Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More:
The Culture of Word-Games among the Graffiti
of Pompeii*
Rebecca R. Benefiel
Early in the nineteenth century excavations of Pompeii there came to light
a painted inscription that read: Suilimea Cissonio fratrabiliter sal.The message featured attractive red lettering and the easily understood but theretofore unattested adverbial form: fratrabiliter. It was of sufficient interest
that the plaster was excised from the ancient wall, and it was removed to
the Naples Archaeological Museum where it remains well preserved today
(fig. 1). As this painted message of greetings was among the earliest wallinscriptions to be documented in the excavations of Pompeii, the editors of
the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum initially explained the name Suilimea
as a cognomen. As we shall see, however, that hypothesis was eventually
revised as more inscriptions came to light.
This essay explores word-play and technopaegnia among the vibrant
and energetic culture of ancient wall-inscriptions in Pompeii. Word games,
riddles, and linguistic play did not take place only in elevated literary contexts, nor were they indulged in solely by the social elite. The abundance
of archaeological material preserved in ancient Pompeii shows, instead,
that enjoyment of word-play and mental acrobatics radiated deep through
ancient society, even among the populations of smaller towns across the
Empire. The variety of examples that are attested epigraphically at Pompeii
point to a broad and active culture of word-games taking place during the
early Roman Empire.
_____________
*
Figures 1, 2 and 4 are reproduced by courtesy of the Sopraintendenza Speciale per
i Beni Archeologici di Napoli e Pompei. Reproduction is forbidden.
66
Rebecca R. Benefiel
Fig. 1: SVILIMEA CISSONIO FRATRABILITER SAL (CIL 4.659)
1. Archaeological and Epigraphic Context
No archaeological site gives us a better look into popular culture during the
early Empire than the site of ancient Pompeii. The destruction of this town
and the surrounding areas by the eruption of Mt Vesuvius in AD 79 resulted in an excellent preservation of the wall-plaster that covered nearly every
building in the city – along with the thousands of writings and messages
that were inscribed upon it. Pompeii has yielded a total of more than
13,000 wall-inscriptions so far, although more have been lost and approximately one-third of the city remains unexcavated.1 This is an overwhelming number of writings for a city whose population is estimated to have
been around 10,000 inhabitants. These wall-inscriptions, also called graffiti, take two main forms: (1) painted inscriptions, which were usually notices of public interest, and (2) incised inscriptions, spontaneous messages
that could be written by anyone on the street with a sharp object and the
desire to write something.2 The wall-inscriptions in Pompeii are not confined to a particular type of building or to any one geographical area, but
_____________
1
2
Volume 4 of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum records the textual parietal
inscriptions from Pompeii and surroundings. Martin Langner (2001) has catalogued the figural graffiti and drawings from Pompeii and from sites across the ancient world.
A smaller number of inscriptions were written with charcoal. For a good overview
concerning wall-inscriptions at Pompeii, see Franklin 2007 and 1991.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
67
are found in both private and public spaces and throughout the length of
the city.3 It is worth noting these ancient wall-inscriptions were not intended to deface, as is often the case with modern graffiti; instead, this mass of
inscribed messages reveals a broadly shared interest in writing and reading.
The widespread popularity of writing on the walls seen in Pompeii
may have been spurred on by what was happening in the public sphere.
The surge of public monumentalization of text that occurred during the
early Empire appears to have been paralleled by an explosion of interest in
creating one’s own textual message on the part of the broader populace.
Thousands of graffiti preserved in Pompeii illustrate this burgeoning interest and feature far more than names, greetings, and drawings; they also
offer a view into popular word-games of the day and clever compositions
in different formats that were designed to show off the writer’s wit, intellect, or facility with language. This paper will highlight three examples of
such word-games: magic squares, alphabet jumbles, and riddles.
2. Magic Squares
The best-known example of wordplay from Pompeii may be the famous
ROTAS-SATOR magic square.4 This five-line square of text has been
referred to as “magic” for a number of reasons, chief among which is that it
is the same when read horizontally or vertically, from the beginning or the
end:
ROTAS
OPERA
TENET
AREPO
SATOR
The fame of this text stems from a deduction that by rearranging the letters
of this five-line square, one could spell out the phrase Pater Noster twice.
