How uncommon was literacy during the medieval ages for real? I know monks and priests had to be literate, but how often could noblemen read? How about noblewomen? Were peasants ever literate? Was it worth the effort of putting up signs in areas mostly frequented by peasants?
The 'medieval period' could mean a lot if things OP.
Buy I think most peasants had some degree of literacy, only enough to recognize a few signals like numbers for prices or the symbols that mean royalty, but I honestly don't know. Nobles were typically educated though, so they were likely very literate, especially the girls.
>>46522036
>How uncommon was literacy during the medieval ages for real?
About 5-15% of population depending on region.
>I know monks and priests had to be literate, but how often could noblemen read?
It was not 100% for monks, some tended to more mundane chores. But some of merchants could read and write as well.
>How about noblewomen?
Hahaha, no. I mean, one in a dozen maybe.
>Were peasants ever literate?
Seldom.
>Was it worth the effort of putting up signs in areas mostly frequented by peasants?
Of course, they still had to obey the sign, not being able to read it is no excuse.
>>46522036
Literacy in medieval times (...) didn't just mean telling letters apart and connecting them to sounds. It meant understanding Latin.
How many people understand Latin today? Are the rest of us illiterate? We would be in 1200s France.
It's not like today where people who remain illiterate don't do so for lack of opportunity but because of psychological barriers. There is a stigma attached to illiteracy. This was not so before schools and industrialization. For most it would have been a waste of time. Books were expensive and used for things farmers didn't have to bother with. Writing was for correspondence, and what correspondence did a normal family have to take care of that the priest couldn't do for them much more eloquently?
Of course this is a way to control power. But that's just how we interpret it today. Just ask your parents about smartphones.
>>46522036
Depends heavily on region. Once you see a trend towards urbanization with towns becoming more popular you see a rise in literacy. Especially due to the importance of financial and courtly (read mostly financial) record keeping, and we have a fuck ton of courtly records.
As in if it survived and you feel like being weird, you can look up how peasant a waged a complaint against peasant b to their landlord over a sheep being on the wrong side of a fence and the resulting fine.
It was generally even a requirement for being a full legal resident or citizen (which was like a more legal resident because guild politics) of a town or city. And with the catholic church wanting people to be able to read prayer books (not the bible) even the urban poor (not a large number of them) and laborers could occasionally find the means to educate themselves.
Also as >>46522130
>How about noblewomen?
>Hahaha, no. I mean, one in a dozen maybe.
don't believe you.
This is more true for gentry, but there is a lot of cross over especially with minor nobility. But you'll never guess who managed most if not all financial (as in ya'll need to keep record) affairs while the husband was off on business (fucking around at tournaments for 3 months+ out of the year). Usually it was the wife. Which again for record keeping, implies basic literacy. We also will occasionally find love letters between the gentry (again not 100% on the noble cross over here). Some are penned in a woman's handwriting, while I cannot imagine in the prudish culture of the day the others were read aloud for her sake.
I should note after saying all of this that the standards for "basic literacy" as I've been putting it are way below modern benchmarks. I'm talking basic. The sheer amount of spelling variations were ridiculous and tendency for phonetic spelling was common.
Which reminds me. I have a translated peasant diary lying around my apartment somewhere. I need to get on that.
>>46522036
>How uncommon was literacy during the medieval ages for real?
for the most part only the clergy was literate. During the reign of Charlemagne he tried to set up an education system thought the Holy Roman Empire, but it fell through after his death, but I suspect literacy might've been slightly more common during that time.
It really wasn't until the development of the printing press, which made books much more accessible, that literacy became more common.
>>46525035
>I cannot imagine in the prudish culture of the day the others were read aloud for her sake
Would you not have a personal lewd orator, if you could?
>>46525167
Yes, but like fuck I'd allow my wife to.
>>46522036
Signs in areas with low literacy levels are often pictographic.
Pictoghraphical signage systems can become highly complex even without syntax or grammar.
Look at any system of modern road signs.
>>46522036
I think we're getting to the point where people actually read less books per capita now than they did in the medieval ages.
>>46525940
And yet, more text than any other time in human history.
So much information, so very little of it remotely worthwhile.
>>46525964
More of what would have usually been vocalized is now just tweeted or texted. Counting shit like that as 'text' is a stretch
>>46526082
You're trying to redefine "text" from "Concepts, sounds or vocalizations in written form" to. . . . fuck I don't think you even know.
Point is, stop it, it's stupid, just because you find a text distasteful, illegible or unintelligible doesn't make it any less text, you awful pretentious poncewad.
800AD is not 1100AD is not 1500AD
I know litteracy among the lower classes really took of in Sweden during the 16th century when a) We turned protestant and the bible was translated to Swedish, and b) Printing press meant that there was a lot of them, and not too expensive.
>>46525940
This is a gross overstatement. Most people nowadays have read more than one book. In the medieval era most people went their entire life never reading a book.
>>46525940
You're full of shit.
