[Mrs. Don-o]

Not sure what negative you want me to prove: that most European vernacular languages did not exist in written form, as literary languages, before the Early Renaissance, or that the wide availability of books was not economically or culturally available before the printing press.

Or is it some other negative you wanted me to prove?

Awaiting your clarification.

[morphing libertarian]

If I read your original ,post correctly you had two points: the impact of printing, which we agree on, was one.

But the second point was response to me about oppressing the poor and illiterate and putting things in languages they could not understand in the absence of education. Note: I was describing europe pre-printing.

To not acknowledge the bad quality of life for surfs and soldiers and their plight and how theywere seen by the aristocracy and kings, prices, orgs and cardinals and bishops is to deny the reality of their lives. And the right of succession, disease, and war held out little hope. Those populations are easy to control and at least manage. Work hard they ere told and be rewarded afterwards.

There are good histories of europe that describe life from Rome to the world wars. I am out of school decades so there might even be more. But to maintain wealth and power many rulers oppressed their subjects. If you explain things, put them in the common vernacular people will be educated and revolt or question. Can’t maintain your position with an uppity populace. It is a well accepted fact that all changed with universities, guilds and apprenticeship programs, printing and exploration.

Best wishes.