. By contrast, my goal is to uncover an alternative set of
regimes which were generally not theorized in antiquity, but which informed the
practices of daily life, and did so in a broad variety of social locations (even if some
had elite origins). These turn out to include relatively advanced technologies like
complicated lists, tables, and textual illustrations.
While most of the book will be about technologies that were “advanced” in their
time, I want to begin with a brief narrative of the study of a more basic one: literacy.
Until a few decades ago it was a commonly, if not universally, held view that the
ability to read and write was widespread in the Roman world, not different at least
in kind from advanced nations in the modern world. This changed dramatically
with the publication in 1989 of William Harris’ Ancient Literacy. Harris deployed
comparative evidence to argue that such mass literacy could only exist in contexts
that met a number of social and institutional prerequisites—​systematic education,
broad economic advantages that flow only to the literate, and the like—​then showed
systematically that almost none of this was true anywhere in the classical world. On
this basis he then projected rough literacy rates on the order of 1% to 30% at var-
ious times and places within that world. Much of the response to Harris has been
accepting, if slightly more “optimistic,” at least on a local level. That is, scholars
1
2

2 { Mosaics of Knowledge

have been more willing to see social and institutional supports for literacy, even
if they take different forms than modern ones and even if they only create larger
pockets of literacy rather than universalizing it. But the real differences lie not in
tweaking Harris’ numbers but in adding to his stock of questions and localizing
their answers. There has been an increasing analytic interest in what might be called,
in the plural of the title of Johnson and Parker’s 2009 book, Ancient Literacies.
That is, with the basic quantitative picture already in place, interest has shifted to
more qualitative questions of how reading and writing skills (and, to a lesser extent,
numeracy) were employed by individuals in particular contexts. What kind of infor-
mation, Woolf 2009 asks, would labels on commercial olive oil jars in their highly
stereotyped format have been able to convey to “readers” in the industry, who might
not be fully literate in general terms and might not even be Latin speakers? Or what,
Beard 1991 considers, is the motivating effect of rituals that mediated access to the
divine through writing?
I tell this story, which will already be familiar to many readers, because it has
multiple resonances with the unfamiliar story I will tell in the body of this book.
First, I hope also to make modern states of affairs seem less natural. One reason
(though not, of course, the only one) it was easy to accept a highly literate antiquity
was the ease with which reading comes to individuals today. It does not then feel
like a very strong claim to extend that across an entire society, though in fact it is.
The information technologies discussed in this book—​things like numbered lists,
numerical tables, or mechanical weights and measures—​offer a similar temptation.
Their use comes so naturally to anyone acculturated in the modern world that we
are likely to take it for granted that they were available in the ancient world as well.
Most insidiously, something merely similar to a modern device can readily be taken
for fully identical.
Additionally, however, I would like to try to borrow some of the qualitative focus
that characterizes much of the response to Ancient Literacy. That is, I ask not just
how often Romans used various technologies but also when, how, and why. Those
contextual questions are probably good historical practice in general, but they
strike me as particularly urgent in this specific area of technology. As it happens,
most of the information technologies discussed here were not huge successes that
spread through the Roman world in the way, say, blown glass or concrete construc-
tion did. But the reason I can talk about them at length is that they were at least
invented, unlike, say, stainess steel or stirrups. One need not (as most readers prob-
ably will not) believe in the necessary “progress” of technology to be puzzled by a
lack of eagerness to adopt what were at least technically useful devices. “Why did
the Romans use tables or scale representations differently than how we do?” for
instance, is interesting because it will likely tell us as much about the Romans in
general as about those tables or plans. Different people use technologies for par-
ticular purposes in particular circumstances. The question, thus, is almost never
whether a particular technology is “good” or “powerful” or “elegant,” or anything
else. The issue is whether particular people (or enough of them) find it worthwhile
 A Brief Orientation } 3

to acquire that technology for some particular task before them. In a broad sense,
we could make this point about any adoption of any technology, but I will argue
that Roman cost-​benefit calculations in this respect were particularly strict and
particularly local.
While I do not, I hope, adopt a teleological view of technological change,
I should probably also point out that I do not hold a purely culturalist view, ei-
ther (even though the previous paragraph might have been read that way). I don’t
think it is meaningful to describe any technology as “good” or “the best,” only
good or best for some particular end (which might itself be defined by a complex
of mechanical, social, and other aims). However, this does mean that to the extent
that we understand those aims, we can say that some technologies are objectively
better: they have a lower rate of false positives, they create less pollution, they are
cheaper, the hardware is less likely to malfunction, they require fewer (or, if this is
what circumstances demand, more numerous) human workers, they channel rev-
enue to a politically powerful class. My account is also imperfectly culturalist be-
cause I believe that the invention and diffusion of inventions are path-​dependent.
Devices do not simply arise whenever and wherever cultural circumstance might
make them desirable. Various material preconditions and contingent discoveries are
required. I don’t claim to have proven the truth of this point of view. Rather, I have
sketched an approach which will stand or fall depending on how well it actually
works throughout the body of the study.
Though quite broad, the scope of this book will be limited in two important
ways. Chronologically, it will extend, at least in principle, from the earliest Roman
times to the year 300 (all dates will be ce unless otherwise noted). Any precise cutoff
is of course arbitrary to some extent, but I have chosen this one for several reasons.
As a practical matter, going substantially later would have expanded the available
evidence too much to be able to handle (the reader will have to decide whether I have
already bitten off more than I can chew). A cut-​off around 300 ce also corresponds
to a fairly traditional sense of “classical” (that is, non-​Christian) Roman culture.
That would not obviously be relevant in itself, but I suspect that it is connected
to another reason for the cut-​off. It appears to me, on the basis of evidence I have
admittedly scrutinized less carefully, that there is an information technology revo-
lution in Late Antiquity. There seem to be significant changes to the technologies
described in most of my chapters (and the invention of at least one important new
one) during roughly the fourth and fifth centuries. I will say a little more about both
the shape and the possible reasons (some Christianity-​based) for this revolution in
the last chapter, but the topic seems to me to require separate treatment. The end
date of 300 will not be applied mechanically. First, evidence from later periods can
sometimes be used to cast light on earlier ones. Second, I will be fairly generous in
allowing myself to use evidence (especially inscriptions) that is not definitively dat-
able to within my period.
The other constraint will also be partial, perhaps even more so. Though I have
been speaking (and will continue to do so) of “Roman” information technology, the
4

