An interesting study, and certainly a timely lens to think about writing as a profession—especially given the Cambrian explosion of writing on the internet, yet “writing for a living” becoming increasingly the domain of the relatively few, as so many recent conversations on Substack and elsewhere highlight.
I wonder, too, how these trends would fare compared against general numbers regarding literacy, for example, and literacy broken up by gender and class as well. It seems inevitable to me that writing would begin, at least, as an elite occupation simply because only the very elite were literate to begin with (elite and clergy, of course, who were often drawn from elites too). Folk of more humble classes (I also can’t think of a better term!) would rely instead on oral traditions such as tales and songs, which are much harder to track and trace, in their pre-written-down forms.
I’m also curious about what other factors would help contextualize the interesting graphic you’ve presented. Political movements, perhaps? I.e., is there a correlation between increased literacy or populist movements, for example, and the periods of relative openness for writers to enter the field? Or, if not political movements, then maybe broadly socio-economic or even technological opportunities?
Certainly a fertile field of research! I am looking forward to hearing more about your work on this, and the patterns that emerge :)
Great comments, thanks! Yes, that's exactly the context I had in mind.
So far as literacy rates go, there's a huge explosion toward the end of the 16th century, from negligible levels to 30-50% male literacy, depending on how it's measured. (It's very hard to measure because reading and writing were taught as separate skills, with writing taught later and to fewer people, but all the direct evidence we have comes from writing, i.e. people's ability to sign their names in legal documents. You have to measure writing ability, then use some dubious, ad hoc multiplier to get from there to reading ability.) Then there's a gradual but gentle increase up until the nineteenth century, which brings another watershed. But, at least after the middle of the sixteenth century, the major factor limiting the literary market (and paid jobs for writers) is the number of people who are able or willing to buy books, which is much, much smaller than the number of people who can read. As you can imagine it's all quite complicated to untangle!
It’s also interesting to think about how the changing nature of oral tradition changes alongside literary traditions. Someone gifted at language doesn’t necessarily pursue (or able to pursue) a literary career. Music embedded in folk culture is one obvious example. But so it street preaching, whether religious or political. There are famous examples of it in literature, of course. Off the top of my head the idea, there’s the seaman sermon in Moby Dick. Maybe it’s the romantic in me but I always imagined the mud and rat-infested streets of Elizabethan England as linguistically rich with shouts and slang as anything going on in the theater or royal courts.
Absolutely, a fascinating and hugely important aspect of the linguistic culture of the period. Very much oral AND written where the theaters were concerned--and, as you note, in that other great oral / written genre of the day, sermons. Just a few years later, you could see John Donne preaching in St. Paul's.
I like that image of Elizabethan England :) I also think it’s fruitful to think about orality vs changes in literacy, both from the historical direction (17th century onwards) but also in the current context of being immersed in hyper-visual and auditory digital tools, the impact on attention, etc. Might be interesting to explore how this affects the types of texts/ language forms produced and engages with most often.
Brilliant! Although when it comes to the Gregory Clark mention, the interesting thing about his work is he does not make an exception for the 20th-century. He argues that social mobility remained the same in the 20th century as in previous eras--the middle class expanded and got a lot richer, but the people on top remained the same. In other words (he argues) today's Swedish grads of elite universities are disproportionately likely to have the last names associated with the 17th-century nobility and today's Oxbridge grads are disproportionately likely to have Norman surnames
An interesting study, and certainly a timely lens to think about writing as a profession—especially given the Cambrian explosion of writing on the internet, yet “writing for a living” becoming increasingly the domain of the relatively few, as so many recent conversations on Substack and elsewhere highlight.
I wonder, too, how these trends would fare compared against general numbers regarding literacy, for example, and literacy broken up by gender and class as well. It seems inevitable to me that writing would begin, at least, as an elite occupation simply because only the very elite were literate to begin with (elite and clergy, of course, who were often drawn from elites too). Folk of more humble classes (I also can’t think of a better term!) would rely instead on oral traditions such as tales and songs, which are much harder to track and trace, in their pre-written-down forms.
I’m also curious about what other factors would help contextualize the interesting graphic you’ve presented. Political movements, perhaps? I.e., is there a correlation between increased literacy or populist movements, for example, and the periods of relative openness for writers to enter the field? Or, if not political movements, then maybe broadly socio-economic or even technological opportunities?
Certainly a fertile field of research! I am looking forward to hearing more about your work on this, and the patterns that emerge :)
Great comments, thanks! Yes, that's exactly the context I had in mind.
So far as literacy rates go, there's a huge explosion toward the end of the 16th century, from negligible levels to 30-50% male literacy, depending on how it's measured. (It's very hard to measure because reading and writing were taught as separate skills, with writing taught later and to fewer people, but all the direct evidence we have comes from writing, i.e. people's ability to sign their names in legal documents. You have to measure writing ability, then use some dubious, ad hoc multiplier to get from there to reading ability.) Then there's a gradual but gentle increase up until the nineteenth century, which brings another watershed. But, at least after the middle of the sixteenth century, the major factor limiting the literary market (and paid jobs for writers) is the number of people who are able or willing to buy books, which is much, much smaller than the number of people who can read. As you can imagine it's all quite complicated to untangle!
It’s also interesting to think about how the changing nature of oral tradition changes alongside literary traditions. Someone gifted at language doesn’t necessarily pursue (or able to pursue) a literary career. Music embedded in folk culture is one obvious example. But so it street preaching, whether religious or political. There are famous examples of it in literature, of course. Off the top of my head the idea, there’s the seaman sermon in Moby Dick. Maybe it’s the romantic in me but I always imagined the mud and rat-infested streets of Elizabethan England as linguistically rich with shouts and slang as anything going on in the theater or royal courts.
Absolutely, a fascinating and hugely important aspect of the linguistic culture of the period. Very much oral AND written where the theaters were concerned--and, as you note, in that other great oral / written genre of the day, sermons. Just a few years later, you could see John Donne preaching in St. Paul's.
I like that image of Elizabethan England :) I also think it’s fruitful to think about orality vs changes in literacy, both from the historical direction (17th century onwards) but also in the current context of being immersed in hyper-visual and auditory digital tools, the impact on attention, etc. Might be interesting to explore how this affects the types of texts/ language forms produced and engages with most often.
Definitely some suggestive modern parallels, to be sure!
Brilliant! Although when it comes to the Gregory Clark mention, the interesting thing about his work is he does not make an exception for the 20th-century. He argues that social mobility remained the same in the 20th century as in previous eras--the middle class expanded and got a lot richer, but the people on top remained the same. In other words (he argues) today's Swedish grads of elite universities are disproportionately likely to have the last names associated with the 17th-century nobility and today's Oxbridge grads are disproportionately likely to have Norman surnames