This is possible if one rearranges the phrases into one vertical and one
horizontal line, intersecting to share the central letter N. The rearrangement
is not perfect – four letters are left over once the phrase Pater Noster is
spelled out: the two letters A and two of O. But once a Christian tone had
already been associated with this group of letters, with a reference to the
_____________
3
4
For recent analyses of wall-inscriptions in public and domestic contexts, see LevinRichardson 2011 (graffiti in the brothel), Benefiel 2010a (in the House of Maius
Castricius), and Benefiel 2010b (in the House of the Four Styles).
The bibliography on this square is immense. Some of the most important treatments include: Guarducci 1965, Hofmann 1978, and Varone 1979.
68
Rebecca R. Benefiel
prayer of “Our Father”, the remaining pairs of A and O were explained as
references to the alpha and omega. A Christian reading behind this scramble of letters thus created a new arrangement as follows:
P
A
A
T
A
E
R
PATERNOSTER
O
S
O
T
O
E
R
This reading was speedily embraced and, even though strong arguments
have been made against it, fascination with the idea that this writing might
point to an extremely early (and hidden) Christian message continues to
hold today, particularly in non-academic quarters.5
Yet, this is not the only magic square in Pompeii. Three versions of
this five-line square have been found. The magic square that has generated
the liveliest discussion was found inscribed in the campus beside the amphitheater. Another version was painted onto the façade of the Praedia of
Julia Felix at II.4, and a third, fragmentary example was discovered inside
the House of Paquius Proculus at I.7.1.6 In that house, the square was one
of nearly seventy graffiti, including messages that point to individuals
visiting from Rome.7 And this may be a clue as to how the word square
reached Pompeii. Rather than Christians traveling in secret to spread their
message, particularly at such an early date when Greek was the language of
the young church, these word squares were probably passed along through
social interaction and the regular movement of people. Popular poetic
verses appear to have circulated throughout the towns of the empire in a
similar way.8
Another version of a magic square, this time consisting of four lines,
was also found at Pompeii:9
_____________
5
6
7
8
9
The easy transmission of information through the internet and blogs means that
theories about the Sator square can spread far and quickly. A google search for
“sator square” returns about 30,200 results (retrieved 7 June 2012).
CIL 4.8123: [---] | [t]enet | [a]repo | [sa]tor. (The very bottom of letters were visible in the line before tenet. CIL includes a line-drawing.)
Cf. Benefiel 2010c: 54–55, and Franklin 2001.
Cf. Kruschwitz 2006, Milnor 2009.
CIL 4.8297, inscribed on the façade of the House of the Menander at I.10.4.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
69
ROMA
OLIM
MILO
AMOR
Like the ROTAS-SATOR square, this one presents palindromes and was
designed to be read back and forth, up and down. The ROTAS square has
at times been interpreted as conveying an entire sentence: “The sower
Arepo holds the wheels with effort”. The four words in this group, however, demonstrate that there need not have been a full sentence contained
within the magic square; it was sufficiently fascinating to be able to read
horizontally or vertically, from the left or right.
The reference to Rome may have supplied the genesis for this square
since the word Roma could so easily be read from right to left as amor. It
was not too difficult then to come up with a four-letter word beginning
with an O for the next line, olim. The third line, Milo, reveals the shortcut
possible for finishing the square – a personal name. The word Arepo in the
five-line word square seems to fulfill the same function. Although arepo
fits in the series, it is not a Latin word found elsewhere and attempts to
compose a full sentence from the five-line word square have explained it as
a personal name.10
This play with the construction of language appears to have been
broadly appealing. The four-line ROMA-AMOR square is found not only
in Pompeii but also at Ostia and in Spain.11 With its larger size, the fiveline ROTAS-SATOR square must have proven even more fascinating; it
has been found so far at six sites across the ancient world.12 How many
more word squares were produced and entertained is impossible to say, but
the potential to create additional examples was there.
