StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This was something I heard about and never really looked into, but I have been told kings of western Europe from the Early Medieval to possibly the later period did not see reading and writing a priority. I know the 'Royal Seal' was made as a signature of approval but for all their resources many kings apparently did not choose to be literature. Was there any reason for this? And has there been any evidence that this was exploited by an advisor or a member of the clergy, those who had a role in government and were literature.

For one, the seal was to make a document official - to this day, we have a notary put a seal on important documents. Depending on the King in question, it would be more or less of a priority. Complete illiteracy would be rare, though - especially since it would make it possibe make them sign anything, and also make diplomacy and espionage quite complicated if you always depended on someone else to read the letters. Many also spoke multiple languages, if only because their parents were usually from different countries.

Of course, the kings in question might be, say, functionally semi-literate by modern standards- having to run their finger along the page and read the words out loud, for instance. Also, they would probably have large vocabularies and be well educated overall.

In today's society, an 'illiterate' is usually badly educated in general, ignorant of many things, and with a limited vocabulary that makes it hard to explain concepts with them. But in medieval times, you had more highly intelligent and articulate people, who simply did not read and write that well by modern standards. The problem wasn't a deficiency in their language skills, it was simply that the mechanical act of reading and writing was less a part of their lives.

Worth bearing in mind.

The need to run the finger along and read out loud might also be due to the fact that most languages at that time did not have a formal grammar and spelling like we are used to, today. People wrote words as they felt they were right, and formed their sentences according to their local dialect. (For instance, it is known that Shakespeare, himself had 4 or 5 different ways to write his own name.)

You might not get the meaning of a text until you read it out loud to hear it - just like some text messages I get from friends typing in their local dialect... (a pet peeve of mine.)

Actually everyone read out loud. I forget who but their was a monk or priest or something that would read in his head and another ones letters express amazement at this.

It was St. Ambrose.

Korgeta wrote:This was something I heard about and never really looked into, but I have been told kings of western Europe from the Early Medieval to possibly the later period did not see reading and writing a priority. I know the 'Royal Seal' was made as a signature of approval but for all their resources many kings apparently did not choose to be literature. Was there any reason for this? And has there been any evidence that this was exploited by an advisor or a member of the clergy, those who had a role in government and were literature.

If you mean Early Medieval to include 500-700 AD, I think some of them were.

I think Clovis was illiterate, but I can't recall the source for that fact.

It doesn't matter terribly if you're illiterate when you have a dozen slaves to handle reading for you.

LaCroix wrote:The need to run the finger along and read out loud might also be due to the fact that most languages at that time did not have a formal grammar and spelling like we are used to, today. People wrote words as they felt they were right, and formed their sentences according to their local dialect. (For instance, it is known that Shakespeare, himself had 4 or 5 different ways to write his own name.)

You might not get the meaning of a text until you read it out loud to hear it - just like some text messages I get from friends typing in their local dialect... (a pet peeve of mine.)

I've heard about even worse, such as documents which seem to have been written by German-speaking scribes for churchmen working in Latin with spelling according to German "rules". Apparently those are a ton of fun to try to read. Especially because they're writing Latin in Fraktur.

Perhaps someone far more conversant with European history can answer this for me: I've long heard Charlemagne was a proponent of learning and quite fond of books, but I've also heard he was pretty much illiterate beyond writing his own name and needed to have those books read aloud to him. Was Charlemagne illiterate or not?

A level of literacy such as we find essential to modern life was largely absent prior to the modern era. The average person in a town could probably recognize some words and maybe write his/her name - although personal marks/X's were very common - but out in rural areas there simply wasn't much need for literacy. People were much more concerned with food production and survival and that where their put their educational efforts, not into literacy. Reading and writing were specialized skills. How much use did kings actually have for literacy? Books weren't common and thus reading as entertainment was largely unknown. There were scribes for writing official documents, and clerks, and so forth. It's like when executives employed secretaries to type their letters, that task was regulated to subordinates who specialized in that skill.

You'd have to be in the nobility or royal to have the means to have reading as a hobby back then - books were rare and expensive. If someone in that category chose to be literate no big deal but it simply wasn't a requirement to be successful.

The Xeelee wrote:It was St. Ambrose. [who read without moving his lips]

So that was the guy! I almost put in some vague rambles about how that was a rare skill in medieval times, but since all I had to go on was "I remember hearing it actually seen as remarkable that someone could do that" and couldn't even remember the name... I dropped it.

Thanks!

loomer wrote:It doesn't matter terribly if you're illiterate when you have a dozen slaves to handle reading for you.

Actually, it can matter quite a lot, because it means that you cannot read a written message yourself. You cannot know that a written message says exactly what your scribe says it does. Nor can you ever be entirely certain that your scribe is writing down exactly what you told him to. At least, not without going to an awful lot of trouble.

So being unable to read and write would be a serious inconvenience for a political leader, even in medieval times. It makes you easier to trick. Which is not to say that said leaders wouldn't put up with the inconvenience, and accept the vulnerability.

Yeah I struggled to remember it also.

I think Charlemagne was illiterate, Thanas would know for sure.

Actually, it can matter quite a lot, because it means that you cannot read a written message yourself. You cannot know that a written message says exactly what your scribe says it does. Nor can you ever be entirely certain that your scribe is writing down exactly what you told him to. At least, not without going to an awful lot of trouble.

So being unable to read and write would be a serious inconvenience for a political leader, even in medieval times. It makes you easier to trick. Which is not to say that said leaders wouldn't put up with the inconvenience, and accept the vulnerability.

In Mass. there's a joke we tell about Whitey Bulger. Whitey founds out one of his people has been skimming off the top, and accumulated over a million bucks of his money. The man in question is deaf, so Whitey brings his lawyer who knows sign. Whitey's a hands-on sort of guy, so he kicks in the door, gets in the man's face and says "where's my money, you punk."

The man's fingers flash and the lawyer says "He says he has no idea what you're talking about."

Whitey pulls out a gun and points it in the man's face. The man turns pale and signs 'Alright, alright, I buried it in my cousin Sal's yard, twenty feet behind the toolshed.'

The lawyer turns to Whitey and says "He says he'll never tell and you don't have the cojones to pull that trigger anyway."

Given that you had scribes and so on I would say that being able to read was more important than being able to write for such people. Sure you can't write a message yourself, but you can check what the scribe has written and read the response without help.

Ambrose hardly can be considered medieval, he is Late Roman (and we know that a lot of Romans were literate, certainly the majority of people in the cities were).

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Given that you had scribes and so on I would say that being able to read was more important than being able to write for such people. Sure you can't write a message yourself, but you can check what the scribe has written and read the response without help.

And, appropriately, I've heard it said that Charlemagne could read (having hired tutors during his reign to teach him), but never really got the hang of holding a pen properly, and lacked the fine control to write anything better than a scrawl.

Ahriman238 wrote:I think Charlemagne was illiterate, Thanas would know for sure.

I think he had some trouble writing, but he read quite a lot.