careful not to mention’’ literacy—minimally defined in terms of ‘‘the
distinct abilities to read, write and count’’—he discusses Roman oral
practices as he develops his thesis that ‘‘literacy is not essential to the
whole range of those social or cultural pastimes dear to a Roman plebeian
which required some degree of intellectual engagement.’’ Scholars have
sought to define the performative aspects of writing (Habinek 1998,The
Politics of Latin Literature) and of reading (Johnson 2000 argues that an
appreciation of the social aspects of reading in the early empire is essential
for a proper understanding of the production of elite prose). Campbell
2001,Performing and Processing the Aeneid, contemplates the relationship
between reading, listening, and writing, arguing that ‘‘the performance
and processing’’ of theAeneid‘‘retained a massive residue of orality’’:
‘‘When people felt the need to process or compose a graphic text, they
functioned as listeners and dictators.’’ In many ways the focus has shifted
to the reader and the act of reading rather than, or in addition to, the
writer. Svenbro 1988b,Phrasikleia, observes that the Greeks regarded the
reader as passive in that he is subjected to the writing; an analogy can thus
be drawn between the relationship that binds the writer to the reader and
the social practice of pederasty. Salles 1992,Lire a` Rome, asks: ‘‘History of
the book, history of the writer, or history of the reader? An object, a
creator, a consumer: these three components of reading are inseparable.’’
Valette-Cagnac 1997,La lecture a` Rome, goes further in maintaining that
Roman reading should not simply be thought of in terms of the opposition
between reading aloud and reading silently, which depends on a purely
technical view of the act of reading. Although previous scholarship
has concentrated on the use of writing from a sociological perspective,
‘‘this book’s perspective is different: it is not a sociology of Roman
readers, any more than it takes an interest in the monuments of classical
literature. It seeks instead to demonstrate that Roman reading constitutes a
subject in its own right, an act separable from writing, which has cultural
specificity.’’ Cavallo and Chartier (eds.) 1999: 3,A History of Reading in
the West, state:
A comprehensive history of reading and readers must. .. consider the his
toricity of ways of using, comprehending and appropriating texts. It must
consider the ‘world of the text’ as a world of objects, forms and rituals
whose conventions and devices bear meaning but also constrain its con
struction. It most also consider that the ‘world of the reader’ is made up of
what Stanley Fish calls ‘interpretive communities’ to which individual
readers belong. In its relation to writing, each of these communities displays
a shared set of competences, customs, codes and interests. This means that
throughout this book we will be looking at both the physical aspects of texts
and their readers’ practices.Olson 1994a,The World on Paper(discussing the conceptual and cogni-
tive implications of writing and reading in the early modern period),
stresses recognition of the reader’s contribution to the text, rather than
338 Bibliographical Essay