Education In Rome

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

I came across this noble and touching tribute by Horace, he's thanking his father for giving him an education and it just set me thinking about schooling in ancient Rome, Did they have proper schools?, who could attend these schools?, were they only available to the Nobilitas ?

 

 

Horace, Satires, I.6.xi.70-90

 

If I dare venture to speak in my own praise, and say that I live undefiled, innocent, and dear to my friends, let me confess that I owe all this to my father. A poor man he was, and on a lean farm, yet he was not content to send me to a local school [at Venusia, his home town] under the pedant Flavius, though boys of pretensions, sons of prominent centurions, went there with their school bags and writing tablets slung over their left arms, and carrying their teacher the fee in their hands on the Ides of eight months in the year. On the contrary, he had the spirit to bring me even as a child to Rome, to be taught those liberal arts which a senator or eques requires for his children. If anyone had seen my dress and the slaves that attended me in the big city, he would have guessed that I was maintained by some hereditary estate. My father---most faithful of guardians---was ever present at all my studies. Why need I say more? He preserved my modesty (the first point of virtue) not merely untainted, but free from the very rumor of taint. He was not afraid lest any one should reproach him [for giving an education to a son] who turned out to be an auctioneer, or as my father was, a tax gatherer. I should not then have complained. But all the more is praise due to him, and from me the greater gratitude. As long as I keep my senses I will never be ashamed of such a father, nor apologize for my [humble] birth as do so many, asserting "it is no fault of theirs."

[DecimusCaesar]

People were educated according to their wealth or their family position. Those who were poor could not attend as their work was needed elsewhere. Those who could afford it went to Ludii at the age of 6 where they would often leave by the time they were 11. The education in the Ludus was basic but those who could afford it would later go to a Grammaticus where they wuld be taught subjects such as history, geometry, music and astronomy. A lot of attention was also put on the study of Greek and Latin literature. Those who wanted work as a politician would have to consult a rhetor, who would teach them the proper way to do speeches. Only the wealthiest families could afford this sort of education.

 

Later the quality of education declined in the Empire and many of the mathematical and scientific studies were ignored as more students took up studies in literature and history, leading to a decline in the sciences.

[caldrail]

Many teachers held their lessons in the street because renting a property as a school was too expensive. And they were often fearsome characters too - many a child was whacked for improper behaviour or stupid replies.

[Andrew Dalby]

People were educated according to their wealth or their family position. Those who were poor could not attend as their work was needed elsewhere. Those who could afford it went to Ludii at the age of 6 where they would often leave by the time they were 11. The education in the Ludus was basic but those who could afford it would later go to a Grammaticus where they wuld be taught subjects such as history, geometry, music and astronomy. A lot of attention was also put on the study of Greek and Latin literature. Those who wanted work as a politician would have to consult a rhetor, who would teach them the proper way to do speeches.

 

It was also common for young men to travel long distances for higher education. A full Roman education included Greek rhetoric and philosophy, and for this many students from Italy went to Athens. Students from Gaul often did their Greek at Massalia (Marseille), the ancient Greek colony.

 

Young men who wanted to study medicine would choose different "university cities", including Pergamum in Asia Minor and Alexandria in Egypt.

 

I'm talking about young men because so far as I know it was mainly men: probably very few women travelled for study purposes, although some Greek philosophers accepted women students.

[Kosmo]

The only things I know came from Jerome Carcopino "Daily life ...". He had a low opinon on roman education and on roman atitude towards it.

The examples he gives from Seneca (the father of the stoic philosopher) are amuzing examples of absurdity in teaching law, an areas where we could expect roman excelance.

Carcopino did not liked the ideea of slave teachers.

[docoflove1974]

I'm talking about young men because so far as I know it was mainly men: probably very few women travelled for study purposes, although some Greek philosophers accepted women students.

 

But this was rare, correct? I can somewhat recall that only the upper of the upper crust let the girls be educated with the boys...versus the boys were educated according to their family's means. I could be wrong in this.

[Lost_Warrior]

Oftentimes the upper class had "live-in" teachers; slaves who were educated and who acted as teachers to the children. (Slaves from Greece were prized for this it seems)

[Moonlapse]

To answer the first question, I would say that no, they did not have 'proper' schools if you mean school in an institutional sense.

[Andrew Dalby]

I'm talking about young men because so far as I know it was mainly men: probably very few women travelled for study purposes, although some Greek philosophers accepted women students.

 

But this was rare, correct? I can somewhat recall that only the upper of the upper crust let the girls be educated with the boys...versus the boys were educated according to their family's means. I could be wrong in this.