4 { Mosaics of Knowledge

focus of some of the chapters will be specifically on the Latin-​speaking world. That
is hardly an obvious line to draw in a historical rather than, say, a literary context,
so let me say a few words about why a linguistic distinction might be appropriate
to the particular topic and in what ways in which this limitation will and will not
be observed over the course of the book. Many of the technologies discussed here,
especially in those first two chapters, can be seen as specialized forms of literacy.
This seems to me to be the central insight of Jack Goody’s famous 1977 book, The
Domestication of the Savage Mind, and its chapters on the cognitive operations
enabled or encouraged by tables, lists, formulas, and recipes. My subject matter is
deeper and narrower than Goody’s, but I also differ from him in one methodolog-
ical emphasis. He tends to look more at what written technologies can do than what
they actually do. The former was important for opening up a field of inquiry in a
theoretical kind of way, but the historical specificity that I am aiming for seems to
require the latter. Seeing these technologies as an aspect of literacy accounts for a
restriction on the scope of this book. Though I will generally speak of “Rome” and
“Romans,” my focus will be on the Latin world when the devices in question are
used and transmitted by writing, and so we would not necessarily expect them to be
constant across linguistic boundaries.
Two examples might help show how this linguistic division clearly can work in
practice (one is from outside the realm of this study and the other will be treated at
length in c­ hapter 2). For the former, I offer the following observation on differences
in substance between contracts surviving from Roman Egypt correlated with the
language in which they are written (Alonso 2016, 65):

[T]‌he contracts concluded by Romans in Greek are usually indistinguishable

from those concluded by [non-​citizens]. Vain have been most attempts to
identify “Roman” traits in these Greek contracts. Their Latin contracts, in-
stead, which are rather scarce, do adhere to the Roman models both in form
and content, even if occasionally with peregrine accretions.

The contracts in question, even the ones in Greek, were concluded between Roman
citizens. The difference is thus not one of culture in general or even legal culture
but, rather, of language. Alonso suggests, plausibly enough, that the key factor was
reliance on notaries among the less privileged classes to produce these kinds of
documents. The second example has to do with tables (the organizational device,
not the piece of furniture). These are not, as it turns out, particularly common in
either the Latin-​or Greek-​speaking worlds, though they do appear in certain, very
limited contexts. One of those contexts in the Greek world was the display of as-
tronomical data of various sorts. Yet these do not appear in Latin. Roman authors
either give (some of) the same information in continuous prose or in lists or, in the
extreme case of Vettius Valens (second century), write in Greek themselves.
These examples are not meant to show that Latin and Greek information
technologies are entirely cut off from each other, a claim that would clearly be false.
Rather, I simply wish to illustrate that there are both theoretical and empirical
 A Brief Orientation } 5

reasons to suspect that there might be a significant level of separation. Nor do

I mean to ignore the Greek-​speaking world all together. Most mechanically, there
are at least a couple of cases where we have Greek texts that appear to be fairly
direct representations of operations of the Roman state originally conducted in
Latin (e.g., translations of senatorial decrees, labels on weights authorized by a
Roman governor). Though they are rare, I will also record cases where I think di-
rect influence from Greece to Rome can be established (e.g., the introduction of
the chronological table). Occasionally, there will be points at which Greek evi-
dence seems to provide an illuminating comparison, if not of a different sort than
Mesopotamian cuneiform or Renaissance Italian evidence might offer. Finally, the
technologies of c­ hapters 3 through 5 are less clearly tied to writing and so there is
less call for a distinction. For instance, I look at weights and measures from across
the Roman Empire. Even in those cases, however, the linguistic distinctions can re-
surface. The most “scientific” tradition of ancient (Mediterranean) mapping, for in-
stance, is closely tied, even subordinate to, written geographical texts, and this may
be reflected in broader practice. Greek and Roman practice in textual illustration
overlaps in some respects, but contrasts in others.
In addition to those restrictions of scope I should mention what may seem a
peculiar feature of many of the arguments. This book discusses devices that I pre-
sume will be familiar not only to every reader but also—​with the possible exception
of “perspective” in c­ hapter 4—​to their school-​aged children. It may then come as
a surprise that in many of the chapters I spend as much time as I do working out
definitions of terms like “list,” “table,” and “map.” I will say a few words here about
why that is. I do not intend to tease out “what we really mean” by these terms in the
manner of an analytic philosopher. Nor do I intend a more historical or philolog-
ical investigation of the possible semantic range of these English words, though for
clarity’s sake I will point out ambiguities that I fear may mislead. Nor do I think
that any of these technologies form a “natural kind” like, arguably, “dinosaur”
or “proton” or “water.” Nor, finally, am I generally trying to reconstruct ancient
Roman conceptual categories. Rather, I am trying to capture features of Roman
practice that line up only approximately with any language’s lexicon. In these cases
I have decided that the easiest way forward is not to try the reader with frequent
neologisms (“category 1 map,” “category 2 map,” etc.) or circumlocutions (“list-​
whose-​order-​conveys-​information-​to-​the-​intended-​audience” vs. “list-​with-​indices-​
permanently-​attached-​rather-​than-​created-​on-​the-​fly”). I have chosen instead to
use ordinary words that make the general area of interest clear, then to stipulate
whatever additional properties are important for my local purpose. I do not defend
these definitions as truer than any other. I intend them as useful, however, if they
help express significant distinctions in Roman practice. For example, are lists of the
types just mentioned restricted to specific use-​contexts?
It is also true, however, that there is another, more specific issue at stake, and
it is one that systematically results in more complex definitions. This arises from
the relation of form and function in the technologies. When definitions have been
6

6 { Mosaics of Knowledge

offered in this area by others, they have typically been framed in terms of form.
What, for instance, does a “table of contents” look like? In the last instance, I am
more interested in function instead, but that cannot normally be observed directly.
Fortunately, as a practical matter there are nonarbitrary connections between form
and function, and in many cases the broader context can help us out. Different
ways of organizing data facilitate different operations on those data, and it might
be more or less plausible that anyone would need to consult a document in the
ways that are theoretically possible. Thus I will integrate ideas of function into the
“definitions.” That, however, will mean offering more elaborate specifications of
form and context to stand in as proxies for direct observation of function. This is
not, as I say, a way of giving a truer definition, nor do I suggest that people who use
the words differently in other contexts thereby fall into error. Rather, it is a way of
specifying the precise phenomena that I intend to investigate. I am interested, for in-
stance, in which table-​like objects (in a broad, formal sense) serve the functions that
are most typically associated with tables. (Those “associations” will generally be
established by modern comparative and/​or experimental research.) Which formally
map-​like objects can serve map-​related purposes? And so on for other key terms. In
most cases, as it happens, the result is that I end up focusing on a narrower range of
objects than might be expected, but occasionally (as with the case of maps) I will
be arguing on the same basis for taking a broader view than is sometimes taken.
For the reader’s convenience I conclude this introduction with a brief survey of
the individual chapters.