Magic squares are known in Greek too. In fact, one word square in
Greek came to light recently and was published by Roger Bagnall only last
year. Excavations in the substructures of the basilica at Smyrna have yielded two fragmentary examples of the same version, both dating to the second century AD. These two versions appear in different bays, and may
suggest that the writer was trying to work out the format as he inscribed the
text. This Greek word square also consisted of five lines. It too could be
_____________
10 Cf. Gwyn Griffiths 1971, who proposes that the name is of Egyptian origin. Guarducci (1965: 222–228) also summarizes the earlier attempt of Carcopino to explain
arepo as of Gallic origin, and to connect it with aratrum.
11 CIL 4.8297; Guarducci 1965: 265; and IRBaelo 00102, respectively.
12 In addition to Pompeii, these include: AE 1934, 0010 (Dura Europus); AE 1956,
0063 (Aquincum); AE 1975, 0493 (Portugal); AE 1979, 0387 (Britain); AE 2002,
0583 (Comum).
70
Rebecca R. Benefiel
read horizontally or vertically, but unlike the Latin square, this was not
also a palindrome. It reads:13
ΜΗΛΟΝ
ΗKΟΝΗ
ΛΟΓΟΣ
ΟΝΟΜΑ
ΝΗΣΑΣ
These word squares demonstrate that at Pompeii the purpose was not to
rearrange the letters into another visual shape;14 instead, the fascination
with these word squares seems to stem from the possibility of reading in
different directions.
3. The Alphabet
The ability to read backward and forward takes a different twist when it
comes to writing the alphabet. Numerous handwritten examples of the
alphabet grace the walls of Pompeii and have inspired the argument that
children were the instigators behind many of the city’s graffiti. The editors
of CIL vol. 4 first made such an assertion; the presence of alphabets among
the city’s graffiti has subsequently been explained as the work of children
practicing their letters.15
Yet the idea that these wall-inscriptions were produced by children
copying out the alphabet does not correspond with the archaeological material. First, the alphabet is only rarely copied out in full. And in places
where it is, like the Casa del Sacello Iliaco, it does not appear to be the
work of children. Here, the text is written where renovations were taking
place in order to alter a doorway. The alphabet appears in the wet plaster
around the new door frame; perhaps the fresh surface, which would soon
be painted over, appealed to someone who decided to write something, and
the alphabet was simply what came to mind. Judging from the height of the
inscription, it was an adult, not a child, who created it.
_____________
13 Bagnall 2011: 17–18.
14 Some have suggested that the rearrangement of the word-square into intersecting
vertical and horizontal lines could be interpreted as a cross. Cf. Guarducci 1965:
222–223. Antonio Varone offers the most comprehensive and cogent explanation
of this issue. The potential rearrangement of letters into vertical and horizontal
lines was a modern discovery, reached independently by three scholars in the
1920s. Other rearrangements are possible as well, but have no bearing on the original composition of the square. Cf. Varone 1979: 53–71, esp. 61.
15 CIL vol. 4 p. 164.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
71
Fig. 2: The alphabet inscribed on a wall during renovations
in the Casa del Sacello Iliaco
Secondly, if a person was practicing his or her letters, we might expect to
find the alphabet repeated, as it is on papyri, where such exercises are
found.16 In Pompeii, however, single instances of the Roman alphabet are
inscribed. Only one spot features an alphabet copied out several times, and
there it does seem that some person was learning the alphabet. But in that
particular location, near the kitchen in the House of the Menander, the
alphabet was being written not in Latin, but in Greek.17
Yet, if these texts do not represent children practicing their letters, they
do point to tasks of mental agility. In particular, more than ten graffiti present what at first glance might appear to be a jumble of letters, which I
have termed alphabet jumbles. One example from the Vico del Panettiere
reads: AX[-]VCTD.18 In other locations this series continues further, and
_____________
16 Cf. Cribiore 2001.
17 The beginning of the Greek alphabet is copied out eight times (CIL 4.9275a–h)
near the kitchen in the House of the Menander at I.10.4. CIL 4.9275e is the only
instance in which the alphabet is written out in full; the other examples all feature
only the beginning of the series. Three other graffiti featuring the beginning of the
Greek alphabet are found nearby (CIL 4.9274a–d).