 

Yes, very rare but more than one case is known. In the case of the philosopher I was thinking of (it was Epicurus I think) people said that a sexual relationship developed ... Typical campus gossip, in fact.

 

There is at least one recorded case where a woman took male dress in order to study with a philosopher. And you might (if you believe the story of Thecla) put her story into exactly the same category: she dressed as a man in order to follow St Paul, who was certainly a teacher, whether or not we call him a philosopher. Don't look for the Thecla story in the /Acts of the Apostles/, though.

[caldrail]

Women were only supposed to know enough to converse and applaud their fathers/guardians/husbands opinions. A know-all woman was not desirable. In any event, she was likely to learn from the men around her.

 

Of course this general rule has exceptions. Elagabulus's mother ruled rome behind the scenes while he... erm... did other things.... did she not? She must have acquired some knowledge and experience to allow her to deal with roman government and military leaders. Was she the only one? I think not. However she was in a position of wealth and power and therefore would have found it easier to obtain this education. Women of a lower station would have struggled unless she bought an educated slave with enough sense to employ him usefully.

[Andrew Dalby]

Women were only supposed to know enough to converse and applaud their fathers/guardians/husbands opinions. A know-all woman was not desirable. In any event, she was likely to learn from the men around her.

 

Yes, well, this is what the men might have thought. But it would be interesting to know what the women might have thought. If we just assume that what the men thought is the only thing that mattered, aren't we being a bit sexist?

[Kosmo]

Roman women had unusual rights and could dispose of themselves and of their money. If roman education for girls was not high the same thing can be said about boys education that was rather basic. If a rich women wanted to get a education I don't think that something stopped her.

[DecimusCaesar]

I remember seeing a terracotta of a teacher teaching men and women in a street once but I cannot find the picture or where I saw it.

 

Even so, on the Education of Women I found this source on the Roman-Empire.net Website:

 

Girls enjoyed a similar, if not the same education as boys in early childhood. Though beyond primary education it was generally only daughters of aristocratic families who continued their education. Though such training was not one of rhetoric or law such as the young men of patrician families would learn. Women were rather taught in the fineries Greek and Latin literature as well as how to play a lyre, to dance and sing.

[caldrail]

Women were only supposed to know enough to converse and applaud their fathers/guardians/husbands opinions. A know-all woman was not desirable. In any event, she was likely to learn from the men around her.

 

Yes, well, this is what the men might have thought. But it would be interesting to know what the women might have thought. If we just assume that what the men thought is the only thing that mattered, aren't we being a bit sexist?

 

No not sexist, just pointing out that the roman world was male dominated and women were supposed to fulfill certain roles in society. It isn't unusual - we see the same attitudes today. Our modern western equality is unusual in human sociology. However, I do think - I have said it - that roman woman were able to extend themselves beyond their restrictions given certain circumstances. Many would have had no choice but to conform and many were perfectly happy to do so. Others would have chosen to strive against restraint. British culture used to be like that and I would be interested to know just how far roman women suceeded in obtaining equality.

[Andrew Dalby]

Women were only supposed to know enough to converse and applaud their fathers/guardians/husbands opinions. A know-all woman was not desirable. In any event, she was likely to learn from the men around her.

 

Yes, well, this is what the men might have thought. But it would be interesting to know what the women might have thought. If we just assume that what the men thought is the only thing that mattered, aren't we being a bit sexist?

 

No not sexist, just pointing out that the roman world was male dominated and women were supposed to fulfill certain roles in society. It isn't unusual - we see the same attitudes today. Our modern western equality is unusual in human sociology. However, I do think - I have said it - that roman woman were able to extend themselves beyond their restrictions given certain circumstances. Many would have had no choice but to conform and many were perfectly happy to do so. Others would have chosen to strive against restraint. British culture used to be like that and I would be interested to know just how far roman women suceeded in obtaining equality.

 

You're quite right, of course! But, in any society including ours, men as well as women are supposed to "fulfill certain roles in society". We're just trying the experiment of making the two almost coincide, and the result of the experiment will certainly be interesting if future generations happen to survive long enough to look back and judge our success.

 

I suspect Roman society would have seemed "unusual in human sociology" as well. Take a fairly well known example. Livia "fulfill[ed] certain roles in society" -- and she addressed the women when Augustus addressed the men -- but I'm not sure whether an observer from another planet, having viewed Livia's biography from birth to death, would have concluded either that she "strove against restraint" or that she "had no choice but to conform". I think it's more complicated than that.