Look, sorry, but your comment reads like you’re pushing a pseudo-historical conspiracy theory. This particular book was made with sheep skin and all books created in Europe prior to the ~1200’s were created in a similar fashion. Sure, people might have been able to read words like “Blacksmith” and “Sign Here” (where they would put an X as they didn’t usually know show to write their names), but I wouldn’t consider that as literate; and they wouldn’t ever have the chance to learn how to read because all the books would be locked up in the chain libraries and the only people allowed to access them were nobles and church officials.
I’m not saying they were stupid, all human beings have the means to learn to read and write if given a chance, but back then there was no chance unless you joined the church or were born to a noble family simply because books were incredibly expensive and rare.
There is evidence of a number of uses of vernacular written language in archeological sites. The matter of literacy as mentioned around the advent of the Doomsday Book was not a measure of who could read common vernacular they way literate tends to mean today. It was a measure of who had completed their letters. A set form of schooling that covered about six years worth of language education and numeracy. So it’s kind of hard to track actual literacy rates given sources at the time because the bar to count as “literate” by census records was specific. The majority of college level modern users of language would be unable to clear that bar. I would not be considered literate because I can only write vernacular. So you are semi-correct in that sense yes only nobles and men of the church were “literate” by standards of the time.
There are a number of archeological finds throughout the medieval ages that showed a general upward trend of the skill of being able to read and write fairly basic missives amongst humble people. A lot of our surviving evidence of peasant writing is on very rudimentary materials like bark and it is very practical use. People learned the skill from other people for doing stuff like writing IOUs or orders for goods or as reminders and most examples that survived were under 20 words in length. In a lot of places being able to read and write wasn’t considered remarkable enough to record as a special skill unless you could do it in Latin. This is why you find books written for common people like the Dite de Hosebondrie ( Husbandry) for the peasant farmer or guides for common housewives in the 13th century in “rustic” language styles. Books were uncommon and expensive and you had to go to them to read them but the people who they were written for weren’t always nobles or clergy.
Look, sorry, but your comment reads like you’re pushing a pseudo-historical conspiracy theory. This particular book was made with sheep skin and all books created in Europe prior to the ~1200’s were created in a similar fashion. Sure, people might have been able to read words like “Blacksmith” and “Sign Here” (where they would put an X as they didn’t usually know show to write their names), but I wouldn’t consider that as literate; and they wouldn’t ever have the chance to learn how to read because all the books would be locked up in the chain libraries and the only people allowed to access them were nobles and church officials.
I’m not saying they were stupid, all human beings have the means to learn to read and write if given a chance, but back then there was no chance unless you joined the church or were born to a noble family simply because books were incredibly expensive and rare.
There is evidence of a number of uses of vernacular written language in archeological sites. The matter of literacy as mentioned around the advent of the Doomsday Book was not a measure of who could read common vernacular they way literate tends to mean today. It was a measure of who had completed their letters. A set form of schooling that covered about six years worth of language education and numeracy. So it’s kind of hard to track actual literacy rates given sources at the time because the bar to count as “literate” by census records was specific. The majority of college level modern users of language would be unable to clear that bar. I would not be considered literate because I can only write vernacular. So you are semi-correct in that sense yes only nobles and men of the church were “literate” by standards of the time.
There are a number of archeological finds throughout the medieval ages that showed a general upward trend of the skill of being able to read and write fairly basic missives amongst humble people. A lot of our surviving evidence of peasant writing is on very rudimentary materials like bark and it is very practical use. People learned the skill from other people for doing stuff like writing IOUs or orders for goods or as reminders and most examples that survived were under 20 words in length. In a lot of places being able to read and write wasn’t considered remarkable enough to record as a special skill unless you could do it in Latin. This is why you find books written for common people like the Dite de Hosebondrie ( Husbandry) for the peasant farmer or guides for common housewives in the 13th century in “rustic” language styles. Books were uncommon and expensive and you had to go to them to read them but the people who they were written for weren’t always nobles or clergy.
https://www.medievalists.net/2024/11/medieval-daily-life-on-birchbark/