PDA

View Full Version : Literacy



Geoffers
28-12-2010, 1:20 PM
There are many differing sources on levels of literacy in the 19th century - and while no means definitive, perhaps not even objectively assessed, I nevertheless was interested to read a snippet in TNA's catalogue.

I like to trawl the catalogue, I think it's a great resource and in particular the medical journals in ADM101 make interesting reading even in the limited extracts which exist in the catalogue.

From the journal of George Thomson in the convict ship England in 1826 in ADM101/26/1/1 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-6062991&CATLN=7&accessmethod=5) - folio 7.

A report of sick and in compliance with Sir Byam Martin's request, a list of convict's names, ages and qualifications an abstract of which follows; Reads and writes well, 22; Reads well and writes indifferently, 31; Reads and writes indifferently, 15; Reads indifferently and can only sign name, 16; Reads indifferently but can not write, 10; Can neither read nor write, 54; Total number on board, 148.

As mentioned, this is by no means definitive - but if the convicts on board the 'England' act as a (small) random sample of the population; just within this group there are 64 % who have at least some basic ability to read and about 33% who read well.

As a collector of odd bits and pieces, I post this merely as something which may be of interest and another example as to why it can be worthwhile to become familiar with TNA's catalogue and web-site in general

AnjaliUK
28-12-2010, 1:52 PM
As mentioned, this is by no means definitive - but if the convicts on board the 'England' act as a (small) random sample of the population; just within this group there are 64 % who have at least some basic ability to read and about 33% who read well.

This wouldn't be classed as a random sample, as the people all have one major thing in common, being convicts. However, this makes the percentages all the more interesting as I would've thought they would be even less likely to be literate than a truly random sample of the population.

Thanks for this interesting snippet, Geoffers.

mikejee
28-12-2010, 4:43 PM
I'm not sure of that. At the time the death penalty was pretty easily applied, so couldn't it be argued that those of higher ability would be more likely to escape the death penalty and get transportation instead, whereas those of less ability would be less able to argue their case , and would probably be looked down on more by the judges ? I don't know, but would put it forward as a possibility, and would be interested in others' opinions

RoyW
28-12-2010, 7:55 PM
An interesting article Geoffers. I have noticed though, in the documents I have seen or collected relating to my ancestors it has always been the women that have signed themselves with their mark and no men. I wonder of the convicts surveyed what the ratio was between men and women, and is my experience in the women being illerate an not the men similar to others.

Royw

spison
28-12-2010, 8:41 PM
A very interesting article Geoffers. I'm always fascinated by ADM101 as these journals are such a window into this time.

Perhaps conquering TNA needs to be my New Year's resolution! (I think I said that last year! :wacko:)

Jane

Geoffers
28-12-2010, 9:00 PM
I'm not sure of that. At the time the death penalty was pretty easily applied, so couldn't it be argued that those of higher ability would be more likely to escape the death penalty and get transportation instead

I don't think so. Many capital offences (the exceptions being Murder and Treason) were commuted to transportation - I have a memory of reading that only 1 in 5 death sentences were carried out (though I cannot verify the accuracy of that statistic) - an awful lot were transported. There are many petitions for clemency by people from all walks of life in the records at TNA. But as I originally mentioned, the entry in TNA's catalogue is a very small sample.

Peter Goodey
28-12-2010, 10:41 PM
it has always been the women that have signed themselves with their mark and no men

I don't think that should be used as a measure of literacy. There are many cases where someone made their mark on one document but signed on another. Genealogical times were very different from ours particularly so far as the status of women is concerned. In many situations women would wish to appear less able than their husbands and if an official said "make your mark here" that is exactly what she might do, even if she was able to write her name.

v.wells
29-12-2010, 4:56 AM
Were women less educated than men because they were deemed "lesser" and merely "chattels"?

I have ancestors of both sexes sign their names with a mark and, I have some women that were iliterate but did learn to read and write so perhaps it has something to do with the social needs at the time. It would be interesting to see if there were geographical pockets of education as well.

v.wells
29-12-2010, 5:02 AM
I lost my reply so I will re-do it.

It is my understanding that women were deemed lesser equals to men and perhaps that is why women had a higher level of iliteracy. I do have ancestors of both sexes that signed their names with a mark but I always associated that to be where they were living and what their occupation was. Some of my female ancestors learned to read and write later in life - probably when schooling became more introduced and they learned from their children. But it is only an assumption on my part.

Oops - I didn't lose my first reply. I do tend to babble.

Guy Etchells
29-12-2010, 8:13 AM
How long is a piece of string?

Literacy is one of those words used by family historians without a precise meaning.

There are many different levels of literacy both now and in the past.
Sometimes it means full competence in all forms of reading and writing.
Sometimes it means the person could write sometimes it means they could sign their name.
At other times it means they could read printed works and at others could read handwriting or any combination of the above.

Surveys of earlier times have shown literacy levels equal to or above today’s levels.
Other surveys show skill in reading printed works competence in writing but poor attainment in reading handwriting.

One commonly used test for literacy is nothing of the kind (signing a name in a register). That simply shows the wiliness to obey a command.
I witnessed many highly educated young men in the late 1960s putting a cross instead of a signature because they were told to add their mark.
They simply obeyed the instruction given.
Cheers
Guy

tony vines
29-12-2010, 10:12 PM
I guess that where AnjaliUK is coming from is that because they were all criminals literacy would be lower than in the population at large so one should not make hasty judgements.

I am not a sociologist but I have read that these days reading and writing ability in the criminal classes is generally lower than in the population at large. The connection one could make based on this is that the failure of the education system today to provide schoolchildren with basic literacy and numeracy is directly responsible for so many of them resorting to criminal behaviour. That is obviously far too simplistic an analysis but it may certainly be a major contributory factor. So many teachers do not seem to be taught to teach properly.

However, whether or not true today, it is difficult to extrapolate backwards to the 19th century with certainty. We have all come across (and it is well documented on this forum) the type of relatively trivial misdemeanour that could get you sentenced to prison with hard labour at that time. Often the crime was the result of the extreme poverty (e.g. stealing food) that was so prevalent in those days. The way we judge poverty today, when a poor family gets the kind of benefits to put sufficient food on the table and buy a flat screen TV, would astonish the Victorians.

So I think it unwise both to judge general literacy levels from those of a convict ship but they could nevertheless be closer to general levels than they would be today for the reasons above. That is to say, low literacy might have been more common in those days but poverty was a far greater factor and the threshold to becoming a criminal was pretty low too. Quite a different set of levers!

DorothySandra
30-12-2010, 11:42 AM
Until schools were provided by the state, literacy was very much a local matter. In some areas a local family would provide a teacher - the school were Jane Eyre taught after she ran away from Thornfield is a well-described example. In other areas the people who could have done so thought it was a bad thing to educate the working classes - Cranford has an example of that, and an example of this being a losing battle by the time the railways were being built.

Before the 19th Century, literate people taught their children, if and when they had time and inclination. I don't think it's possible to generalise about the country as a whole.

By the 19th century the grade of literacy seems to have been used as an indication of intelligence and upbringing, and potential as useful workers.