1. Lists. While simple lists are ubiquitous in the Roman world, this
chapter treats only specialized types: tables of contents, alphabetized
lists, indexed lists, and nested lists. Each of these is rare and is largely
or entirely restricted to quite specific contexts. For instance, tables of
contents are used only for miscellanies with little inherent structure,
nested lists for large and continuously expanding public records. (In
passing, I demonstrate that a number of proposed listing schemes,
such as the supposed numbering of theater seats, are mistaken.) These
sophisticated list-​forms are used overwhelmingly to confirm or authorize
information rather than provide it in the first instance. Moreover, they
tend to arise in tandem with some physical process of collecting or
sorting data, not merely contemplation of data in the abstract.
2. Tables and Tabular Organization. Tables (in the narrow sense of
matrices with meaningful rows and columns) are also vanishingly rare.
The chapter contrasts a variety of areas in which they might have been
expected but are not in fact found (e.g., grammatical, arithmetical, or
calendrical tables) to the few where they are attested (e.g., centuriation
formae, military duty rosters). Tables tend to arise only in the context of
a combination of circumscribed expert communities of users/​producers;
constitution rather than recording of data; contexts in which priority
 A Brief Orientation } 7

is given to organization itself over content; and/​or physical or enactive

“scaffolding” for cognitive activity. That is, the surprising difficulty of
building a table is eased by what cognitive scientists describe as the “off-​
loading” of processing from purely symbolic reasoning to bodily action,
especially interaction with the physical world.
3. Weights and Measures. Serafina Cuomo has shown that at least
some Roman thinkers about measurement harbored universalizing
ambitions—​systems of formal equivalences between numerical
quantities that would bypass the particularity of the various objects
being measured. I argue that this regime emphatically failed to
materialize. Measurement remained a (local) process, rather than a
universal “black box” whereby numbers were allowed to stand in for
objects. On inspection, many units of measurement turn out to be
rough approximations, proportions (rather than absolute values), or
not fully realized metonyms (e.g., a literal cup rather than a formally
defined volume which shares that name). Neither state regulation nor
the pressures of the market required adherence to universal standards,
and in fact they would have rendered the notion almost meaningless. In
turn, a wide variety of processes (in commerce, construction, recipes) are
designed to be locally rather than globally predictable.
4. Representing Three Dimensions. Roman painting, it is rightly agreed,
did not use single-​point or other formal perspectival systems. It has
been influentially argued, then, that they lacked coherent spatial
representation altogether. However, examination of three related sets
of “sacro-​idyllic” representations show that they deploy a variety of
spatializing tactics instead of a single system; for example, rough scaling
and recession, encoding of distance by overlapping and differential
shading, cuing by narrative content and by radically perspectival view of
certain kinds of objects, and the physical height/​depth of plaster relief.
The combination of these features creates a network of connections at
a distance which gives three-​dimensional structure to representations
even if they cannot be precisely or uniquely reconstructed. They are in
this more topological sense “spatial,” even if not narrowly Euclidean.
The fact that the sets of tactics overlap but are not the same in the
various cases suggests that spatiality is a goal in itself rather than an
epiphenomenon of other generic features.
5. Representing Two Dimensions. The chapter focuses on maps, but
also examines (as background phenomena) data graphics, textual
illustrations, and building plans. I consider issues such as reproducibility,
social status, and representational minimalism. The notions of spatial
representation developed in the previous chapter, combined with some
of the specific features of the secondary technologies listed earlier, allow
us to set expectations for what an ancient “map” should have looked like
8

8 { Mosaics of Knowledge

and thus to collect evidence for their limited (but indisputable) patterns
of development and use. (The vast majority of the objects discussed in
this chapter operate in the titular two dimensions, but there are a few
exceptions.)
6. Conclusion. The first section attempts to tie together the content of the
main chapters, particularly in terms of the themes listed immediately
following. Then I sketch out several areas of related interest that I think
are ripe for further inquiry in light of the conclusions of this book.

My subject matter is large and complex, so it should not be surprising that there
is no monocausal explanation for the state of Roman information technology. As
a result none of the following themes plays a role in every chapter. Still, all recur
frequently, and the ensemble, I hope, binds the work together:

• Tolerance and context-​specificity. Roman information systems (e.g.,

volumetric measurement, records of land survey, representations of three
dimensions) show in general a remarkable tolerance for error and/​or
omission. The particular limits are a function of their use in the context
of preconceived target-​tasks for which the information will be “good
enough” and without regard for other possible uses or users. Those tasks,
in turn, are themselves shaped so that poor-​quality information suffices to
complete them.
• Recording vs. constitution. Representations can, of course, be used to
record facts which have some kind of prior existence (e.g., the list of
distances in an itinerary). But they can also be used to bring facts into
being (e.g., you cannot serve on a jury until your name appears in the
praetor’s album; eligible soldiers are not in fact discharged until the
relevant paperwork is completed). Romans are more comfortable in the
latter mode than in the former. Moreover, the understanding of many
cases hinges on recognition that what appears to be recording in fact
hides constitution. So, for instance, Roman tables of contents serve
poorly in a pure reference function, but make much more sense if they are
read to create segmentation of the main text.
• Text and paratext. Even in their most literary moments, Romans preferred
imagining texts (at least potentially) as speech acts. This makes many
informational devices (tables of contents, section numeration, tables,
illustrations) problematic, insofar as they are inherently paratextual
(and doubly so for items that cannot be linearized—​e.g., the last two
examples). Problems of textual status discourage integration of formal
data records with discursive texts. Conversely, the most sophisticated
representations (fully realized tables, 3-​D spatial representations) tend
to occur as stand-​alone objects, rather than being embedded in larger
projects.
 A Brief Orientation } 9

• Shared knowledge. These technologies require that producers and

consumers of individual representations (e.g., individual tables, maps,
etc.) share at least some knowledge of the technology itself. This is
particularly important to notice in cases where the general outline is
common knowledge (use of weights and measures), but crucial details
(objective values of those measures) are only knowable in extremely local
contexts. In practice, the required knowledge seems to have been restricted
to relatively small and isolated (if not always face-​to-​face) communities, a
limitation which is self-​reinforcing.

As a consequence of all these interacting factors, Romans lived in a balkanized

informational world. Persons in different “locations”—​whether those are geo-
graphical, social, or occupational—​would have had access to quite different infor-
mational resources, and the overall situation is thus not controlled by the needs of
any particular class or group. Rather, there is a “tessellation” of contributions by
intellectuals, bureaucrats, and tradesmen (hence the “mosaic” of the title).
10

1}

Lists

Perhaps the most basic information technology made possible by writing is the list.
Lists were ubiquitous in the Roman world, and I do not intend anything like a full
account of them here. The scope of this chapter will be restricted in two ways. First,
in keeping with the idea of “high” technology, I will be talking not about simple
lists but about versions that have been augmented in various ways: ordered lists,
indexed lists, tables of contents, and nested lists. Second, even within most of those
categories, I will not attempt an exhaustive survey of either themes or materials but,
rather, make selected points.
When I say that lists were “made possible by writing,” a reasonable objection
might immediately be raised. Human beings have of course always talked about one
thing, then another, then another. That is not just a matter of, say, the catalogs that
figure prominently in the earliest poetry of Homer and Hesiod; it is the linear nature
of human speech. But I want to insist that there is nonetheless something distinc-
tive about writing down sequences of information. Here, I follow Goody’s classic
discussion of lists, tables, and formulas as specialized technologies of literacy. He
argues that writing transforms this oral discourse, giving the proper written list a
variety of distinctive features:

The list relies on discontinuity rather than continuity; it depends on physical

placement, on location; it can be read in different directions, both sideways
and downwards, up and down, as well as left and right; it has a clear cut be-
ginning and a precise end. (1977.81)

These physical features in turn give rise to various practical consequences such as
increased abstraction, increased attention to categorization, and an invitation to al-
ternative arrangement or processing of the items listed. Not every written list takes
advantage of all, or even any, of these opportunities, and—​as often—​the distinc-
tion could be framed as a spectrum rather than as a binary opposition. Still, Goody
has identified a distinctive set of written forms, and convincingly connected them to
important differences in use and power. Some of these advantages derive from liter-
10 ally having the kinds of written forms specified; others could perhaps attach to an
 Lists } 11

oral list within a more broadly literate culture. My interest lies in texts that are not
merely sequential but which also exhibit at least some of Goody’s “written” charac-
teristics, whatever other specific additions (e.g., indexing, ordering) are the focus of
each individual section of the chapter. (This same set of observations about writing
down will be important to the next chapter, as well.)