18 CIL 4.3219.
72
Rebecca R. Benefiel
reveals that the alphabet jumble is created by writing the alphabet from
both the beginning and the end simultaneously. The writer begins with A,
then moves to X at the very end of the alphabet, then returns to B, then
heads back to the end and to the letter V, again back to the beginning for
the letter C, and so on. Another example appears in the Casa del Centenario at IX.8.3,6 where it seems as if someone was trying to work out
this braided version. The very end of the alphabet (RSTVX) is copied out,
with the full jumbled series then written out below: AXBVCTDSERFQGPHOINKML.19
These word squares and alphabet jumbles thus have something in
common: they rely on a certain flexibility with language and a willingness
to ignore strict linear progression in order to more fluidly read – or think –
backwards and forwards.
4. Riddles in the Basilica
Riddles too form part of the culture of wordplay among the wallinscriptions of Pompeii. Two graffiti identify themselves as riddles, beginning with the heading, zetema. Both messages were inscribed in the basilica, a location that featured a great deal of originality among the large number of messages inscribed here.
Public buildings in Pompeii were not free from graffiti. The 16,000 sq
ft basilica on the town’s forum features some 200 graffiti, and ranks alongside the purpose-built brothel and the campus beside the amphitheater as
one of the most heavily inscribed spaces in the city. The bulk of these graffiti were found not on the façade but on the interior walls of the building,
which were decorated in brightly colored first-style painting.20 The main
course of the decoration consisted of two large panels between engaged
columns and painted black (see fig. 3). The majority of graffiti were inscribed here, in the bottom half of this main course – a comfortable height
for someone standing next to the wall to write.
_____________
19 CIL 4.5499.
20 Incised and painted wall-inscriptions were discovered on the exterior walls of the
building as well, but the exposure to the elements on the outside of the basilica
likely resulted in these being preserved in worse condition, and likely contributed
to the loss of others. Cf. CIL 4.1774–1777, with the note at 1774: In eo muro praeter has multae extant inscriptiones, sed, ut in corroso tectorio, mutilatae et oblitteratae omnes.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
73
Fig. 3: Decorative scheme of the interior walls of the basilica.
From Mazois 1829: pl. 21, fig. 1
The graffiti in the basilica contain a vast range of topics, from expressions
of love to sketchy drawings, from well-known maxims to the city’s oldest
dateable graffito that stated Gaius Pumidius Diphilus “was here” in 78
BC.21 Many of the messages in this building are multiple lines, longer than
usual for ancient graffiti. And numbers of writers signed their names here,
either in greetings to friends or as a coda to their message, like Narcissus
who signed off with “Narcissus wrote this” after his quotation of a line
from book two of Vergil’s Aeneid.22
The overwhelming number of messages and the large amount of poetry
among the graffiti in the basilica so impressed early visitors to Pompeii
that in 1841 nineteen large panels of wall-plaster were detached from the
walls and removed to the archaeological museum in Naples. They remain
there well preserved and in good condition today. It is therefore possible to
view at first hand the two riddle messages as they are inscribed.
The two messages are inscribed in the same area, in the lower left hand
corner of a panel, and are written one above the other. Each begins with the
_____________
21 CIL 4.1842: C • Pumidius • Dipilus • hic fuit | a(nte) • d(iem) V • Nonas Octobreis
• M • Lepid • Q • Catul co(n)s(ulibus).
22 Aen. 2.148 = CIL 4.1841: Quisquis es amissos hin[c iam ob] | liviscere Graios |
scribit Narciss(us).
74
Rebecca R. Benefiel
word ZETEMA, centered and on its own line above the rest of the text.
The form of the letter E differs in the two messages, suggesting that the
messages were written by different hands.23 The content makes clear that
the lower message, tucked into the very corner of the panel, was meant to
be read first. It reads:24
ZETEMA
Mulier ferebat filium similem sui
Nec meus est nec mi similat sed
Vellem esset meus
Et ego voleba(m) ut meus esset.
