• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What would you be doing if you born in 1300?

We have no idea how rare atheism was because that would require them to be vocal enough about it to be recorded, accurately and regularly enough to form something like an estimation. I find it hard to believe crisis of faith, including the 'there are no gods in heaven' sort, were any rarer then than they are now because the reasons they come about has a lot of timeless reason.

I think if 1/3 of medieval Europeans were atheists, there would be a hell of a lot more evidence of it.

Just as we can say Saudi Arabia and America are more religious societies than Britain or Norway today, we can say past societies were more religious than the present.

There are certainly concepts of the modern era that nobody would have had back then but I find 'product of the era' discussions too often fall victim to 'history from the victors.' Or sometimes even outright misunderstanding of evidenced conflict of opinion: e.g. women's vote and abolition of slavery existing in the discourse during the founding father's lives. Or thinking that Lovecraft's views were a product of the time when even his contemporaries thought he was an ***.

That the average person is a product of their time does not mean everybody shared the same values.

But I think it is a common conceit that we would have been the 'special' ones who held the values we hold today. In part because we think our modern values are 'self-evident' rather than the products of many centuries of social evolution.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think if 1/3 of medieval Europeans were atheists, there would be a hell of a lot more evidence of it.
Very few European countries have a =>30% identified atheists. And only two reach =>40%. It's not all that common even today. When there isn't a likelihood of public ridicule, arrest, and even execution.
Just as we can say Saudi Arabia and America are more religious societies than Britain or Norway today, we can say past societies were more religious than the present.
I don't think we have an accurate estimate of SA atheists for the same reason. There's a difference between supposing there's fewer atheists based on lack of record under duress, and between concluding there's less atheists based on accessible polls not under duress.
But I think it is a common conceit that we would have been the 'special' ones who held the values we hold today. In part because we think our modern values are 'self-evident' rather than the products of many centuries of social evolution.
Sure, but I think some of that comes from the inherent flaw of asking 'what would you do' in a situation where you have none of the memories or experience that makes you 'you.'
I take the OP to mean more 'if you, as you are now, could go back to this time period, where would you go?' Not 'if you weren't really you but someone else, what would you be?'

If I was forced to live an average life in medieval Europe, I think it would be pretty crappy. Because it was, on average, a pretty crappy time to live in compared to today.
 
"In the Middle Ages men were more likely to be literate than women. The main reason for this was that women were usually denied an education. Even in wealthy families, it was often considered wrong to spend time and money on teaching daughters to read and write. It has been estimated that "in the later Middle Ages out of the total population 10 per cent of men and I per cent of women were literate." Most men were very hostile to the idea of women becoming literate."
The Growth of Female Literacy in the Middle Ages (Classroom Activity)

While commonly perceived to be true, those views are really a bit outdated now.

Late Medieval Education: Continuity and Change

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Viewed through the lens of humanist critics, religious reformers, and later confessional politics, late medieval education was once routinely dismissed as moribund, tradition-bound, and unable to meet the needs of an emerging modernity. Pre-university education was deemed the preserve of a narrow clerical elite. The faculty of the late medieval university was depicted as primarily interested in protecting its entrenched and myopic interests against upstart humanists. The education of the parish clergy was at best inconsistent and at worst entirely lacking. Women and religious minority communities hardly entered the discussion at all. However, research over the last 50 years has substantially reframed our understanding of all of these issues.

Scholars of the late Middle Ages now describe a complex, crowded educational landscape. Alongside traditional monastic, cathedral, and collegiate schools, new religious orders, most notably the mendicants, established schools for their members, and in some cases served the broader educational needs of their surrounding communities.2 In many cities and towns, local officials founded new schools, recruited qualified masters, and paid teaching personnel from communal funds. Private instructors with varying degrees of competency and legal recognition also set up shop in larger cities and towns or served in the households of the privileged. In rural areas, parish priests, despite complaints by reformers about the ignorance of the petty clergy, often provided at least basic instruction in Latin for a few young ‘scholars’.3 Nor was formal schooling exclusively reserved for boys. Private tutors contracted by wealthy parents, school-mistresses, and female religious houses provided at least basic literacy for some girls.4...

Educational opportunities for women in the late Middle Ages also expanded. Although the universities were exclusively male (or at least nearly so),41 women and girls increasingly had access to an elementary education that led to vernacular literacy.42 Many may also have received at least basic instruction in mathematics useful for the keeping of business accounts. By the 14th century formal schools for girls are well documented in nearly every major region.43 Numerous city statutes sought to regulate the personnel, discipline, fees, and curriculum of the growing number of girls’ schools. Although in the shadows, unregulated schools operated on the legal fringe leaving few traces of their structure or curriculum. Not surprisingly, these educational opportunities were concentrated primarily within larger towns and cities and associated with the interests of a growing merchant elite. Nevertheless, even in smaller communities girls may have had access to basic education through women’s religious houses or private arrangements...

the primary impetus for the expansion of educational opportunities for girls and women was largely the same as that for boys and men. It was useful. It was especially useful for merchants, although we also find interest in education and basic literacy within the guilds representing even the humblest trades.47 However, as most correspondence, business records, and even property transactions and court cases were increasingly conducted in vernacular languages, Latin was generally not considered useful for women. It was in fact of limited utility for men outside the narrow elite who pursued higher education or a career in the Church. It is thus misleading to emphasize the limitations placed on women’s education at the expense of the substantial and obvious growth.


The beginnings of novels happened a lot earlier in Japan (with the first novel written in the 1100's--by a woman no less-- Tale of Genji). Up until the printing press, novel circulation as a hobby among a broader spectrum of women became normalized earlier. Writing was also part of Shinto spirituality and Shinto had a lot of women priests.

Interesting, thanks for this.

Any idea what percentage of the population would be literate?
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Women were certainly allowed to be literate in the Medieval Era if they had the means to learn.

Religious institutions helped spread literacy, for example, you needed to be literate to be a nun, and nuns in turn taught lay-people in basic schools and as private tutors to the wealthy.

Women could even be scholars of note in this era: Héloïse - Wikipedia

Women also participated in business and politics and even ruled countries.

Obviously it wasn't exactly egalitarian, but it's not quite the horror story often assumed.



Plenty of people lived past 40. Assuming you survived childhood, most people did.

The short life expectancy is mostly the result of high childhood mortality.

The medieval era gets a far worse rep than it deserves.
Thank you for setting things straight. The medieval period is so cloaked in myth, it is disappointing how most people know so little about it.

Some of the myths:
1. Infant mortality was high.
It wasn't. Death in childbirth for infant and mother were on par with today's civilized world. Marriage ages were in the 20th (early for women, late for men).
2. Hunger and malnutrition was common.
Not before the mid of the 14th century. During the early and high medieval period we had the medieval climate optimum with record harvests.
3. Women were illiterate and second class citizens.
Women, not only those of nobility, were expected to run the household. That required basic reading and maths skills. In 1300s Europe the average woman was more literate than the average man.
But that didn't mean women had to only run the household. They often had a profession and except for the clergy all professions were open to them.

All that only changed with the little ice age starting about 1340. Just for security and comfort of living I'd rather be in 1300 than in 1500 (especially when I were a woman).
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
While commonly perceived to be true, those views are really a bit outdated now.

Late Medieval Education: Continuity and Change

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Viewed through the lens of humanist critics, religious reformers, and later confessional politics, late medieval education was once routinely dismissed as moribund, tradition-bound, and unable to meet the needs of an emerging modernity. Pre-university education was deemed the preserve of a narrow clerical elite. The faculty of the late medieval university was depicted as primarily interested in protecting its entrenched and myopic interests against upstart humanists. The education of the parish clergy was at best inconsistent and at worst entirely lacking. Women and religious minority communities hardly entered the discussion at all. However, research over the last 50 years has substantially reframed our understanding of all of these issues.

Scholars of the late Middle Ages now describe a complex, crowded educational landscape. Alongside traditional monastic, cathedral, and collegiate schools, new religious orders, most notably the mendicants, established schools for their members, and in some cases served the broader educational needs of their surrounding communities.2 In many cities and towns, local officials founded new schools, recruited qualified masters, and paid teaching personnel from communal funds. Private instructors with varying degrees of competency and legal recognition also set up shop in larger cities and towns or served in the households of the privileged. In rural areas, parish priests, despite complaints by reformers about the ignorance of the petty clergy, often provided at least basic instruction in Latin for a few young ‘scholars’.3 Nor was formal schooling exclusively reserved for boys. Private tutors contracted by wealthy parents, school-mistresses, and female religious houses provided at least basic literacy for some girls.4...


Educational opportunities for women in the late Middle Ages also expanded. Although the universities were exclusively male (or at least nearly so),41 women and girls increasingly had access to an elementary education that led to vernacular literacy.42 Many may also have received at least basic instruction in mathematics useful for the keeping of business accounts. By the 14th century formal schools for girls are well documented in nearly every major region.43 Numerous city statutes sought to regulate the personnel, discipline, fees, and curriculum of the growing number of girls’ schools. Although in the shadows, unregulated schools operated on the legal fringe leaving few traces of their structure or curriculum. Not surprisingly, these educational opportunities were concentrated primarily within larger towns and cities and associated with the interests of a growing merchant elite. Nevertheless, even in smaller communities girls may have had access to basic education through women’s religious houses or private arrangements...

the primary impetus for the expansion of educational opportunities for girls and women was largely the same as that for boys and men. It was useful. It was especially useful for merchants, although we also find interest in education and basic literacy within the guilds representing even the humblest trades.47 However, as most correspondence, business records, and even property transactions and court cases were increasingly conducted in vernacular languages, Latin was generally not considered useful for women. It was in fact of limited utility for men outside the narrow elite who pursued higher education or a career in the Church. It is thus misleading to emphasize the limitations placed on women’s education at the expense of the substantial and obvious growth.



Interesting, thanks for this.

Any idea what percentage of the population would be literate?
I don't have access to any of the cited sources from that article but I have serious doubts about some of the claims made there. Such as dedicated schools for girls in every region in the 14th century. Especially since we know there were lords which banned education of serfs and women, and had grammar schools, elementary and monstatic education all boys only. Which leaves private (or covert) education and a minority of charity work for the majority of the population and even less for women. Teaching poor men, let alone women, was still frowned upon until at least sometime after 1322 when Elizabeth de Clare started fighting for more accessible education. (Which was rolled back later by King Richard II.)
Women's education moved faster in France, and even in Italy as women were allowed to become obstetricians, and there was some political distancing by England over that fact.

As for literacy during Japan during that time, it's tougher to measure because there were multiple Japanese written languages and hybrid official languages, and a general lack of monograms. But we do have descriptions of women led business, priestess descriptions, and written critiques of novels by female authors and their circulation.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I would likely be studying philosophy and theology in a matha, perhaps at Dakṣināmnāya Śrī Śāradā Pītham in Karnataka...maybe contemplating some sort of Bhakti movement. ;)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, assuming I didn't die of any number of childhood diseases, I probably would have died of asthma (I nearly did anyway).

Assuming I made it to adulthood, I would have probably gravitated to one of the universities (assuming I had the means). There was some amazing mathematics being done in the early to mid 1300's in Europe. Studying under one of he Oxford calculators would have been a treat.
 
I don't have access to any of the cited sources from that article but I have serious doubts about some of the claims made there. Such as dedicated schools for girls in every region in the 14th century. Especially since we know there were lords which banned education of serfs and women, and had grammar schools, elementary and monstatic education all boys only. Which leaves private (or covert) education and a minority of charity work for the majority of the population and even less for women.

It is a peer-reviewed journal citing numerous other scholarly sources that reflect the current understanding of the issue.

Women were educated in convent schools, castle schools, cathedral schools, court schools and (very occasionally) universities. They were also educated in the home by parents who had educations themselves.

Literacy was useful, and so women from across society were educated, it wasn't this great taboo that many seem to think.

Outside of religious orders, and some noble families, they may not have been classically educated in the 'higher learning' to anywhere near the extent of men, but that does not mean they were doomed to illiteracy.

Teaching poor men, let alone women, was still frowned upon until at least sometime after 1322 when Elizabeth de Clare started fighting for more accessible education. (Which was rolled back later by King Richard II.)
Women's education moved faster in France, and even in Italy as women were allowed to become obstetricians, and there was some political distancing by England over that fact.

Elizabeth de Clare left extensive household records which offer some of the best insights into the lifestyles of the medieval nobility.

Noble women were usually educated because they needed to run the household and look after the interests of the family.

Like men, women generally got an education when there was perceived utility in it.