Ordered Lists

I begin with what I will call “ordered lists.” Of course, all lists have an order; that
might even be considered their principal definitional feature (even if, as I mentioned
earlier, readers do not have to respect that order). What I mean here is much more
specific than that. “Ordered lists” will be shorthand for ones in which the order of
the text itself is meant to inform the reader. This can happen in two rather different
ways. On the one hand, a list can be organized by reference to properties of the
words (or other individual entries) themselves (“word order”). Typically this helps
a reader find out whether an item is on the list at all (sometimes to be used as an
index). On the other hand, a list can be ordered in terms of some feature of the real-​
world entities that are referred to by its entries (“topic order”). This can in theory
be used in the same way, but more often it is meant to convey something about that
feature—​for example, “what is the fourth most populous city in Italy?”
In principle, word order could appeal to the length of the words or some other
feature, but in practice it normally means alphabetical order. Unlike the topics of
the rest of this chapter and the next, alphabetization in the ancient world has al-
ready been the subject of an extensive and valuable basic study. In addition to var-
ious specific points which I will note individually, the basic narrative of the next
two paragraphs will rely heavily on Daly 1967. With this framework in place it will
be easy to move quickly to my own analytical remarks and in particular to some
observations that will foreshadow many of the important themes of the rest of
the book.
Latin lists in deliberate alphabetical order appear to go back at least as far as a
joke in a play by Plautus—​that is, the earliest extended Latin texts we have today
(c. 200 bce)—​and continue through to the end of our period. (There are somewhat
earlier Greek examples, and Plautus may well be adapting one such in his text.) The
earliest examples, and perhaps the bulk of all those of our period, are alphabetized
only with respect to the first letter of each word. Occasionally we see alphabetiza-
tion through the second or later letters. (Full alphabetization appears occasionally
in Greek, but seemingly not in Latin until after our period.) There is not, however,
an overall trend over time toward more detailed arrangement.
There seems to be something ordinary or matter of fact about Roman use of
alphabetization. The joke in Plautus’ play does not call explicit attention to the
ordering. Rather, a character starts reeling off a list of (otherwise unremark-
able) names in alphabetical order. The humor seems to lie in having the audience
12

12 { Mosaics of Knowledge

recognize on the basis of form that the list threatens to extend to the end of
the alphabet (Asin. 864–​6). It is unclear what fraction of the audience could
have gotten the joke—​we do not really know the fraction of the population that
would have had the low requisite level of literacy—​but the fact that Plautus took
the trouble to make a somewhat elaborate joke anyway suggests that many would
have. It’s also true that authors who use alphabetical order either do not bother
to explain what they are doing or use only a summary phrase to do so (“ar-
ranged by letters,” “in the order of letters,” etc.). This is in contrast to the use of
some other devices we will see later. Alphabetization is also a common feature
of school exercises, so it is not hard to see why it might be familiar to the general
(literate) public.1
At the same time, as Daly has noted, it appears to be used principally in contexts
which are anything but general or ordinary. He points out a number of schol-
arly uses; I would add only the case of Flavius Caper (Verb. Dub. 107–​12K)—​no
later than Daly’s earliest example—​whose brief list of morphologically “doubtful
words” is transparently in alphabetical order. Daly also notes administrative uses.
He finds their number less than impressive, and that is a fair judgment, but I would
note that subsequent scholarship (not focusing on alphabetization as such) has ex-
tended the roster of examples at least a bit.2 It is still not common in either realm,
particularly in “outward-​facing” texts—​that is, those aimed at a reading public dif-
ferent from the producer(s).
I am inclined to explain the gap between high accessibility and low actual use
by another phenomenon that Daly 1967.52 had already noted: alphabetization
was inelegant. The contexts in which it typically appears (education, handbooks,
internal state documents) are all relentlessly utilitarian. The two texts of some pre-
tension which nonetheless use alphabetical order resort to it only in residual cases;
it is how “the other” items in various categories are listed once more substantive
categorization has been exhausted (Var. RR 1.1.9; Plin. HN 3.46, 26.164, 37.138).
And at one point Pliny even apologizes as he begins a shorter group by noting
that he is only alphabetizing peoples “who do not warrant closer attention.”3 Daly
notes in this connection that the agricultural writer Columella, in borrowing two
alphabetized lists of authors from Varro, re-​sorts one by birthplace and appears to
invert two persons in the other simply to avoid alphabetical order.4 There is also a
well-​known passage in the Aeneid in which Italian heroes are listed in alphabetical

1
Cribiore 1996.161–​7. Frampton 2018.62–​70.
2
Nicolet 1991.135, 173–​7; Salway 2012.200–​2. Tim Parkin points out to me that the alphabetical list
of centenarians from Italy’s regio VIII preserved in Phlegon, Makrobioi (taken with Pliny the Elder’s
access to a similar data set; HN 7.162–​4) could reflect some government document ordered on the
same principle, though (as he also points out) alphabetization by praenomina seems very odd in such a
context.
3
Plin. HN 3.130, quos scrupulosius dicere non attineat.
4
Perhaps also relevant here is the frequently made observation that Latin authors who receive a list
in Greek alphabetical order often fail to rearrange it to maintain that order in Latin.
 Lists } 13