In the last line, the final -m of the main verb, voleba(m), is not written; this
characteristic occurs in other graffiti at Pompeii too, revealing that the final
-m was already being nasalized and that Latin was already a step closer to
the Romance languages.25 The writer, however, recognized the possible
confusion with this form voleba(m/t), however, and inserted the word ego
in small letters above the verb to make clear what the subject of the sentence should be.
Without the heading of zetema, it might not be obvious that this text is
a riddle. Nor is the answer to the riddle immediately apparent. Archer Taylor grouped the message with riddles concerning family relationships, but
suggested that it probably had to do with a pun on sus (“pig”), while Karl
Schenkl had earlier offered the answer that the woman was to be identified
with ousia (pecunia), and the son was tokos (fructus).26 A third possibility
might be that the key lies in the word meus, which might be understood as
indicating a father-son relationship (“I wish he were my [son]”) but could
also be taken in an erotic sense (“I wish he were mine”).
In any case, someone appears to have figured out the answer. The message above this graffito says as much. Although it similarly begins with the
heading of zetema, instead of offering another riddle, it goes on to say,
“s/he solved the riddle” (zetema dissolvit). The subsequent line of that
message, however, does not give the answer and unfortunately is none too
transparent. CIL offers the following reading, which I cannot improve up-
_____________
23 The two different forms of E are clearest in the word ZETEMA that begins each
text. In the lower text, the letter E is written as a vertical stroke with three horizontal crossbars. The upper message includes a different style for the letter E, yet one
that was equally common among Pompeii’s graffiti; here the E is created by two
vertical, parallel strokes. Considering the grain of the wall-plaster, it was probably
easier to incise this second form.
24 CIL 4.1877.
25 Väänänen 1959.
26 Taylor 1938; Schenkl 1886.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
75
on: Lacris amala pateto bic arabicae | ente.27 Then, after a space, additional text offers vocabulary that is more easy to understand: linge mentula est.
This was written after the preceding text and may have been inscribed by a
different individual. I propose that the final -m for the accusative ending of
mentula was not written out, as occurred in the other graffito nearby, and
that this writer intended: linge mentula(m) est, “it (i.e. the answer) is, lick
the prick”.
The motivation behind that contribution is not as important here as it is
to recognize that multiple people were reading and answering the riddle
inscribed on the basilica wall. The difference in the formation of the E in
the two zetema graffiti already suggests that the person who wrote that
“s/he solved the riddle” is the not the same individual who posted the riddle in the bottom corner of the panel. The vacat between the continuation
of the upper graffito and the last three words, along with the fact that those
final words appear to be more deeply incised into the plaster, suggests that
a third person wrote the final phrase, linge mentula est. These inscribed
contributions above the original graffito prove that people were reading the
riddle and puzzling it out. Some even added their own comment, but others
would have read it without leaving a trace.28
5. Inscribed Wit in the Basilica
Graffiti elsewhere in the basilica further testify to the penchant of Pompeians to inscribe messages meant to show off their learning or wit on the
walls of this building. One eventual series of graffiti began when an individual paired one elegiac couplet from Ovid’s Amores with another from
the poetry of Propertius. The two sit together nicely because both treat the
same subject: the exclusus amator. Written in beautiful cursive script, and
visually represented as lines of poetry with the pentameters of each couplet
indented, the full inscription reads:
Surda • sit • oranti • tua • ianua • laxa • ferenti
audiat • exclusi • verba • receptus [a]man[s].
(= Ov. Am. 1.8.77–78)
_____________
27 For one explanation, please see the suggestions of Professor Danielewicz in this
volume.
28 Additional riddles taking the form of handwritten graffiti have been discovered in
the cities of Cyrene and Smyrna (Kaster 1984 and Bagnall 2011, respectively). In
Smyrna, two graffiti beginning with the heading ZETEMA, like those in Pompeii,
were similarly found in the town’s basilica.
76
Rebecca R. Benefiel
Ianitor • ad • dantis • vigilet • si • pulsat • inanis •
surdus • in • obductam • somniet • usqu[e] seram.
