![]() |
| A horn book from the Derby Museum, by Mainlymazza - Own work. Licensed under Creative Commons via Wikimedia Commons |
For the pre-eighteenth-century background, this post owes a great deal to David Cressy, ‘Literacy in context: meaning and measurement in early modern England’ in John Brewer and Roy Porter (eds), Consumption and the World of Goods (Routledge, 1993), 306) and to Margaret Spufford's famous and ground-breaking, Small Books and Pleasant Histories (Methuen 1981). For the eighteenth century, Susan Whyman's The Pen and the People: English Letter writers 1660-1800 is a ground-breaking study.
A problem for historians
Literacy is difficult to define. Does it just mean reading very simple sentences or does it require more sophisticated reading skills? It is a problem for historians because it is an ambivalent indicator of cultural attainment It was by no means a necessity as a mark had the same legal standing as a signature, and many activities, particularly rural ones, did not need literacy. Every community contained at least one literate person, who could meet the needs of his illiterate neighbours.Far from being distinctive, the oral and print cultures interacted and fed off each other. Jests and proverbs that originated in folklore appeared in printed editions. Printed ballads were heard by illiterate bystanders. Sermons were delivered orally but many of them were also printed. Proclamations were proclaimed as well as posted. The town crier, a walking bulletin board, had to be literate as he had to deliver his information from a text delivered in writing.
There was a spectrum between illiteracy and full literacy, and a hierarchy of skill may have developed as readers learned to decipher writing in different forms. The commonest was Black Letter (Gothic) print, used in the ABC horn book, the catechism and much popular literature. In the eighteenth century this was giving way to Roman type.
Reading, by its nature, leaves no direct record, so there is no reliable guide to the extent of reading ability within the population. But it seems certain that more people could read than could write. Reading and writing were taught as separate skills and often by separate masters. Reading was seen as a skill that could be taught by anyone; writing required masters; it also required a high level of manual dexterity and initiation into the arts of cutting quills and preparing ink. Only the more privileged reached this level.
.jpg)




