Period Literacy

[The Chapman]

Period Literacy

Now, lately I’ve been reading some statements around in various places, one of which is a thread on a related forum, about ‘literacy’ of the GAOP period.

One of the statements I’ve seen several times uses the ability to sign one’s name as an indicator of literacy. I don’t buy that. I’ve known, in the present day, a number of people who could sign their names but were otherwise illiterate, and couldn’t read or write.

One example:

My acquaintance Jaybird, who works at a salvage yard. He is illiterate, but can sign his name. I’ve talked to him about his illiteracy at some length; how he functions, ‘writes’, etc (This came up, and he confided in me, due to his inability to work the new satellite jukebox at the bar; it requires you to read the song titles rather than merely knowing the ‘call number’ of your selection).

Firstly, writing his name is like drawing a sketch or doodle. The letters are there, he knows it is the ‘icon’ for his name (legal name, not ‘Jaybird’), but he cannot sound it out or make greater meaning out of the letters. On work orders, to ensure legitimacy, he has all his superiors or operators sign their names in a small spiral notebook, and when a WO comes in he compares the signature to the one recorded in his book. He therefore knows who authorized the part removal or release, and then writes down the WO number connected with that signature, thereby covering his ass.

Jaybird does use alphabet letters, but only as mnemonic devices with no deeper meaning, like tying a thread around your finger to remember something. He does have, let me tell you, an absolutely phenomenal memory. He has to.

He can use numbers and, I think, has above average math skills, and easily tells time by either digital or analog clocks; he simply does not know how to read or write, and never learned. Jaybird is about 50 years old (he doesn’t actually know himself, for sure).

So; based on this related knowledge, I don’t believe for a moment that signing your name means you’re literate; but it does have other effects.

For instance, a ‘signature’ takes on great importance if it’s the only thing you can write. It will be unique, and essentially not something that can be faked. Putting your mark on something would have significance beyond just ‘writing a word’.

Also related, there are, let me tell you, differing degrees of ‘literacy’. I had one co-worker tell me once, “I’ve never been much of a reader”, as if ‘reading’ were a pastime, or a sport, like synchronized swimming. He just didn’t read, and I think had about a third-grade literacy level, and had no interest in anything further.

In the case of the (to me) shocking numbers of broadsides being printed, well, an ability to functionally read doesn’t mean you can WRITE effectively. Anyway, I don’t believe signing a name is any kind of indicator of any kind of literacy.

So what is? It’s impossible to tell; but on land, anyway, and judging by the popularity of newspapers and broadsheets in urban centers, literacy in those places, like today, was probably fairly high, if not to a modern graduate-degree standard (What’s that now, about fifth grade?).

My extrapolation is that persons who had an interest or necessity in reading and writing, did, and those who had no pressing need or desire for literacy, depended on others to provide them with the assistance when those skills were needed. Hell, there were total illiterates serving in the US military during Vietnam. I bet a lot of them could sign their name or make their mark, and that’s with the common availability of basic schooling for the mass population!

Anyway. Anybody got any actual information, or is it all pretty much speculation?

What was the benchmark of literacy at the time, really? Because signing your name does not, I repeat, mean anything. Not to me, at least.

[Fox]

I think you're partly right. Certainly the ability to sign one's name does not imply the ability to comprehend Tolstoy or write a flawless sentence.

On the other hand it must be noted that the ability to sign one's own name is a far more important thing now than it was three centuries ago. We have infinitely more forms to fill in these days, and in a practical sense life would be almost impossible without a signature. The latter was not true 300 years ago - there were fewer contracts to sign, no bank accounts to worry about... if you couldn't write then a mark would suffice.

So while you're quite right in saying that a signature is no hard proof of literacy, it is a good indicator - more so in the GAoP than now.

What would be a better indicator? Well, perhaps the number of sailors including books or reading material in their wills (quick scan through a random 25 wills turns up 8 with books and two others with mathematical instruments), but that would only tell us how many owned printed matter, not how many could read it.

