Recreation in the lives of mercantile and gentry Londoners, 1760-1820

293 Pages·2010·3.99 MB·English

Leisure and pleasure in London society, 1760-1820: an
agent-centred approach
i
Short abstract
Leisure and pleasure in London society, 1760-1820: an agent-centred
approach
Benjamin Heller, Keble College
DPhil in history
Trinity term 2009

The historiography of leisure has focused on class conflict, commercialization,
and the arts. In the latter two areas historians have attempted to make statements about
consumers, but as historians of consumption have demonstrated, examining the consumer
from the perspective of producers is insufficient. This thesis demonstrates what the
developing methodologies used to examine practice and consumption reveal about leisure
and recreation. Exploration of forty-five diaries kept in London between 1757 and 1820
makes it possible to consider different aspects of choice with reference to recreation.
This dissertation analyses how simple determinants of choice such as time, location, and
cost shaped behaviour before moving on to the more complex and fuzzy concepts of
social position, the role of domesticity, and taste.
Choice is central to understanding what amusement was in Georgian society,
therefore it is necessary to consider both people’s scope for choice, and the forces
shaping those choices. Following an introductory section, chapters two to four examine
choice by looking at simple factors. London was by far England’s largest city, but the
distribution of establishments and patterns of mobility affected different segments of
society in complex ways. In addition, leisure routines and the ability to spend money on
recreation differed between socioeconomic groups who had different amounts of time
and money to use. Affinities within social groups appear, but diaries also illuminate the
importance of individual variations. Chapter four signals a shift in the analysis by looking
at determinants of choice like feeling obliged, wanting to please friends or family, or the
impact of social networks on reactions to activities. Chapters five to eight examine
interpersonal relationships and the function of recreation in eighteenth-century society
and raise questions about how we combine agency and structure in our models of society.
This account challenges claims that group identities were the only identities available to
ii
Georgians and that individual variations were downplayed before the nineteenth century.
Rather, individuals existed in networks that had to be negotiated and maintained.

iii
Long abstract
Leisure and pleasure in London society, 1760-1820: an agent-centred
approach
Benjamin Heller, Keble College
DPhil in history
Trinity term 2009

