“97% of primitive societies’ population were existence agrarians or artisans. They had no time or money to be educated.”
But you have many examples before you that contradict the above. Do you see them and say “no, it can't be because I've always thought this or that”?
That would be a rather crude and obvious chauvinism unworthy of you. And this:
“The leap to literacy was spurred on by Gutenberg's press, sure.”
must surely be an attempt at sarcastic humor so I'll say no more for now.
“The leap to literacy was spurred on by Gutenberg's press, sure.”
“97% of primitive societies’ population were existence agrarians or artisans. They had no time or money to be educated.”
But you have many examples before you that contradict the above. Do you see them and say “no, it can't be because I've always thought this or that”?
No. You have posted some rather good examples of good literacy, but that does not indicate widespread literacy. And, as I said, almost all of the population were existence agrarians or artisans, so there is no way that they or their offspring, unless pulled into the priestly or upper class, would be able to afford either the time or the money to be educated.
“The leap to literacy was spurred on by Gutenberg's press, sure.”
must surely be an attempt at sarcastic humor so I'll say no more for now.
Not sure that I understand this statement. All historians that I know of link the surge in literacy in the West to Gutenberg's press.