> 2) While contemporary literarcy is more widespread than that of the
> past
> (i.e., more people have at least a smattering of book knowledge) it is
> also
> shallower. People these days are more adept at skimming a vast array of
> sources; in the past, people would have access to few books, but be
> more
> likely to read and re-read them carefully. I think the best evidence
> of this
> can be seen in working class writers of the 18th and 19th century.
> These
> writers seem to have read a few key books (the Bible, Pilgrim's
> Progress)
> very carefully, since their work is filled with recurrent allustions to
> them.
Obviously their work is filled with quotations of these key books, since they had nothing else to quote! The question which interests me is, did their intense study of the Bible and Pilgrim's Progress give them a better grasp of the nature of things than we have today, with all of our sources of information and the progress of science since then. It is at least an open question.
> Even among the most marginalized citizens of 19th century
> America, slaves, Shakespeare was performed and popular. Only in the
> late
> 19th century did Shakespeare start becoming the exclusive preserve of
> the
> elite.
How well did they understand him? Any evidence that they understood him as well as a college student in Lit class today?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile