GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-08 > 0966619731


From: Renia <>
Subject: Re: Age of competency
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 18:28:51 +0100


Kay Allen AG wrote:

> Renia wrote:
> >
> > Kay Allen AG wrote:
> >
> > > Comments interspersed.
> > >
> > > Renia wrote:
> > > >
> > > > People will argue about the degree of literacy during this period, but as an
> > > > apprentice, it is more likely that this boy was of a lower class family, and was
> > > > probably unable to read or write.
> > >
> > > If so, why was the stipulation for minimal education not included?
> >
> > I have not heard that such stipulation was always the case. I think it rather depends
> > on the individual circumstances, rather than be taken as a general rule. Judging by the
> > number of illiterate persons in later times who were masters of their trade, (trade-
> > note - not profession) it would not surprise me in the least.
>
> To reiterate, this was not England proper, but the Puritan Plymouth
> Colony where literacy was more valued.

Yes, I'm sure, especially in a church environment. I'll leave any further discussion to Paul
Reed, who seems to have written something of interest for you.

Renia

>
>
> Kay Allen AG
>
> >
> > Renia
> >
> > > Kay Allen AG
> > > >
> > > > Renia
> > > >
> > > > Kay Allen AG wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Ordinarily, I would agree, but I don't think that a child of that age
> > > > > would have been judged competent, legally, to have signed his own
> > > > > apprenticeship papers on his own account. Or is this an incorrect
> > > > > assumption?
> > > > >
> > > > > Kay Allen AG
> > > > >

This thread: