Thursday morning I went to Milan for editorial matters. Of course, with the (justly famous) regional in Livorno, passes from Pisa Centrale to 6.08, from San Rossore at 6:14 and arrives in Milan at 10.25 Fornovo way, through a landscape that in the days Fair weather is wonderful. Back at 17.05, with the same train is not a Frecciarossa, but since the return ticket costs a total of less than 34 € a / r, is by far the most sensible way to spend a busy day of work Morale in the Capital (!).
I took advantage of the times by rail to jump in Sant'Ambrogio, where, in vestments appropriate to rank, are now once again exposed the remains of, in fact, Sant'Ambrogio. Good opportunity to again ask the famous question: When, sixteen hundred years ago, Ambrose was still alive and read in silence, this way he astonished his contemporaries do or not? The venerable bones today may no longer respond. Can then explain something only written testimony, and in particular the description given by Augustine in Confessions ( VI 3), which for more than a hundred years is the focus of those involved in this kind of issues : "cum [Ambrosius] legebat, et oculi ducebantur paginas for heart intellectum rimabatur, vox autem et quiescebant language." Nietzsche, it seems, was the first to believe that in these words, Augustine expressed "surprise" before the "strangeness" of Ambrose, and his idea, taken up by Norden, in the years it has become commonplace. But this reconstruction corresponds to historical reality?
Mary Carruthers (The book of memory, pp. 170-173) for the no vote. According to her, the description is Often misread "(p. 171), but in fact, in classical antiquity the meditatio (silent) on a text to live with the lectio (aloud) side to the other (p. 170). In this context, Augustine is not surprising that the silent reading per se, but rather the fact that "Ambrose never in the red other way, though others Were present (et numquam breathed") "(p. 171) . According to Augustine, Ambrose then behaved so mainly to avoid interruptions and questions from the people around him. The important thing, in short, was the fact that even in Ambrose preferred the presence of others "meditate in silence: a question of attitude rather than ability. "Whether or not the vocal chords are used is a secondary difference Between the two methods of reading" (p. 172).
reply to this speech negatively Paul Saenger : silent meditation on a text, without moving the tongue, according to him, it was not possible before writing without spaces between words, like the one that Ambrose was faced . "When Carruthers translates comments on this passage in The Book of Memory , pp. 170-171, she projects the text or attitudes That Are Entirely postclassical. No ancient writer ever Refers to reading as 'scanning' or meditatio "(p. 299, n. 41). Note that it seems a bit 'off target, because the meditatio mentioned by Mary Carruthers is in large part to the assimilation of a text, not to the activities of" rapid , silent reference consultation as it exists in the modern world ", as defined in the same Saenger (p. 9).
Who is right? William A. Johnson published a summary of the discussions on this topic from the perspective of classicists, in Toward a Sociology of Reading in Classical Antiquity , The American Journal of Philology, vol. 121, 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 593-627 (available through JSTOR):
Without hesitation we can now assert that there was no cognitive difficulty when fully literate ancient readers wished to read silently to themselves, and that the cognitive act of silent reading was neither extraordinary nor noticeably unusual in antiquity. This conclusion has been known to careful readers since at least 1968, when Bernard Knox demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the silent reading of ancient documentary texts, including letters, is accepted by ancient witnesses as an ordinary event (p. 593).
Questo smentisce in buona parte la ricostruzione della linea-Nietzsche, in cui si colloca anche Saenger. Alla critica del libro di Saenger, in effetti, Johnson dedica il dovuto spazio (Pp. 597-598) in its synthesis: the ancient cultured, if they wanted, they could very well read without moving his lips. It seems that this should close the debate.
The final answer, however, is more nuanced. In fact, Johnson says, there are very different kinds of reading. The data now available show that the ancients were able read in silence. But they also show that silent reading was not, probably, the way normal work. Pliny the Younger, for example, describes the motions without much surprise how Pliny the Elder, to study, it was read aloud by servants and secretaries while eating, while she bathed, and so on (pp. 605 - 606). Behavior unthinkable for any serious scholar, not only for lack of slaves ... In English-speaking countries there is, of course, a thriving market for audiobooks, but only for popular fiction or essays, and certainly not for professionals.
Well, maybe there were no insurmountable obstacles to silent reading, but for sure how to use and enjoyment of reading was very different from ours, and very socially characterized (Johnson insists on the character of "activities of prestige," he had read ). Although it runs counter to the most extreme positions on the reading, rather than solving formulas, in short, the article provides incentives for research - which is not bad.