order except for the intrusion of Messapus between Caeculus and Clausus. O’Hara
1989, however, has shown that Vergil tells Messapus’ story in such a way as to as-
similate him to another well-​known hero, Cycnus. Cycnus’ name would be in cor-
rect first-​letter position here. Vergil, too, seems to be going out of his way to avoid
alphabetization.
There is also an exception which may prove the rule. The Augustan-​era scholar
Verrius Flaccus wrote an extensive lexicon, perhaps closer to a modern encyclo-
pedia than a dictionary. Our preserved versions have gone through some kind of ed-
iting at the hands of Festus (perhaps second century; very fragmentarily preserved),
and large parts survive only via the subsequent epitome of Paul the Deacon (eighth
century), but it seems likely that the basic structure is Verrius’. The work is organ-
ized by first-​letter alphabetization of the head-​words, and within each letter group
there is a first section that is further alphabetized and a second one which is grouped
more or less thematically. Glinister (2007.23–​4, 29–​32) has made a strong argu-
ment that alphabetization is not a pragmatic choice here. The work has no cross-​
references, and many discussions are attached to lemmata that are not necessarily
obvious. The innocent reader would find it very hard to track down a particular bit
of information, and even the expert might be daunted. Verrius, Glinister argues,
uses alphabetization’s blandness to assert intellectual authority, the authority to
distribute knowledge according to a system that is superficially objective, but in fact
quite idiosyncratic.
There are several patterns here that we will see throughout the book. First, al-
phabetization demonstrably exists in the Roman world, but its use and diffusion is
perhaps surprisingly limited. This quantitative phenomenon also has a qualitative
parallel. Romans do develop more “sophisticated” or powerful or (to put it less
prejudicially) intensive alphabetization, but the more complex forms do little or
nothing to displace the simpler ones. One should never cite technological progress
as an explanation for anything, but from a modern perspective it is probably useful
to point out that progress does not work even as a description here. In particular,
in the variation between one-​letter, two-​letter, and so on alphabetization, we see
a Roman tendency not to apply any more technology than is required by a par-
ticular situation. Second, the development is generally sparse, but also clustered.
Alphabetization is relatively common in a few contexts and unknown in others
where it could have been used. Additionally, I have mentioned an apparently aes-
thetic objection to alphabetization, and we will see other cases of resistance to for-
malism in data organization.
The last pattern is slightly more complicated. Small 1997.63–​ 5 has
hypothesized that the rarity of alphabetization is due (in part) to the instability
at the time of the notion of the alphabet itself. Following her, Glinister 2007.22
has gone so far as to say alphabetization “is not an obviously useful means of
arranging data in a world where ‘alphabetical order’ may fluctuate, where there
appears to be no concept of the alphabet as a distinct entity.” Subsequent work
by Frampton 2018.67–​70 has shown that the premise is false—​the alphabet was
14

14 { Mosaics of Knowledge

very much reified by the period we are talking about—​but in any case, the evi-
dence cited here for the ordinariness of alphabetization tells against such a deep
cognitive explanation of the weakness of the technology.5 Cognitive factors
will be significant throughout the book, but will rarely give simple, categorical
answers to our questions. Here we should favor shallower and perhaps more di-
verse explanations.
The other approach to ordered lists is by sorting the topics, not the words. In
principle, the potential variety of topic orders is infinite; one could imagine, for
instance, lists based on the date, location, or size of the items listed. There are
many such lists surviving, at least at first glance, but it is often difficult to know
that the objective order is meant to have (or in fact had) any informational value
for the reader rather than being an artifact of composition.6 For instance, the list
of canonical authors recommended by the rhetorician Quintilian (late first cen-
tury) is at least roughly in chronological order within each genre (10.1.46–​131), but
there are no absolute dates or even (for the most part) indications of gaps in time.7
Moreover, chronology applies only within genres, and those generic categories are
in turn subordinated to a division between Greek and Latin texts. Chronology may
have helped Quintilian pick an order, but it is so far down the organizational hier-
archy that it could only help a reader find an author that she is nearly on top of
already. Or take the lists of cities on the pocket sundials recently studied by Talbert
2017.147–​52, which instruct the user how to calibrate the timepiece for use at the
local latitude. Many show rough clumping of nearby places, and some may reflect
itineraries, but do not appear to follow these tendencies precisely, which means that
the order is not in fact predictable. Nor is it clear what value the sundial reader
would get even from knowing a correct order. All she really needs to know is her
current position. For an author, though, ordering even a fairly simple list might
make sense as a check for completeness.
In the two cases just mentioned, there is good reason to think of the lists as not
being ordered in my restricted sense, but more often there is little clear reason to
guess one way or the other. However, I can suggest two sets of circumstances in
which order is more likely than not to be important. On the one hand, we have a
number of kinds of practical records such as financial accounts, rosters of mili-
tary units (which are arranged by rank, then by year of enlistment), and various

5
More plausible is the notion (Glinister 2007.22–​3) that the syllable was more prominent in the
Roman mind, and so may have made limited alphabetization more natural (cf. Frampton 2018.63–​4 on
the status of syllables). However, the order of syllables seems still to depend on the order of the compo-
nent letters.
6
Cf. Riggsby 2007.96–​8 for structure in HN that seems to be a residue of Pliny’s methods of compo-
sition, likely invisible to his original readers, who had neither the modern paratextual apparatus we do
nor (I suspect) professional interest in reverse-​engineering Pliny’s working methods.
7
It might fairly be objected that what we have in Quintilian’s text is not really a list, since it fails
in most respects to show the Goody features described a few pages ago. I imagine that Quintilian was
working from an outline in the form of a much rawer list. If the end product was not really a list itself,
that just suggests all the more strongly that the ordering was meant for the author not the readers.
 Lists } 15

government registers. The registers record, for instance, births in the order received
and note both the date and the position of the record within the sequential register.
We will see all these document types again soon, but let me note here one feature
they share (which itself will also be important later). In all of them the chrono-
logical order seems to be generated automatically, as the records in question are
compiled over time. That is, for instance, a small business owner might list pay for
his employees for a given day, then repeat the process on the same piece of papyrus
the next day and the next, and so on.8 The fact that the individual records already
in order in these cases are tagged with the date in question suggests that the order
of composition was deliberately being harnessed to provide the user with chrono-
logical information.
On a grander scale, the various state annals seem to have been constructed in the
same way, with various kind of information (e.g., lists of prodigies) recorded in order
at least yearly.9 I separate these out because they point, at least by association and
perhaps also causally, to the second set of contexts in which pointedly ordered lists
are used. These are works of what might broadly be called scholarship. Most obvi-
ously there is Rome’s entire tradition of annalistic history, but we might also look at
Cicero’s Brutus, which writes the history of Roman oratory mainly through a series of
capsule biographies arranged in generations of orators. Unlike Quintilian, Cicero ex-
plicitly points to his chronological arrangement, and he uses it to make a point about
what he sees as progress over time. In a less literary vein, we can point to the lists
of officeholders, military triumphs, and calendrical information Romans carved into
stone and which go under the cover term Fasti.10 We do not generally know who com-
posed these, but the one exception (Fasti inscribed at Palestrina and composed by the
first-​century bce scholar Verrius Flaccus11) is likely representative. The people who use
topic-​ordered lists, then, look like roughly the same people as who use alphabetical
lists. They are scholars and bureaucrats who frequently deal with information as such
(without necessarily intervening in the management of whatever reality the data de-
scribe) and who interact intensively with each other more than speaking to a broader
public.

