Could your average Roman citizen read and write?

What constitutes average roman citizen changed dramatically over the history of Rome. Whether they were literate also depends on the threshold for literacy you set.

Before collapse of roman freehold society and rise urban poor between 250BC - 100 BC a sizable portion of male roman citizenery, possibly the majority, had redimemtary literacy. At that time the nuumber of citizens was relatively small, covering only freeborn of Rome and a few surrounding federated cities. The ratio between total number of citizens eligible to be called up for military service, and the total number that was called up during wars, was high. It was required for a roman soldier to be literate in order to be promoted beyond the equivalent of private. Nevertheless it seems the allure of promotion was strong in the roman army, this suggests Basic literacy was widespread amongst the grunts and therefore amongst the citizenry.

The percentage of roman citizens who were literate undoubtedly declined dramatically after 100 BC as the army became professionalized, citizenship was expanded out of political convenience to first cover free born in most of Italy and later free born of all of empire. literacy rate amongst the greatly expanded citizenary was probably just a few percent by start of the third century AD, same as literacy rate amongst the other literate iron age cultures.

Define "literacy."

Even today we have people who are illiterate but they still know what a Stop sign means and can print their name. The ability to recognize a word here or there is not literacy.

During the Imperial Period the army used to give soldiers a rudimentary education in Latin for the utility of the legion's commanders; they handled basic record-keeping and some of the brighter ones served as what amounted to company clerk for their centurions. The bulk of the army could probably do little more than read the duty roster.

I have seen estimates that up to 10% of the population had some degree of literacy BUT, the intellectual writing of the period was in Greek and there you are getting down to 1% ranges of those who could understand philosophical writing. Literacy was a rich man's game, if for no other reason than that they were the ones who could afford books.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?i...0674033818

Quote:In Ancient Literacy W.V. Harris provides the first thorough exploration of the levels, types, and functions of literacy in the classical world, from the invention of the Greek alphabet about 800 B.C. down to the fifth century A.D. Investigations of other societies show that literacy ceases to be the accomplishment of a small elite only in specific circumstances.

I did read an excerpt from Harris' book one time in which he estimated that even in Athens only 5% of the population could read Greek well enough to handle Plato and Aristotle, et al.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

(December 13, 2013 at 12:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I did read an excerpt from Harris' book one time in which he estimated that even in Athens only 5% of the population could read Greek well enough to handle Plato and Aristotle, et al.

There is the state of functional literacy, and then there is being literate.

The Violanda letters suggest that the average trooper and civilians may have been fairly literate.
Most of the letters seem to be to or from a Prefect of the Ninth Cohort called Flavius Cerialis corresponding with a number of other officers, family members, tradesmen, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindolanda_tablets
Similar items have been found at 20 locations around Britain.

Prefects were officers.

(December 13, 2013 at 12:15 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Define "literacy."

Even today we have people who are illiterate but they still know what a Stop sign means and can print their name. The ability to recognize a word here or there is not literacy.

During the Imperial Period the army used to give soldiers a rudimentary education in Latin for the utility of the legion's commanders; they handled basic record-keeping and some of the brighter ones served as what amounted to company clerk for their centurions. The bulk of the army could probably do little more than read the duty roster.

I have seen estimates that up to 10% of the population had some degree of literacy BUT, the intellectual writing of the period was in Greek and there you are getting down to 1% ranges of those who could understand philosophical writing. Literacy was a rich man's game, if for no other reason than that they were the ones who could afford books.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?i...0674033818

Quote:In Ancient Literacy W.V. Harris provides the first thorough exploration of the levels, types, and functions of literacy in the classical world, from the invention of the Greek alphabet about 800 B.C. down to the fifth century A.D. Investigations of other societies show that literacy ceases to be the accomplishment of a small elite only in specific circumstances.

I did read an excerpt from Harris' book one time in which he estimated that even in Athens only 5% of the population could read Greek well enough to handle Plato and Aristotle, et al.

Yeah that would be because (At least around he time of Christ) the commoners spoke koine Greek, and that is what people would've written daily business in, where as Plato and Aristotle wrote in attic Greek, a very different dialect.

I suspect Harris' point is that they couldn't read Koine Greek, either.

Literacy is a skill and it is a relatively expensive skill to attain. There has to be an immediate need for it. An olive grower in the hills of Attica would have precious little need for literacy. Daylight hours were spent working on the farm and night hours were spent sleeping and eating. Only the rich could afford books...which had to be hand-copied until Gutenberg...and only they had the leisure time to read them.

There are primarily agricultural subsistence-level societies today...they don't spend their time reading.

(December 16, 2013 at 12:32 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There are primarily agricultural subsistence-level societies today...they don't spend their time reading.

It depends upon whether the farmers tend to work independent land holdings, and whether such land holdings have to directly deal with commerce in argriculture produce.

Tenant farmers tend not to need literacy much. But farmer- landowners may very well need some degree of literacy, or at least have ready access to literacy, to support the operation of the family farm.

Also, if some literacy is important for advancement in the army, and army is a significant avenue of advancement for childrens of farmers, then it might have been worthwhile for even tenant farmers to invest in some literacy education for their offsprings.

I tend to think literacy amongst Roman Citizens were higher during middle republic, before the conquest of Hellenistic east and the subsequent Social wars, than later.