Were people different in the past?

I'm talking about some kind of mental difference, and what got me to wondering is this passage from Augustine's Confessions (trans. R. S. Pine-Coffin, Penguin, 1961, pp. 113-4). Augustine is speaking of Ambrose, apparently a famous theologian at that time (during Augustine's youth): Notice something odd about this? If I am interpreting it accurately, Augustine is surprised that Ambrose read silently. Apparently that was a very unusual practice. The normal practice, when you read, was to read outloud.The libraries must have been pretty noisy in those days.I don't know what this means, but it certainly suggests a certain lack of "subjectivity"--if that is the word.This is a coffee house topic.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-08-2005 01:08 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-08-2005 01:08 PM

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't see this as evidence that people were different. The environment was different. Most people were not able to read. There wasn't a lot of reading material around.Reading aloud was probably encouraged, so that those who had never learned to read could benefit from the small amount of literature that was available.edit: add subtitleThis message has been edited by nwr, 11-08-2005 01:58 PM

NWR, examine this sentence: That doesn't sound to me like Ambrose was just doing something that was not "encouraged." It sounds like Augustine is expressing something like, "Well, that's odd. I didn't know you could read that way."

I found the following in this review of "A History of Reading" by Alberto Manguel. I think it means that people weren't different, but their view of written text, and how to use it, changed.

I just don't get that implication from the sentence. Maybe your reading into it too deeply?And as others have shown, it was prolly a social thing and the people, themselves, were not any different.IMO, the first anatomically modern humans had the same cognitive abilities as we do today.

When my children started to read, they read aloud. Perhaps that's not quite right - they read in a whisper, but they voiced all of the words. Admittedly it did not take them long to start reading quietly.Voicing the words is the natural way to read, and that's how children usually start. After that, whether they make it louder or silent will depend on the expectations of society (otherwise known as peer pressure).In a society with no movies, no television, no radio, little in the way of theater, the reading aloud by a child would be a welcome activity in which the family could join. The way we live today is very different, and reading aloud by a child is a distraction to be discouraged.

Here's a little more speculation on Augustine's part about why Ambrose read silently to himself. The situation described is that he would retire to some other area of the dwelling, like a room but with no door. Others could see him reading silently, but they were not right next to him. Augustine also mentions that "after a time we went away again" so as not to disturb him and then returned later. In other words, this was private study, not communal, though they could observe him.If it was private reading, why would Augustine feel surprised or feel the need to explain Ambrose's silent reading? Why? Because people had the habit of reading aloud even when reading privately.

I've noticed this myself too. I read almost exclusively English books and because I like the English language a lot in all its aspects, I read aloud when I am alone, to practice my pronunciation. But it takes a lot more time to read a page aloud than it does in silence. The habit of Ambrose's time may have been to read aloud, even when alone, but he may have been among the first to find out that reading in silence is faster. Now you said it yourself: it was a habit. Well, habits can change.

Mighty strange habit. The reason you read aloud is a special case. Presumably people back then were not trying to perfect their pronunciation when they read aloud.And the passage about him being able to read more quickly was for a different reason than you suggest. I took the quote a little out of context. The reason is that an "attentive listener" (listening from a little distance) might ask him a question about something he was reading--see the quote in the OP.And the comment by another poster about children reading aloud: presumably Ambrose, a distinguished scholar--was not a beginner at reading.

It doesn't matter what my reason is. If I read aloud in Dutch, the result is the same: it's slower than silent reading. No, it was Augustine's speculation: Ambrose might still have had different reasons, like speed.

When I read silently, I still say all of the word 'out-loud' with the voice in my head, I just don't use my mouth to say them. I was once taught to read without using that voice by just obtaining the meaning of the word without 'saying' it (to increase the words per minute read). This just takes a lot of effort for me, it seems to come naturally, like you said, to voice the words even if it isn't with the mouth. Its like, when I see words, the voice in my head automatically says them without me doing anything. I think I'm doing it while I'm typing too.Does everyone read like this?This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 11-08-2005 03:21 PM

CS,When I read your first paragraph a second time, I tried to notice what happened in my head when I read slowly, and what happened when I read as fast as I could. Slowly, I heard the words in my head; fast, I didn't.When I read your question at the end, I did not really have to read it. It's more like I saw all of it at once, because it was a short sentence. Anyway, I didn't hear it in my head.

This has a lot more to do with social status than people being physically different.Let’s not forget that today's extremely high rates of literacy are a contemporary phenomenon. The passage quoted is all about setting the subjects status as a Powerful, successful and above all a well schooled man that had time for othersPowerfull, everyone came to him
Successful, he was kept busy all hours of the day. And could afford books.
Well Educated, What time he had to him self he spent reading books and did so silently.
Time for others, Though he was all of the above he was still approachable, he didn’t act as a snob due to his position and learningBack when literacy so not endemic within society, those with less robust learning ( but at least, having some) would proudly claim “ I know my letters, me” Admittedly they probably had to mouth the words and trace the line with a finger to make any progress , but in a world where most couldn’t read even this painful process marked you out as a man of note.Now if most couldn’t read at all and the majority of those who could read could only do this slowly, and with difficulty, imagine the awe that those who could silently read would be held in. This is serious learning. These people tend to have power and standing. People of power and standing can oft be seen as unapproachable and aloof yet we are told he read silently but was approachable.The passage is simply using a different social landscape to describe a man. We can find this tricky to understand because the vast majority of people are educated to a high enough level that silent reading is the norm and those who cant read, or can only read with difficulty are the comparative minority. Indeed the stereotype of someone who finds reading difficult being seen as stupid is the modern equivalent, as lack of reading is seen as abnormal. We don’t hold the notion that someone who could read, and read silently is especially well educated because, today, that is the base standard.If something as insignificant as this needs such a heavy historical filter to read right, is there any doubt that literal interpretations of a 3000 year old text without that socio-economic filter will cause huge problems.This message has been edited by ohnhai, 09-11-2005 07:51 AM

Now wait a minute. If Augustine's mentioning that Ambrose read silently was meant to show how educated he was, why does he offer in addition these speculations as to why Ambrose did so? The explanations might be (1)excuses (it was considered rude?) or (2) Augustine felt that he needed to explain such an unusual habit. The passage doesn't read to me as an excuse. It reads to me like Augustine was trying to figure out something that he had not observed before.If reading silently was in itself prestigious, no explanations were needed.