Indexed Lists

“Indexed lists” might include in principle any whose members are matched one to
one with a set of indices—​numbers, letters, colors, and so on—​to help find material

8
For a specific example, see ­chapter 2, note 46.
9
For the Annales Maximi, see Cic. de Or. 2.52 and DServ. Aen. 1.373, with Frier 1979. For other
magisterial (and thus annual) records, see the references cited at Riggsby 2006.134. Most or all of these
will have been internal rather than published records (Riggsby 2006.140, 149–​50).
10
On Fasti, see further at ­chapter 2 “Appearance: Fasti”.
11
Suet. G&R 17.
16

16 { Mosaics of Knowledge

within the list. As with the ordered lists, however, this type is dominated by a single
sub-​type: the numbered list.12
The fact that labels are almost always based on numerical order creates a poten-
tial evidentiary problem when we do not have the entire list in hand. If we have a
passing mention of, say, the fifth item on the list, does that mean that the whole list
was fitted with numerical references (and so is a truly indexed list) or did someone
just happen to count forward from the beginning on a particular occasion?13 This
distinction will often not be a real problem, but it will be significant in at least a few
cases that will come up in what follows. Thus I want to stipulate that for the rest of
this section I mean only lists with built-​in indices, not ones generated on the fly and
partially by a later user.
Compared with most of the other technologies discussed in this book, numbered
lists are fairly common. Here are some contexts in which they are used (most of
these will be discussed at more length at various points in the book):

• sections of archives
• segments of buildings
• administrative regions of Rome and of Italy
• military units of various sizes
• milestones along roads
• lots
• units of time
• segments of texts
In what follows I want to argue for the existence of two limitations on num-
bered lists. One limitation is (like the items in the list) essentially a matter of genre
or use-​context. The other is more functional, a way that numbering of lists is not
exploited, even when it exists.

12
Two (or three) exceptions: the Roman market (nundinae) cycle divided an eight-​day “week” into
days labeled A–​H; a work by Casellius Vindex (cited by Charisius 254.18, 312.24B) was arranged not
in books 1, 2, etc., but A, B, though here the letters appear to be literal; each book discusses words
that begin with the letter in question. Years were often identified by the names of (at Rome) the year’s
consuls or (elsewhere) various other “eponymous” magistrates; Julius Obsequens’ book of prodigies is
essentially a list structured in this way. But the unpredictability of these names, however, means that
they cannot be used as an index in the same way as numbers or letters.
13
There are also at least a few cases that turn out to be neither. Roman legions were conventionally
designated by numbers. At various points in the early empire there were two fifth legions, two sixth,
two tenth, and (it appears) three third legions (generally distinguished by further epithets); the numbers
are clearly not generated by counting, but because they are often repeated, they do not really work as
indices at all. Also, probably, the tokens known today as spintriae. These feature large numerals on one
side and erotic scenes or imperial portraits on the other. It has been hypothesized that they correspond
in various ways to a catalog of sexual positions or the like, but Campana 2009 makes a strong case
for regarding them as game tokens, with the numbers perhaps representing the value of the individual
piece. The same is likely the case for similar tokens which match numerals on one side with counting
gestures on the other (Williams and Williams 1995.590–​1).
 Lists } 17

The last item on the foregoing list was “segments of text.” (I mean here indi-
vidual texts; archives will come up later.) By the time we have longer surviving lit-
erary texts in Latin, they are divided by their authors into “books”—​that is to say,
units that will notionally fit on a single papyrus roll—​which are then numbered.14
(I use “literary” here in a broad sense common in the Classics—​texts which were
meant to be copied and circulated to an indefinite audience, not just those of some
artistic ambition.) Given this nearly universal convention, it is then striking that
smaller units of Latin texts are seldom if ever numbered. In principle, several such
units were available. Today we refer to bits of Latin poetry by line number and (in
the case of collections of short poems) the number of a given poem within its book.
There seems to be no evidence for either practice in antiquity, whether directly in
manuscripts or in external reference (say, in commentaries). This is despite the fact
that lines were often counted in individual manuscript copies, apparently as part of
the pricing process.15
Prose works were often thought of as being divided into capita, a word
often translated as “chapters,” but perhaps closer to English “sections” or even
“paragraphs” (there is a related, perhaps original, sense of “high points”).16 Not
only do we have frequent reference to the general idea, but there is even some man-
uscript evidence for the marking out of such sections with ekthesis (reverse inden-
tation) or even the letter k (for kaput, as the word was often spelled).17 Crucially,
however, none of these divisions appears to come with reference numbers, not even
in prose texts explicitly divided into units by rubrics. Latin also has a word pagina
which can mean the same thing as the English word we derive from it: page. Before
the rise of the codex, however, it typically refers to a field within a larger support
medium—​say, a column of writing on an inscription or roll of papyrus. In no sense,
however, are paginae used in our period as the basis for standard numeration of lit-
erary texts (we will see later that the case of archives is somewhat different).18
The lack of numerical references (other than book numbers) in commentary is
particularly striking.19 The genre was a flourishing one already in antiquity, with
subject texts including Vergil, Cicero, Terence, Homer, and others. In its modern
form, the commentary is typically organized by numeration first (line numbers
for verse, section/​chapter numbers for prose), then by rubric within any given nu-
merical range. Ancient commentaries are generally organized by rubric alone. In

14
Moatti 1997.223.
15
Birt 1882.159–​209; Hall 1913.9, 13.
16
On the terminology, see Butler 2009.16–​7, 20.
17
Butler 2009.10–​5, 18–​9, 21–​3.
18
Grafton 1997.30 cites references to page numbers in an apparently standardized edition of certain
legal texts, but this dates from the fifth century. Shafer 2017 has argued that certain effects in Vergil’s
Georgics presuppose that certain words and phrases will fall at predictable points on the “page,” though
for poetry this would only have required an early edition with a set number of lines to the page.
19
For possible (but still extremely scanty) Greek examples, see Barnes 2015.348–​50, Mansfeld and
Runia 2009.199.
18

18 { Mosaics of Knowledge

continuous reading, there is little difference, but if you pick up a literary text in
the middle, it is much harder to find your place in an ancient commentary than
in a modern one. For comparison, it may be useful to look at one very partial
exception to the usual ancient practice. In the manuscripts of Asconius’ histor-
ical commentaries on several speeches of Cicero (first century), we have frequent
(though not systematic) allusion to the position of his lemmata within Cicero’s text:

around line 640 (10.10C)

a little later (11.1)
around line 800 (11.8)
around the middle (11.19)
around the middle (12.7)
****
around the third part (23.21)
around 160 lines from the last (53.5)

This seems to be unique among commentaries. In fact, it has even been suggested
that these headings were not part of the original text but, rather, were introduced by
a later reader for his own benefit, then absorbed into the manuscript tradition. I will
return to the reasons for this proposal in a minute. Whatever their source, these
references obviously do not refer to standardized numerical labels. They are vague,
they vary choice of units (lines, “parts,” none at all), and they count in whichever
direction is locally convenient.
The same approach seems to be visible in a text which is not literary even in the
broad sense used here but also which bears on the more general issues of both this
section and the last section of this chapter. In the early second century, a man named
Vesbinus erected an inscription at Caere which recorded acts of the municipal gov-
ernment and subsequent correspondence with an imperial official authorizing him
to set up a shrine. His inscription quotes extensively and with citations from the
records (commentarius) of the municipality. The sections with the reference (as they
are usually translated) are as follows:

in which [commentarius] had been written this which is written below: In the
consulship of L. Publilius Celsus and C. Clodius Cripinus [i.e., 113], on the
Ides of April, in the [local] dictatorship of M. Pontius Celsus and aedile-
ship of C. Suetonius Claudianus, the commentarius of the municipality of
the people of Caere. From there (inde) page 27, sixth chapter. [provisional
approval of the project subject to higher authority] From there page two, first
chapter. [Letter to the relevant imperial official] From there page eight, first
chapter. [Reply from that official] (CIL 11.3614.6–​18)