Perhaps a simple approach might be to use the signature method as the upper limit (if they could sign their name they may have been literate, if they couldn't then they clearly weren't), and some other method, like the examination of wills, as the lower limit (if they owned books then they were surely literate, if they didn't then they may or may not have been).

Using my short sample of wills quoted above we see a literacy rate of about one third. And very unscientifically using one sample of collected signatures (in this case Thomas Tew's articles), only 14 out of 46 could not sign their names, or about 2/3. Does a literacy rate of roughly 1/3 to 2/3 seem reasonable.

Of course, it probably depends to some extent on which end of the GAoP we're discussing. Between 1680 and 1730 there might be three generations, and it was a time in which literacy was on the rise - newspapers were being published more frequently, and with more competition, the English novel was invented...

I would expect a detailed study to show that literacy was more widespread in 1730 than in 1680.

[The Chapman]

"...it must be noted that the ability to sign one's own name is a far more important thing now than it was three centuries ago..."

"I am compelled to disagree. The functional illiterates and tradesmen and biker mechanics I've known put great store and emphasis on their 'mark/signature' being specifically 'theirs'."

I misunderstood your statement, I think. Sorry about that. You're right; making an X on massive numbers of papers in the modern day is simply not practical. A 'signature' is a necessity.

I was thinking in terms of how important literacy is or was to the individual, rather than how important some degree of literacy may have been to the society or culture around him/her.

[The Chapman]

I made a phone call today to one of my annoying friends who's always right about things. In the course of the conversation I mentioned this idea.

Now, I routinely drop-ship pallets to Beloit College. Imagine my embarrassment at taking handwritten invoices into Tanya made out to:

'Bulliot Collag' in magic marker.

Now, Alan pointed out to me that this kind of phonetic spelling was considered literacy at the time. He's right. So it answers certain questions I have about 'literacy'.

The book thing... well, it depends on the book. What is it? The Bible? Seen semi-literates study The Bible.

I would be curious to know what the books in probate were. What subjects, per se.

Books in themselves were relatively rare and expensive. Wonder about that.

God, I'm tired.

Goodnight.

I gotta check up on Gunboards about Sea Service pistols.

[Fox]

"...it must be noted that the ability to sign one's own name is a far more important thing now than it was three centuries ago..."

I am compelled to disagree. The functional illiterates and tradesmen and biker mechanics I've known put great store and emphasis on their 'mark/signature' being specifically 'theirs'.

Which rather supports my point. Today, having a unique signature or mark is significantly more important than it was three centuries ago. When we talk about people making their mark on a document historically, only rarely is it a unique and recogniseable squiggle. More often than not it's simply putting pen to paper to go through the motions of signing - an X is very common.

Regarding books, some of them are certainly Bibles. Others include religious works, but more often than not it just says "a parcel of books" or some such thing.

But I think you raise an interesting point - how are we defining "literate"? Personally I'm working on the basest principal that the ability to read and write on even a basic level makes one "literate". So people studying the bible would be literate: they could read, even if they couldn't compose in iambic pentameter. Other people may have different opinions of what constitues literacy, but for the purposes of historical discussion, in the absence of reading tests 300 years ago, it is impossible to determine the degree of literacy for any but a few so we must fall back on the fact that if someone could demonstrably read and write then they were literate on some level.

[Capt Grey]

The book thing... well, it depends on the book. What is it? The Bible? Seen semi-literates study The Bible.

"It's the Bible. You get credit for trying" - Ragetti, PotC: DMC

Sorry, that just popped into my head when I read your post.

I'm reading this thread with great interest. I really have nothing to add, but it is a fascinating topic. It brings up all kinds of questions about what the criteria is to be "literate".

I have to suggested that, based on the amount of free information available today in our electronic world, that the "baseline" for literacy must be higher than it was a few hundred years ago. Reading material is much more prevelent and all around us - on paper, on screens, on phones, etc.

[Matty Bottles]

Perhaps, but I bet the baseline was higher a hundred years ago. Today I see an evolution toward a mixture of literacy and iconography. A person who is illiterate may not be able to read or understand the 'stop' in a stop sign, but the red octogonal sign means 'stop.' And the proliferation of technical specs, stylized computer interfaces and what not is leading toward an overall reduction in baseline literact, to some degree. Not that this has anything to do with historical literacy...

[Patrick Hand]

It brings up all kinds of questions about what the criteria is to be "literate".

I agree... this is an interesting thread, but without defining exactly what (or what level of) literacy is being discussed.... it might bog down ...

Is literacy, say a third grade reading level.... being able to read and sound out words? Or is it a higher level than that?

[Matty Bottles]

Edit: DO NOT READ THIS POST. POINTLESS CONJECTURE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ A POST THAT PERTAINS TO THE TOPIC AT HAND, SKIP TO THE NEXT POST.

Good point. What is 'functional' literacy? Few people could completely discern the meaning of contract or laws, simply because they tend to have constructions no longer in common use. The functional literacy of a college grad student is higher than that of everyday use.

I guess my point with the previous post is that although less people may have been literate, the level of literacy displayed in published document seems more sophisticated than today. I use 'seems' deliberately, because the language of newspapers from 100 years ago might not be any more sophisticated than the language of newspapers today - it's just that I percieve it to be so.

[Jib]

Hard to judge literacy in the past by today's standards. We are a much more demanding society. It amazes me that Jaybird can function as well as he does. I often take reading and writing for granted.

[The Chapman]

out

[The Chapman]

out

[The Chapman]

Summary of the above, disregarding 'rightness' of anybody, I hope:

Literacy in the GAOP can reasonably be assumed to consist of the ability to read letters and words, phonetically or by word recognition, no matter how laboriously or slowly. Spelling as a measure of literacy is not an issue, obviously. The skill of making sense out of cyphers is the measure.

(I personally will argue that the ability to write legibly is a separate skill from functional reading. Even now, by tradition in the US, it's the Three 'R's, of which Readin' and Ritin' are described, separated skills. )

I maintain the ability to scribe a 'legible' signature does not mean, on an individual basis, that that person is at all literate. I don't buy it.

The ownership of a book or books means nothing. Many soldiers/sailors obviously carried around letters, books, or written keepsakes, etc. that they couldn't read themselves. Why did they carry them? Who knows? Why do people own anything, other than the necessities of existence?

Part of my statement here is my personal knowledge of illiterate people owning books, which were often in evidence in their homes, which I know they couldn't read. Why were those books there?

Was it the modern expectation that everyone is literate, therefore no books=illiteracy, a face-saving gesture?

A sailor may own a book of psalms or the bible so that someone can speak over his body. The books, which at sea, may have been hard to come by and save, may have been used as notebooks, with numbers, notations, etc. May be thin-sheaved books were gentle on the anus and were a handy source of bumfodder!

But for real, through history many illiterate folk have carried books with them for various personal reasons.

Any number of reasons. I quote a completely blind couple whose apartment I went into, who had PICTURES ON THE WALLS. When I asked them why they had pictures, they said, "For company".

This does bring up Foxes' description of percentages of article-signers. I find the quoted levels of illiteracy to be pretty high for the period; that number of folk unable to even scribble a legible signature is a measure of a level of low skill I find surprising.

Thanks, Foxe. Cool stuff, as always.

However, I do have to ask, What was the point of SIGNING an 'X'? Think about it.

Oh; and joke of the day:

If you put a guy on the list, and he signs an X, and later you want him off the list, well...

...how do you cross him off?

[The Chapman]

There is apparently an entire field of study of the phenomenon of early modern writing known as 'signature literacy', or the above-noted subject, whether a person able to sign their name could read and/or write effectively.

I'm finding a lot of mention of this kind of thing:

Newfoundland history:

In 1698 there was passed the famous or notorious Act - the Act 10 and 11 of William III for the regulation of the trade and fisheries in Newfoundland . There had long been jealousy between the merchants on the one hand and the planters and inhabitants on the other; and the merchants regarded this Act as the soundest policy pursued in relation to the fishery. It provided that courts of oyer and terminer [see this page for its application to Quebec] in any county in England should have jurisdiction in cases of robberies, murders, felonies and all other capital crimes done or committed in Newfoundland. By this Act was established the jurisdiction of the fishing admirals; it was, as Prowse says, "the surrender of the entire control of the colony, including the administration of justice, into the rude hands of a set of ignorant skippers, who were so illiterate that out of the whole body of these marine justiciaries only four could be found at all to sign their names."

