[mikehain]

I was reading Augustine one day and was struck by a passage that referred a silent reading in a way that made it seem quite uncommon in those days. Here it is, referring to Ambrose of Milan:

"When he was reading, his eyes ran over the page and his heart perceived the sense, but his voice and tongue were silent. He did not restrict access to anyone coming in, nor was it customary even for a visitor to be announced. Very often when we were there, we saw him silently reading and never otherwise. After sitting for a long time in silence (for who would dare to burden him in such intent concentration?) we used to go away. We supposed that in the brief time he could find for his mind's refreshment, free from the hubbub of other people's troubles, he would not want to be invited to consider another problem. We wondered if he read silently perhaps to protect himself in case he had a hearer interested and intent on the matter, to whom he might have to expound the text being read if it contained difficulties, or who might wish to debate some difficult questions. If his time were used up in that way, he would get through fewer books than he wished. Besides, the need to preserve his voice, which used easily to become hoarse, could have been a very fair reason for silent reading. Whatever motive he had for his habit, this man had a good reason for what he did."

[SamBam]

This passage is often cited by people (not you) who claim that before St Augustine's time people could not read silently. E.g. https://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/LatinBackground/Sil...: "There is no disputing the fact that the Romans read everything aloud, in fact they were apparently not able to read silently."

This seems greatly implausible. Consider, for example, the fact that the Roman walls were often covered in graffiti. The idea that a Roman would have to vocalize all of them to find one that seemed funny seems absurd. Further, there are examples in plays of a character reading a letter silently.

It does seem, though, that there have been times in specific cultures when reading prose or poetry aloud would have been considered the norm, and whether or not one could read silently, it wouldn't have been in anybody's habit to do so, because prose and poetry were "meant" to be read aloud. The notion, then, that someone could apparently "hear" all the musicality of the text while reading silently may indeed then have been cause for surprise.