(= Prop. 4.5.47–48)
Below these four lines stands another elegiac couplet written in a different
hand. It conveys another thought on love and is taken from Ovid’s Ars
amatoria. Yet while the previous verses had been accurately reproduced
from the poetry of Ovid and Propertius, it is evident that this writer was
struggling to recall the verse precisely. He or she writes:29
quid pote tan • durum saxso aut • quid mollius unda
dura tamen molli saxsa cavantur aqua.
As inscribed, the couplet begins with quid pote(st) tan durum saxso (“what
can be so hard as rock?”) instead of Ovid’s quid magis est saxo durum?
(“what is more hard than rock?”). At that point, however, the writer appears to remember that saxum should be in the ablative, and thereafter
correctly quotes the rest of the couplet. He writes phonetically, forming the
sound of the x with the letters xs (saxso, saxsa).
It is clear that the person who quoted the Ars amatoria here did so after
the joint Ovid-Propertius message had been posted, because the opening
words quid pote tan… were inscribed first to the left of the four-line graffito. That message was left unfinished when the writer determined that not
enough space remained to complete the text. He then began again below
the four-line graffito and was able to write out in full both lines of his
Ovidian quotation.
Then someone else was inspired to make his own contribution to the
conversation. Adding two more lines to what had now become a series of
elegiac couplets, directly below the quotation from the Ars amatoria, he
wrote:30
ubi • perna cocta • est • si • convivae apponitur
non gustat pernam lingit • ollam • aut • caccabum.
In appearance, these two lines look just like the six lines above them (see
fig. 4), written in cursive and with the second line indented, but when one
reads this addition to the group, it is clear that this author is making a different kind of statement. Instead of quoting a verse of well-known literature, this writer contributed his thoughts on the tastiness of pork. The
statement catches the reader off guard and perhaps even elicits a laugh.
_____________
29 CIL 4.1895 = Ov. Ars 1.475–476.
30 CIL 4.1896.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
77
Fig. 4: A series of poetic verses in the basilica (CIL 4.1893–1896)
The impact of this final addition to the series relies on the fact that people
would be reading these messages written on the walls. The character of the
graffiti in this building, their originality, and the variety made it worthwhile to do so. The myriad of messages in the basilica also suggest this
was a place where the public might take the opportunity to show off –
one’s learning or sense of humor.
6. Suilimea and Friends
If we then return to our original painted inscription conveying greetings,
we see that it belongs within this wider culture of wordplay at Pompeii.
Suilimea is not a cognomen but represents the name Aemilius written
backwards. Aemilius issued greetings to his friend Cissonius with brotherly love but also with a challenge for him, and for any other observer who
passed this message painted in large letters on a busy thoroughfare. These
greetings rely on the education of the reader, requiring him not only to be
able to read but even to be able to read backwards.
Aemilius Celer was the name of one of Pompeii’s scriptores, the men
whose job it was to paint messages on the town’s walls for public con-
78
Rebecca R. Benefiel
sumption.31 These messages included advertisements for gladiatorial
games and the hundreds of political campaign posters found throughout
town. Another painted inscription just to the right of the greetings to Cissonius also contains the name Suilimea. It presents a long string of initials,
which, with patience, can be correlated to the names of three separate political candidates. This context strongly suggests that our Suilimea should be
identified with Aemilius Celer.32
It makes sense that a scriptor, whose job was to work with letters, may
have begun to play around with the building blocks of his trade. The formulaic nature of many of the wall-inscriptions he posted may have led an
intellectually active and curious individual to try reading and eventually
writing in a different way, not only left to right but also right to left. Yet
playing around with language was not restricted to those whose daily job
dealt with writing. Hamillus, Sabinus, and Curvius also inscribed messages
in which they wrote their names backwards.33 Their messages similarly
contained greetings or professions of love, content that shows they were
writing not just for themselves but that they meant for their messages to be
read by at least one other.
The graffiti of Pompeii thus testify to an active culture of writing and
reading, not solely for the purpose of communication but also for simple
enjoyment. Inscribed word-games, riddles, even improvised adjustments to
popular poetry all highlight the rich variety among the wall-inscriptions of
Pompeii and testify to a culture of playful literacy and mental activity
among the wider population under the early Roman Empire.