I've run across other written complaints about people who could "Barely sign their names".

(France was about the same, even accounting for language differences; with large numbers of people who couldn't write at all, and a slightly smaller number who could sign but not really write.)

Anyway, a common and apparently accepted thing was that, as mentioned earlier on this thread, reading ability was fairly widespread. A lot of people could read phonetically, more or less; but a far lesser number of people could write well, or for that matter, write at all.

(This was also true in France.)

It would appear that reading literacy was considered something quite different from writing literacy, and in studying 'literacy' of the early modern period it has to be considered that the so-called standards weren't so much lower as different.

It seems odd to know that people owned books and could read them; but couldn't write a stroke or sign their names.

...Just thinking...

[Patrick Hand]

It seems odd to know that people owned books and could read them; but couldn't write a stroke or sign their names.

Ok... this isn't period..... but I am a very poor speller...... but hey... I can read....(and can obvously kinda sorta type)

But ... I'm not quite sure if the relationship as argued between owning books..... being able to read them... and being able to write......is quite right....

It's a good arquement..... but I still am not convenced eaiter way....(and I'm still rooting fer Fox...... but heck... I can still be sorta impartial...... (just depends on who bribes me wit' better loot))

[Calico Jack]

Just post GAOP ['though involving a local favourite, and a "notorious" pirate, Ned Low], in 1722 Philip Ashton, merchant seaman and schooner fisherman, was impressed by Edward Low, and on his eventual escape and return to Marblehead, wrote an account of his experience.

Yes, assuming one example to be a general trend is a very dangerous thing, and is NOT good history, however Ashton was (a) not navy, and (b)lower-middle class [if not lower class] and was in fact, it is strongly implied, able to write himself, as opposed to dictation.

Now, that said, it is possible that his account was a fiction ['though unlikely], and it is possible that his account was dictated to a second party for the writing of it, however, it would appear that at least one lower-middle-class fisherman was able to write [and thus likely, to read]. Perhaps the exception, rather than the norm, but a possible example. Surgeons [see the surgeons thread] were of course also notoriously literate. Many of the accounts we have from the time are "memoirs" from surgeons [Alexandre Exquemelin, and a few others].

[Edit: additional, to cite "Wages" from the flags thread over in Plunder: "In history, it is usually safest to go with general practice than to postulate what "might" have been done that deviate from "normal," esp. when PERIOD sources make little to nothing on anything unusual. People tend to ONLY note things that are "odd" PRECISELY because they are DIFFERENT from norm." Exactly.]

[The Chapman]

I'm not really arguing about anything...

I'm just running into records from various places in the European world at the time indicating that reading and writing were considered, somehow, totally separate skills, and being taught one (reading) did not seem to mean the individual was taught the other one (writing).

I'm actually agreeing with you, Mr. Hand, on that; it does strike me as really, really weird.

But maybe that's what Ms. Kass means about being careful about comparing ourselves (us 'modern' men and women) to people of the past...

I'm going to think about that some more, and look into manual dexterity and studies on how modern illiterates or children learn to write, as opposed to read...

[BriarRose Kildare]

I don't have any thing probably helpful to add, but in our modern times the mark of an X is still used. I worked eight years in the corporate world, specifically for a title company. I handled many documentations through out my day. And I became an authority on signatures or the lack there of. An X can still be used as long as you have an affidavit and witness signatures.

It also varies from state to state and county to county as well.

As for the question on literacy in both reading and writing one must look too at the education of the time period and who was allowed to be educated. For instance, the majority of women were not always educated and it depended upon her Father or Guardian if she were to be taught both reading and writing. Also, one must look at the different classes and stations of the people. Just some thoughts to think on or look in to for further investigation in to the possibilities of literacy or illliteracy.