Muddled (again) this time re: Education
Posted by ElaineL on December 16, 1997 at 10:30:07:
I read too many books consecutively and now I am having trouble remembering what was in the books and what was my own supposition!
As I recall:
The gentry and auristocracy may or may not have been well educated. I seem to recall references to illiterate gentlemen, barely able to sign one's name because education was thought unnecessary for those who had their inheritance to provide for them. Although clearly some were well educated since we see this in JA's novels. So I'm assuming it again came down to the family's appreciation of knowledge.
The trade probably knew their letters and numbers to enough degree to perform their particular trade. I'm assuming a lawyer might be better educated than say a merchant.
The peasant or lower class probably was not educated at all, unless by happen stance through a relative or someone. There wasn't any real schooling for this class.
I'm also thinking a landed gentleman may or may not have provided the means for instruction for children of his tenants. It would have been entirely up to the landlord.
Women were not educated at all unless of the upper classes. I can't remember for certain what "The Prospect Before Her" said for this period. Seems to me it said upper class knew a couple languages (maybe for purpose of understanding the opera?) and could read. Don't recall that women were instructed in Greek or Latin. And can't remember any mention of math. Surely though they would have been taught adding and subtraction?
Does any of this hold true to your sources?
Looking forward to a clearer understanding. El
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.