Bibliography
Bagnall, R. S. 2011. Everyday Writing in the Graeco-Roman East. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Benefiel, R. 2010a. Dialogues of Ancient Graffiti in the House of Maius Castricius at
Pompeii. AJA 114, 59–101.
Benefiel, R. 2010b. Dialogues of Graffiti in the House of the Four Styles at Pompeii
(Casa dei Quattro Stili, I.8.17, 11). In: J. A. Baird and C. Taylor (eds), Ancient
Graffiti in Context. London: Routledge, 20–48.
_____________
31 For more on Aemilius Celer, see Della Corte 1965: 306–307. Franklin (1978)
discusses several other of these scriptores.
32 CIL 4.660: P • P • P • A • V • C • F [---] | M • E • S • Q • M [---] | SVILIMEA • [---].
Additionally, not every resident would have had easy access to paint supplies. Nor
would they necessarily have the skill to produce lettering of such a high quality
while wielding such materials.
33 CIL 4.2400d–g, 3710–3711.
Magic Squares, Alphabet Jumbles, Riddles and More
79
Benefiel, R. 2010c. Rome in Pompeii: Wall Inscriptions and GIS. In: F. FeraudiGruénais (ed.), Latin on Stone. Epigraphic Research and Computing. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield, 45–75.
Cribiore, R. 2001. Gymnastics of the Mind. Greek Education in Hellenistic and Roman
Egypt. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Della Corte, M. 1965. Case ed Abitanti di Pompei, 3rd ed. Naples: Fausto Fiorentino.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 1978. Notes on Pompeian Prosopography: Programmatum
Scriptores. Cronache Pompeiane 4, 54–74.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 1991. Literacy and the Parietal Inscriptions of Pompeii. In: Literacy
in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 77–98.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 2001. Pompeis Difficile Est. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Franklin, J. L., Jr. 2007. Epigraphy and Society. In: J. J. Dobbins and P. W. Foss (eds),
The World of Pompeii. New York: Routledge, 518–525.
Guarducci, M. 1965. Il misterioso ‘quadrato magico’. L’interpretazione di J.
Carcopino e documenti nuovi. ArchClass 17, 219–270.
Gwyn Griffiths, J. 1971. ‘Arepo’ in the Magic ‘Sator’ Square. CR 21, 6–8.
Hofmann, H. 1978. Satorquadrat. In: RE Suppl. 15, 477–565.
Kaster, R. A. 1985. A Schoolboy’s Burlesque from Cyrene. Mnemosyne 37, 457–458.
Kruschwitz, P. 2006. Die Edition und Interpretation metrischer Kursivinschriften: Eine
Methodenkritik am Beispiel von CLE 354. In: C. Fernández Martínez and J. Gómez
Pallarés (eds), Temptanda viast. Nuevos estudios sobre la poesia epigráfica latina,
Barcelona: SPUAB, 1–14.
Langer, M. 2001. Antike Graffitizeichnungen: Motive, Gestaltung und Bedeutung.
Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Levin-Richardson, S. 2011. Facilis hic futuit: Graffiti and Masculinity in Pompeii’s
‘Purpose-built’ Brothel. Helios 38, 59–78.
Mazois, F. 1829. Les Ruines de Pompéi. Vol. 3. Paris: Firmin Didot.
Milnor, K. 2009. Literary Literacy in Roman Pompeii: The Case of Vergil’s Aeneid. In:
W. Johnson and H. Parker (eds), Ancient Literacies: The Culture of Reading in
Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 288–319.
Schenkl, K. 1886. Ein pompejanisches Räthsel. WS 8, 172–173.
Taylor, A. 1938. Riddles Dealing with Family Relationships. Journal of American
Folklore 51, 25–37.
Varone, A. 1979. Presenze giudaiche e cristiane a Pompei (Quaderni della Società per
lo Studio e la Divulgazione dell’Archeologia Biblica 1). Napoli: D’Auria.
Väänänen, V. 1959. Le Latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompéiennes, 2nd ed. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Rebecca Benefiel