As for literacy during Japan during that time, it's tougher to measure because there were multiple Japanese written languages and hybrid official languages, and a general lack of monograms. But we do have descriptions of women led business, priestess descriptions, and written critiques of novels by female authors and their circulation.

For the most part sounds pretty similar to Europe.

Women in business owning families, religious orders and the nobility learned to read. In Europe medieval romance/courtly love type literature was read by women too.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
I would likely have been a super religious Christian or attempted Jewish convert - depends on my situation in life and where I lived. I'm assuming I'm in the same country as I am now, England, and so would be a pious Catholic. I have a great love for statues, icons, prayerbooks, prayerbeads etc. so that would have really worked for me. I also really love boys so I'd definitely have been in the 'married young' category, or just plain been doing it in the hay with some boy I fancied, unaware of what STDs are. I think my life would have centred on my religion, as it tends to do now, and as it did for many folks then. I have a love for reading so were I in a literate class I'd be doing much of that, but if not I'm sure I would have memorised many prayers by rote, maybe using pictures or such.

It's as @Augustus says though, we would have been products of that time.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Women in business owning families, religious orders and the nobility learned to read. In Europe medieval romance/courtly love type literature was read by women too.
Even written by them, such as Marie de France.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
Probably not much because I'm a woman and the past kinda sucks especially for women. There were few places they were allowed to be literate even if they had the means to learn, and so your life was a humdrum of tedious, backbreaking domesticity, subservience, and gossip (because it's the only way the world was disseminated to you). No thanks.

Also I have pcos and would probably grow a beard without hormones and a razor. The only account of a bearded woman in the 14th century was crucified for it.
Tbf you could let the beard grow, cut your hair to a masculine style, switch your clothes and join a monastery to be able to read and write and stuff.

Win.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
It is a peer-reviewed journal citing numerous other scholarly sources that reflect the current understanding of the issue.

Women were educated in convent schools, castle schools, cathedral schools, court schools and (very occasionally) universities. They were also educated in the home by parents who had educations themselves.

Literacy was useful, and so women from across society were educated, it wasn't this great taboo that many seem to think.

Outside of religious orders, and some noble families, they may not have been classically educated in the 'higher learning' to anywhere near the extent of men, but that does not mean they were doomed to illiteracy.



Elizabeth de Clare left extensive household records which offer some of the best insights into the lifestyles of the medieval nobility.

Noble women were usually educated because they needed to run the household and look after the interests of the family.

Like men, women generally got an education when there was perceived utility in it.



For the most part sounds pretty similar to Europe.

Women in business owning families, religious orders and the nobility learned to read. In Europe medieval romance/courtly love type literature was read by women too.
I got another 11 hour shift today so I'm gonna exit. But the circulation of books (particularly those fashionable romance novels) didn't happen among women until late 14th and 15th century, and then only wealthy families until the printing press. And the first women degree holders/university graduates weren't until 17th century. Considering the medieval period began in the 5th, and was mostly dominated by very serf and women education adverse lords and kings for the majority of the medieval period, it's not unfair to say that it was taboo for most of the medieval era.

If I was an *average* woman in the *average* of the medieval period, it's likely I'd be illiterate or very nearly so. With most of my instruction, if any, being taught orally about domestic living. Little, if any writing.

There's exceptions, of course, but literacy didn't get above 50% in the general population until the 1800s. More like 10 to 20% in 13th and 14th depending on region and who you ask.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Tbf you could let the beard grow, cut your hair to a masculine style, switch your clothes and join a monastery to be able to read and write and stuff.

Win.
Only problem is I'm a D cup *after* a breast reduction surgery lol.

That and women who impersonated men tended to have pretty ugly ends, but that's medieval high adventure baby!
 
If I was born back then I think I'd work as a king for my job.

It's quite surprising that most people chose to work as peasants despite the poor conditions and their lack of castles, moats and other cool stuff like armour, swords and crowns when compared to kings.

No wonder people think medieval folk were stupid.
 

Rival

se Dex me saut.
Staff member
Premium Member
If I was born back then I think I'd work as a king for my job.

It's quite surprising that most people chose to work as peasants despite the poor conditions and their lack of castles, moats and other cool stuff like armour, swords and crowns when compared to kings.

No wonder people think medieval folk were stupid.
Shut up.

There's nothing better than getting off in the barn in the hay with my boyfriend.

You don't know anything. God sake.
 
Top