In all three cases, the reference is to page and chapter. Birt 1882.158 takes the page
and chapter numerations as running independently, but in parallel, so pages 2 and
8 would fall within c­ hapter 1, while page 26 lay somewhere in c­ hapter 6. This hy-
pothesis ignores the fact that the three documents—​the initial decree calling for
 Lists } 19

(inter alia) the approval from the curator, the letter making this request, and the
curator’s reply—​are clearly in chronological order, as they would have been in the
commentarius which is a running record.20 Birt’s scheme makes the initial decree
the last of the three to appear in the commentarius. In fact, the same objection still
applies even if we take pages to be individually broken down into chapters. I sug-
gest that the page references have wrongly been translated as “page 27/​2/​8.” They
should instead be read as “the 27th/​next/​eighth page” from the previous citation
(an equally possible reading of the Latin). That is, inde (“from there”) doesn’t refer
generally (and thus redundantly) to “from the commentary” but, more specifically,
“from the last page mentioned.” The locations of the second and third documents
are given by counting forward from the first and second documents, respectively.
The first instance appears to count from a more public reference point marked out
by the list of eponymous officials (perhaps some important date in the civic year).
Note also that this material is placed after “what is written below” and so looks to
be itself a quotation from the record. Moreover, the first date quoted (13 April) is
very early if we take it to be the time of the original council decree, since the letter
they ordered dispatched was not sent until 13 August (line 15). Rather, it is a ref-
erence point considerably before that decree, as represented by the twenty-​six-​page
gap. It does not look as if this record had fixed numbers attached to its paginae, just
ad hoc counting. In principle the capita could have been numbered, but that seems
much less likely if there was no indexing at the higher level. This is made possible by
the fact that there was, seemingly, only a single exemplar of the text.
All that said, I know of two circumstances in which texts do have numbered
subsections: one in a particular text and the other an entire category. First, in the
mid-​first century, Scribonius Largus wrote a collection of recipes for 271 medicines.
The individual recipes are numbered, and the opening table of contents uses this
numeration to direct the reader from symptoms to their proper remedy. I will say
more about why this might be at the end of this section, after the other example
and some of its implications. Second, though arguably not literary texts even in
the broad sense I have offered, Roman statutes were often divided into numbered
capita.21 For instance, Cicero takes for granted that he can refer to these capita by
number even when speaking of a legislative proposal not yet passed:

Why does it matter in ­chapter 3 you require the ratification of officials by the
passage of a law by the curiae, when in ­chapter 4 the elected are given the
same powers even without such a law. (Leg. agr. 2.29)

20
Riggsby 2006.138.
21
The tablets on which a few statutes are inscribed seem to be numbered, but this is almost certain
to be for local use in placing the tablets, not a general reference system. The Flavian municipal law does
not even show consistent formatting at lower levels, so it is unlikely the system assumed uniform carving
(González 1986). In the enabling law for Gallia Cisalpina (CIL 11.1146) the (apparent) tablet numbers
do not respect breaks in the chapter numbering. Cf. Butler 2009.16–​21.
20

20 { Mosaics of Knowledge

Similar references appear sporadically in inscriptions and in the later juristic lit-
erature, and there is plausible reason to think that such numeration had at least
appeared centuries earlier as illustrated by the three numbered capita of the lex
Aquilia.22
Note, however, that in the Cicero passage I have just quoted, the reference to
chapter numbers is not strictly necessary, since the relevant material from the cited
source is paraphrased anyway. Looking up the proposal Cicero refers to could con-
firm what he says, but that appears to offer authority rather than information. This
illustrates the second, functional limitation I alluded to earlier. There is a strong
Roman norm against what I’ll call “obligatory cross-​reference.” That is, they do not
like to force readers to look up a second text to be able to understand what they are
reading in the first. Here is a modern example of an obligatory cross-​reference of
the sort I contend the Romans avoid:

AMERICAN DOCUMENTATION OF VESSEL REQUIRED. If 18

U.S.C. Section 1082 is repealed, the affirmative defenses provided by Section
47.09(b) apply only if the vessel is documented under the laws of the United
States. (TxPC §47.10)

This means nothing without consulting other sections of both the Texas penal code
and the U.S. federal code. This is entirely normal legislative drafting. Here is a
Roman example, which I suggest is extraordinary:

if there is no judgment within the time which is foreseen by ­chapter 12 of the

recent lex Iulia on civil trials or the decrees of the Senate pertaining to this
chapter. (lex Irnitana 91)

There are several points to be made about the Roman example. First, it is the
only obligatory cross-​reference to a numbered chapter in the surviving remains
of Roman statute law. And I have not yet found another example in the ancient
legal literature more generally. Again, a reference to provide authority is common
enough, but not ones that must be tracked down to figure out what the immediate
passage is saying. Second, the very text in which this reference appears would itself
be difficult to refer to in the same way. It is an instance of the so-​called Flavian mu-
nicipal law. The latter is a template for town charters in late first century ce Spain.23
We have fragmentary instances of laws based on the same template from other
towns in which the chapters are numbered. At Irni, however, the only place where
this quoted passage is preserved, the chapters of the law are identified by rubric, not
by number.24 In fact, as a general matter, the chapters of inscribed laws are more
often marked off by summary rubrics, by spacing, or by nothing at all rather than

22
Gaius 3.210, 215, 217; Rotondi 1966[1912].241–​2.
23
González 1986.
24
González 1986.148.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 SOUTHWORTH LIBRARY
⚜ ⚜ ⚜ ⚜ ⚜ ⚜ THE EDEN SERIES ⚜ ⚜ ⚜ ⚜ ⚜ ⚜
Only Complete Edition of Mrs. Southworth’s Novels

We desire to call attention to the fact that this line contains

exclusively all the popular novels of Mrs. Southworth. These later
novels by this popular author are all copyrighted, and so cannot be
had in any other edition. No other line contains all of this author’s
copyrighted and non-copyrighted works, because no other publisher
could afford to pay the immense sum necessary to gain control of
these popular novels. We have made arrangements with the
Southworth heirs for the renewal of the copyrighted novels, so that
the sole right to publish these tales will be vested in us for many
years to come.
ALL TITLES ALWAYS IN PRINT

