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 - 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
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: Literacy
-
28-12-2010, 1:20 PM #1GeoffersGuest
Literacy
-
28-12-2010, 1:52 PM #2AnjaliUKGuest
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.
-
28-12-2010, 4:43 PM #3
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- reading
- Posts
- 293
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
-
28-12-2010, 7:55 PM #4
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- merseyside
- Posts
- 84
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
-
28-12-2010, 8:41 PM #5spisonGuest
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! )
Jane
-
28-12-2010, 9:00 PM #6GeoffersGuestOriginally Posted by mikejee
-
28-12-2010, 10:41 PM #7
- Join Date
- Oct 2004
- Location
- Kent
- Posts
- 16,792
it has always been the women that have signed themselves with their mark and no men
-
29-12-2010, 4:56 AM #8v.wellsGuest
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.
-
29-12-2010, 5:02 AM #9v.wellsGuest
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.Last edited by v.wells; 29-12-2010 at 5:04 AM. Reason: I am an idiot for not paying attention to what I was doing.
-
29-12-2010, 8:13 AM #10
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Location
- Wakefield, West Yorkshire
- Posts
- 626
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
GuyAs we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.
Helping you trace your British Family History & British Genealogy.
All times are GMT. The time now is 5:36 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5
Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.
Bookmarks