I'll be following up all the links to the books you mention.
I've been impressed, while studying the second half of the sixteenth century, through the truly fascinating lens of advocates of Edward de Vere, by a few things:
Education for the elite was of at least one order above what's available in our best private schools now.
From all the surviving letters, etc., I know exponentially more about de Vere and others, than about my grandfather, who died five years before my birth
Elizabeth held the printers in an iron grip: All paper had to be accounted for. All publications had to be vetted.
I was surprised by your figure of 60% literacy, at least for reading, if not writing. My feeling is that only the wealthy, and maybe half the bourgeoisie, mostly men, by and large, could read. Peasants got things read out to them.
I thought this didn't change much until the early 20th century.
Man oh man, those people were good to us! They cooked the English language into a powerful, flexible unit.
You are right that many had books read to them and interestingly may have purchased books so that process could take place.
Here is a section from my doctoral thesis along with some footnotes which support - to a degree - my assertion
"There are two aspects of literacy that must be considered. One is the ability to
write; the other being the ability to read. Reading was taught before writing and it is likely
that more people could read a broadside ballad than could sign their names. Writing was
taught to those who remained in school from the ages of seven or eight, whereas reading was
taught to those who attended up until the age of six and then were removed from school to
join the labour force. Proclamation of laws in print was therefore within the reach of a
reasonable proportion of the population."
The footnotes cited state
Tessa Watt Cheap Print and Popular Piety: 1550 – 1640 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991) p 7. In 1600 52% of East Anglian tradesmen and craftsmen could sign their names compared with 80% in London. By the 1640’s roughly 30% of adult males in rural England could sign their names. David Cressy Literacy and the social order. Reading and writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, Cambridge, 1980) p. 72. The upper classes, both nobility and gentry, men and women were on the whole literate in both English
and French and often in Latin as well. John Feather A History of British Publishing (Croom Helm, London, 1988) p. 20.
I cannot find precise authority for the 60% figure but I know it is somewhere.....
"Rural England" may be a moveable feast. Many people who lived outside the firelight circles of the Court and the forts of the barons did not trouble the Tudor statisticians.
Thank you Ruth. Mantel's style is "different" but once you get familiar with the writing it is clear why she won Bookers for the volumes.
The Tudor period was smack square in the middle of my PhD study so I spent a bit of time there. Most of my examination was in the area of law and legal culture but it was necessary to look at the way the new technology of the printing press (that was a focus of the study) was regulated. And this in turn involved aspects of the English Reformation and the break with Rome and the way Henry VIII (and Cromwell) structured the messaging and compelled obedience to the new approaches. Burning was often a consequence for dissent depending on how the dissent was expressed and despite the general view that Mary I was a great "burner" her father's regime condemned more to the flames.
I must confess that my knowledge of the period is rather specialised but if I can find an interesting topic to write about you can be sure I will.
Thanks Halfling.
I'll be following up all the links to the books you mention.
I've been impressed, while studying the second half of the sixteenth century, through the truly fascinating lens of advocates of Edward de Vere, by a few things:
Education for the elite was of at least one order above what's available in our best private schools now.
From all the surviving letters, etc., I know exponentially more about de Vere and others, than about my grandfather, who died five years before my birth
Elizabeth held the printers in an iron grip: All paper had to be accounted for. All publications had to be vetted.
I was surprised by your figure of 60% literacy, at least for reading, if not writing. My feeling is that only the wealthy, and maybe half the bourgeoisie, mostly men, by and large, could read. Peasants got things read out to them.
I thought this didn't change much until the early 20th century.
Man oh man, those people were good to us! They cooked the English language into a powerful, flexible unit.
See you! I'm off to write some poetry.
You are right that many had books read to them and interestingly may have purchased books so that process could take place.
Here is a section from my doctoral thesis along with some footnotes which support - to a degree - my assertion
"There are two aspects of literacy that must be considered. One is the ability to
write; the other being the ability to read. Reading was taught before writing and it is likely
that more people could read a broadside ballad than could sign their names. Writing was
taught to those who remained in school from the ages of seven or eight, whereas reading was
taught to those who attended up until the age of six and then were removed from school to
join the labour force. Proclamation of laws in print was therefore within the reach of a
reasonable proportion of the population."
The footnotes cited state
Tessa Watt Cheap Print and Popular Piety: 1550 – 1640 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991) p 7. In 1600 52% of East Anglian tradesmen and craftsmen could sign their names compared with 80% in London. By the 1640’s roughly 30% of adult males in rural England could sign their names. David Cressy Literacy and the social order. Reading and writing in Tudor and Stuart England (Cambridge, Cambridge, 1980) p. 72. The upper classes, both nobility and gentry, men and women were on the whole literate in both English
and French and often in Latin as well. John Feather A History of British Publishing (Croom Helm, London, 1988) p. 20.
I cannot find precise authority for the 60% figure but I know it is somewhere.....
and often in Latin as well
and ancient Greek, and Italian.
"Rural England" may be a moveable feast. Many people who lived outside the firelight circles of the Court and the forts of the barons did not trouble the Tudor statisticians.
Wonderful. I have these Mantel books but have yet to read them. Love Tudor history and I hope you continue to write about it.
Thank you Ruth. Mantel's style is "different" but once you get familiar with the writing it is clear why she won Bookers for the volumes.
The Tudor period was smack square in the middle of my PhD study so I spent a bit of time there. Most of my examination was in the area of law and legal culture but it was necessary to look at the way the new technology of the printing press (that was a focus of the study) was regulated. And this in turn involved aspects of the English Reformation and the break with Rome and the way Henry VIII (and Cromwell) structured the messaging and compelled obedience to the new approaches. Burning was often a consequence for dissent depending on how the dissent was expressed and despite the general view that Mary I was a great "burner" her father's regime condemned more to the flames.
I must confess that my knowledge of the period is rather specialised but if I can find an interesting topic to write about you can be sure I will.
Thanks again.