173 Zenobia’s Suitors By Mrs. E. D. E. N.

— Sequel to “Sweet Love’s Southworth
Atonement.”
172 Sweet Love’s Atonement By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
171 When Shadows Die By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Love’s Bitterest Cup.” Southworth
170 Love’s Bitterest Cup By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Her Mother’s Secret.” Southworth
169 Her Mother’s Secret By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
168 The Mysterious Marriage By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “A Leap in the Dark.” Southworth
167 A Leap in the Dark By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
166 Fulfilling Her Destiny By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “When Love Southworth
Commands.”
165 When Love Commands By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “The Widows of Southworth
Widowville.”
164 The Widows of Widowville By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
163 Unrequited Love By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “For Woman’s Love.” Southworth
162 For Woman’s Love By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
161 To His Fate By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Dorothy Harcourt’s Southworth
Secret.”
160 Dorothy Harcourt’s Secret By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “A Deed Without a Southworth
Name.”
159 A Deed Without a Name By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
158 Brandon Coyle’s Wife By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “A Skeleton in the Southworth
Closet.”
157 A Skeleton in the Closet By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
 — Southworth
156 For Whose Sake? By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Why Did He Wed Southworth
Her?”
155 Why Did He Wed Her? By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
154 David Lindsay By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Gloria.” Southworth
153 Gloria By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
152 The Test of Love By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “A Tortured Heart.” Southworth
151 A Tortured Heart By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “The Trail of the Southworth
Serpent.”
150 The Trail of the Serpent By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
149 The Struggle of a Soul By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “The Lost Lady of Southworth
Lone.”
148 The Lost Lady of Lone By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
147 Her Love or Her Life? By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “The Bride’s Ordeal.” Southworth
146 The Bride’s Ordeal By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
145 Lilith By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “The Unloved Wife.” Southworth
144 The Unloved Wife By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
143 Em’s Husband By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Em.” Southworth
142 Em By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
141 Reunited By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Gertrude Haddon.” Southworth
140 Gertrude Haddon By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “A Husband’s Southworth
Devotion.”
139 A Husband’s Devotion By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “The Rejected Bride.” Southworth
138 The Rejected Bride By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Gertrude’s Sacrifice.” Southworth
137 Gertrude’s Sacrifice By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Only a Girl’s Heart.” Southworth
136 Only a Girl’s Heart By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
134 Little Nea’s Engagement By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Sequel to “Nearest and Dearest.” Southworth
133 Nearest and Dearest By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
— Southworth
81— The Artist’s Love By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
53— Capitola’s Peril By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “The Hidden Hand.” Southworth
52— The Hidden Hand By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
42— The Mystery of Raven Rocks By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “Unknown.” Southworth
41— Unknown By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
 Southworth
40— Tried for Her Life By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
(Vol. II. The Holloweve Mystery) Southworth
Sequel to “Cruel as the Grave.”
39— Cruel as the Grave By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
(Vol. I. The Holloweve Mystery) Southworth
38— Victor’s Triumph By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “A Beautiful Fiend.” Southworth
37— A Beautiful Fiend By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
36— A Noble Lord By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “The Lost Heir of Southworth
Linlithgow.”
35— The Lost Heir of Linlithgow By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
34— The Lady of the Isle By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
33— The Bride’s Fate By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “The Changed Brides.” Southworth
(Vol. II. Winning Her Way)
32— The Changed Brides By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
(Vol. I. Winning Her Way) Southworth
31— The Doom of Deville By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
30— The Broken Engagement By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
29— The Three Beauties; By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
or, Shannondale Southworth
28— How He Won Her By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “Fair Play.” Southworth
 (Vol. II. Britomarte)
27— Fair Play By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
(Vol. I. Britomarte) Southworth
26— Love’s Labor Won By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
25— Eudora; or, The False Princess By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
24— The Two Sisters By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
23— The Bridal Eve By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
22— The Bride of Llewellyn By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “The Widow’s Son.” Southworth
(Vol. II. Left Alone)
21— The Widow’s Son By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
(Vol. I. Left Alone) Southworth
20— The Bride’s Dowry By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
19— The Gipsy’s Prophecy By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
18— The Maiden Widow By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “The Family Doom.” Southworth
17— The Family Doom By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
16— The Fortune Seeker By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
15— The Haunted Homestead By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
14— The Christmas Guest By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
13— The Three Sisters By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
12— The Wife’s Victory By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
11— The Deserted Wife By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
10— The Mother-in-Law; By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
or, Married in Haste Southworth
9— The Discarded Daughter; By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
or, The Children of the Isle Southworth
8— The Lost Heiress By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
7— Vivia; By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
or, The Secret of Power Southworth
6— The Curse of Clifton By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
5— The Missing Bride By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
4— India; By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
or, The Pearl of Pearl River Southworth
3— Self-raised By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Sequel to “Ishmael.” Southworth
2— Ishmael By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
1— Retribution By Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth
 S. & S. Novels
“THE RIGHT BOOKS AT THE RIGHT PRICE”

¶ Have you ever stopped to consider what a wealth of

good reading is contained in our S. & S. lines? We were
pioneers of the paper book industry. Being first in the field
and having unlimited capital, we were enabled to secure
the works of the very best authors and offer them to the
reading public in the most attractive form.
¶ We have the exclusive right to publish all of the late
copyrighted works of Charles Garvice, Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth, Bertha M. Clay and Horatio Alger, Jr. We
control exclusively the works of Mrs. Georgie Sheldon,
Nicholas Carter, Burt L. Standish, Effie Adelaide
Rowlands, Gertrude Warden and dozens of other authors
of established reputations.
¶ When you purchase an S. & S. Novel, you may rest
assured that you are getting the full value for your money
and a little more. There are none better. Send to us for our
complete catalogue, containing over two thousand
different titles, which will be mailed to any address upon
receipt of a two-cent stamp.

STREET & SMITH, General Publishers

79 to 89 SEVENTH AVENUE, NEW YORK CITY
 Transcriber’s Notes
Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Variations in
hyphenation and accents have been standardised but all other spelling and
punctuation remains unchanged.
A table of contents has been added for the reader’s convenience.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK A TRAGEDY
OF LOVE AND HATE ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright
law in the United States and you are located in the United
States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying,
distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works
based on the work as long as all references to Project
Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will
support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free
access to electronic works by freely sharing Project
Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this
agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms
of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with
its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it
without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside
the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to
the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying,
displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works
based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The
Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright
status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project

Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project
Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed,
viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United

States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it
away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg
License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United
States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to
anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges.
If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of
paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use
of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth
in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is

posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and
distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder.
Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™
License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright
holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files
containing a part of this work or any other work associated with
Project Gutenberg™.
 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute
this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the
Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if
you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project
Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or
other format used in the official version posted on the official
Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at
no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a
means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project
Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™
works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or

providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
 about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project

Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different
terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain
permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™
trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3
below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on,
transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright
law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite
these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the
medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,”
such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt
data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other
medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES -

Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in
paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic
work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for
damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU
AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE,
STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH
OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER
THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If

you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you
paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you
received the work from. If you received the work on a physical
medium, you must return the medium with your written
explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the
defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu
of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or
entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.
If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund
in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set

forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’,
WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this
agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this
agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the
maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable
state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of
this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the

Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless
from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that
arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project
Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or
deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect
you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new
computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of
volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project
Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™
collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In
2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was
created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project
Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your
efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the
Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-
profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the
laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by
the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal
tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax
deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and
your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500

West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact
links and up to date contact information can be found at the
Foundation’s website and official page at
www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission
of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works
that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form