I think that the two opinions can be reconciled since the gentry were not as
likely to have apprentices as those in lower classes.  Those who had
apprentices were likely to be in one of the other categories (classes) and
in a business where they could train someone (tailor, shoe maker, iron
making, etc.).  Further, things changed over time. Literacy increased as
time passed so that those of the 1700s were more educated than those of the
1600s (the original question concerned the 1600s).   

It should also be mentioned that where you lived (both before and after
migration) had an effect on literacy.  In Massachusetts (emigrated from East
Anglica, England, literacy was nearly 100% for everyone in the 1600s. The
original immigrants in VA were from Southern England.  Those who went to
Delaware and Pennsylvania were from the North Midlands of England. The
percent of people signing wills by mark in Philadelphia instead of signing
their name was 20% for men and 40% for females in the time period 1699-1706.


Cynthia McDaniel

-----Original Message-----
From: Research and writing about Virginia genealogy and family history.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Harold Gill
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 8:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-ROOTS] A question re: education........

I'm not so sure that the gentry "tried to keep the 'lower classes' here from

becoming literate." Every apprenticeship indenture in Virginia required that

the apprentice be taught to read and write and some even specified the 
number of years schooling the apprentice was to be given. Most poor orphans 
were apprenticed as well as the children of poor people.
HBG

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html