Roman literacy

[Kosmo]

What do you think?

[phil25]

I have no idea in terms of percentages, and thus have not taken part in your poll.

 

But the exterior walls of the houses of Pompeii were covered with electoral and other advertisements, which must have been aimed at "someone" - one assumes the man in the street.

 

Equally the interior and exterior walls of brothels, taverns, the basilica, a toilet in Herculaneum, baths and many other places are scrawled with a vast amount of graffiti, evidently written by a wide variety of people, from slaves to one of Vespasian's doctors.

 

Thus IMHO all the indications are that there was a widespread ability to read and write at least to some degree.

 

Phil

 

PS Edited to add that my information relates to before 79AD, roughly 100 years earlier than the date you specify. I have no evidence relating to that era at all.

Edited November 8, 2006 by phil25

[DecimusCaesar]

The numbers must have been large, but I quote Bryan Ward-Perkins:

 

"Evidence such as this (graffito on the walls of Pompeii) has led to an intense debate over the extent to which the people of Roman times could read and write , the importance of the written word in their society. In the absence of statstical evidence, the issue will always be open to discussion, since it will never be possible to come up with reliable figures for the number of people comfortable with literacy, let alone provide a nuanced view of what level of literacy they had attained."

 

Despite this I would venture to say that a large percentage of the population (not including slaves) did have some grasp of literacy. I would guess that the upper classes, which loved writing letters to one another and composing poetry were fully literate, while a sizeable percentage of plebeians had some very, very basic grasp of literacy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Given that our earliest Latin literature was written by plebs, I doubt the pleb/patrician distinction is very useful. Also, judging by the finds at Vindolanda, it seems that ordinary soldiers could read and write just fine. In a wide-flung commercial civilization such as the Roman one, the motive, means, and opportunity for learning to read should have been widely available.

[DecimusCaesar]

Good point. Would the Plebeians have been taught to read and write by teachers on street corners? Seeing as only those who could afford it could send their children to the ludus, the others must have been given their basic education around porticcoes and squares. According to J. V Muir "Elementary teachers were available to all but the poor" and interestingly enough some girls were also taught the basics of reading and writing, boosting the amount of the population that could read and write. Women writers are also apparent with the Vindolanda tablets that Cato mentioned, as one women writes a letter to her sister asking her to attend her birthday party.

[Pertinax]

Given that our earliest Latin literature was written by plebs, I doubt the pleb/patrician distinction is very useful. Also, judging by the finds at Vindolanda, it seems that ordinary soldiers could read and write just fine. In a wide-flung commercial civilization such as the Roman one, the motive, means, and opportunity for learning to read should have been widely available.

Vindolanda seems to point the way to general basic literacy as a definite necessity for the soldiery, the basis of the survivals suggesting a massive "communicating" and record keeping bureaucratic mechanism as the sinews of daily routine/maintenance/provisioning effort. This being Flavian period we must assume that literacy cannot have sprung out of the ground without reasonable precedent, and note also that this literacy extends to Auxilliary troops (Batavii and Gauls ) also.

[Kosmo]

My opinon it's that only people with some higher status knew how to read. As a large majority were poor and from rural areas and at least half of population were women then I say that 10% it's a fair estimate.

[Ruthe]

I have very little idea of the rate of literacy in the Roman world, but I would like to hear views on the numracy of the same people and did this have any relationship to the rate of literacy?

[M. Porcius Cato]

What would you consider a good evidence for numeracy, Ruthe? Wouldn't the monetary system itself be good evidence for widespread (if very basic) numeracy?

[WotWotius]

Does this poll only apply to Roman citizens? If so, literacy was widespread: even members of the Roman legions, who were almost always drawn from the poorer ranks of society, had some degree of literacy. It is not just the Vindolanda tablets that reveal this, but also various discharge papers that have been found (I cannot remember where, but my memory banks will probably let me know later). The fact that the Romans so openly attached 'propaganda' inscriptions to their monuments would also suggest that the urban poor could read. For instance, why else would Augustus have to such an effort to place the text of the Res Gestae all over the Empire? Was to create awareness amongst the nobility? They already were aware of the fact that the Res Gestae was a prime example of Imperial propaganda. Therefore, the text would have been for the benefit of the ordinary citizens.

 

If the poll were referring to all the peoples of the Empire, I would have to say that the vast majority of Rome's subjects (at least in Gaul and Britain) probably could not read. In Britain, the archaeology suggests that during Rome's occupation, life on rural farms (after the initial shock of invasion and rebellion anyway) seemingly continued as normal. These inhabitants probably did not have the means to speak Latin, let alone read it. The only provincials in Britain (if we are to believe Tacitus) who had the means to have some degree of Latin literacy were the local nobility who opted for social advancement in their local civitas: in the Western Empire, the ability to write in Latin was a catalyst for social advancement.

 

For more information on the rural poor of Roman Britain, consult Salway.

[Pantagathus]

even members of the Roman legions, who were almost always drawn from the poorer ranks of society, had some degree of literacy.

Also evidenced from papyrus scroll letters found in Egypt from soldiers to their 'mommies'

[WotWotius]

even members of the Roman legions, who were almost always drawn from the poorer ranks of society, had some degree of literacy.

Also evidenced from papyrus scroll letters found in Egypt from soldiers to their 'mommies'

 

Wow, do you have a link to the text?

[Pantagathus]

Wow, do you have a link to the text?

Unfortunately no; Lionel Casson discussed them in his book Travel in the Ancient World

 

It was really neat though, one I remember was a young man who went to serve in the (Roman) navy in the Western Med and was homesick and asking his mother to talk care of certain things while he was away and to send him a letter because he hadn't heard from her and feared for her health...

[caldrail]

But the exterior walls of the houses of Pompeii were covered with electoral and other advertisements, which must have been aimed at "someone" - one assumes the man in the street.

 

Equally the interior and exterior walls of brothels, taverns, the basilica, a toilet in Herculaneum, baths and many other places are scrawled with a vast amount of graffiti, evidently written by a wide variety of people, from slaves to one of Vespasian's doctors.

 

Thus IMHO all the indications are that there was a widespread ability to read and write at least to some degree.

 

Agreed. The amount of graffiti on display indictates that it was expected for people see it and read it. What also comes across is how much effort had been been put into neatness and appearance. Not the ambiguous logo's that litter our walls today. These were often professional readable jobs that the owners of property appear to tolerate.