The historiography of leisure has focused on class conflict, commercialization,
and the arts. In the latter two areas historians have attempted to make statements about
consumers, but as historians of consumption have demonstrated, examining the consumer
from the perspective of producers is insufficient. This thesis reveals what developing
historical and sociological methodologies used to examine practice and consumption
reveal when they are used to examine leisure and recreation in the past. Exploration of
forty-five diaries kept in London between 1757 and 1820 makes it possible to consider
different aspects of choice with reference to recreation. This thesis analyses how simple
determinants of choice such as time, location, and cost shaped behaviour before moving
on to the more abstract concepts of social position, domesticity, and taste in later
chapters.
Choice is central to understanding what amusement was in Georgian society, and
this thesis examines the extent of scope for choice, and the forces shaping how people
exercised choice. This account revises our understanding of the relationship between
group and individual identities, by demonstrating the previously unacknowledged
importance of individual variations. Individuality was not something that became
important only in the nineteenth century. Rather, individuals both adhered to ideals
within their networks and presented themselves as entertaining companions for
recreation.
Chapter 1 reviews the existing historiography of leisure for this period and argues
that a more systematic attempt to introduce the agent into an analysis of recreation offers
a basis for clarifying our understandings of leisure and introducing personal taste as a
relevant factor. My perspective and methodologies draw heavily on sociological
approaches to modern leisure which emphasize the importance of variations in taste
iv
within socioeconomic groups and the importance of social networks in shaping activities
chosen. Through an examination of the meanings of words used to refer to activities
undertaken in free time, I argue that “leisure” was time away from work, though it was
time that could be used to fulfil obligations as well as to pursue freely chosen forms of
gratification. A selection of terms for activities undertaken within leisure time, such as
“recreation,” “amusement,” “diversion,” and “pleasure,” more specifically designated
activities undertaken freely for enjoyment. The remainder of the thesis examines these
activities, though it repeatedly problematises the ability of individuals to undertaken
activities freely. To uncover the opportunities for pleasure and the constraints placed on
individuals’ time I turn to diary evidence for insight into daily routines. Diaries allow for
a systematic agent-centred perspective, though admittedly only for the gentry, nobility,
and people at the top of the middling sort such as merchants, lawyers, and doctors.
Diaries served several functions that must be taken into account, including serving as
memory aids, social and financial accounting devices, opportunities for remote
socialising with friends, self-monitoring and control, and self-presentation.
Chapter 2 reveals the different amounts of time available for leisure and
recreation and variations in the flexibility of that time for people at all levels of society in
London. People were limited in their pleasures by the amount of time they needed to
spend working or fulfilling their family obligations, and the flexibility of their time.
These considerations are closely linked to socioeconomic status and life-stage. With less
time for leisure, working Londoners (from labourers to propertied merchants) had
restricted scope for choice. Londoners who did not have to work for a living pursued
routines that were structured, but that often involved more extensive preparation for
activities and later hours of rising and going to bed.
Chapter 3 maps individual itineraries to show that, though merchants and working
Londoners had less time and money than the gentry and nobility, they moved more
widely around the metropolis in search of pleasure. This resulted from the inter-related
developments of transportation, the distribution of leisure amenities, and the willingness
of infrequent visitors to the theatres or pleasure gardens to travel long distance for special
occasions. The slow speed of coaches and sedan chairs meant that the physical
expansion of London disproportionately limited the wealthiest Londoners who tended to
v
ride rather than walk. Sub-metropolitan regional lifestyles for propertied society within
London created an uneven distribution of recreational spaces catering to unevenly
distributed markets. London’s topography, transportation, and the distribution of leisure
amenities created mental maps that served to reinforce the perceived divisions within
London’s geography and society.
Chapter 4 explores the patterns of attendance at commercial recreational spaces
plotted in chapter 3 through a detailed examination of account books. The patterns in
spending that emerge reinforce the earlier findings that the gentry and nobility attended
commercial spaces far more frequently than the middling sort and labouring Londoners.
The account books show that even for the wealthiest merchants spending on recreation
was limited. The patterns of spending and attendance analysed suggest the need for a
more nuanced account of the market for recreational activities. Rather than conceiving of
a market that was either open to a broad section of London society or largely closed to all
except the wealthiest Londoners, this chapter presents different sorts of venues appealing
to different sorts of publics. Some venues depended on both frequent visits from the
social elite and infrequent visits from a large number of working Londoners, others
provided primarily for a broad group of non-elite patrons, and a third group of venues
attracted niche audiences at varying levels of society. Examining patterns of attendance
also force us to re-examine the motivations behind choices of activities. Novelty and
exclusivity were important attractors, but they were not in themselves enough to draw
people in. Downplaying exclusivity means that price structures can be viewed as
reflecting the cost of putting on an event, rather than entrepreneurs’ desire to provide the
audience with social status.
Chapter 5 signals a shift in the analysis by looking at how social networks, status,
and domesticity could act as determinants of choice. In particular this chapter looks at
social networks and the ways that social bonds shaped choices about diversion. Drawing
on terms and concepts from social-network theory, I look at the different sorts of social
connections presented in diaries and argue that most recreation was undertaken with
people of similar social status. Though important exceptions existed in the context of
club life, most recreational companions were also business connections and/or relatives.
Gender, age, life-stage, and personal preferences determined the extent to which
vi
recreational partners overlapped with family/business connections. Because recreation
solidified family, business, and patronage bonds, the boundaries between pleasure and
duty often blurred. A careful examination of the terms used to describe how activities
were arranged reveals that activities that were obligatory nevertheless might still have
been fun. The relationship between social networks and choice shows that an individual
was bound to the group and had to behave in ways that were conducive to group unity.
Yet at the same time duty might be pleasurable in itself. Enjoyable activities could be
undertaken at the behest of someone else.
Chapter 6 examines the nature of interaction within the domestic sphere. Here the
domestic sphere is understood as including all living spaces, and not just the agent’s own
home. This chapter contributes to the ongoing re-assessment of “separate spheres” by
demonstrating the importance of domestic-sphere sociability (in this sense) to propertied
society and by looking at how sociability was conducted within the home. Diarists and
letter writers demonstrate awareness of propriety, but they also reveal that residents and
visitors were not always contained within clearly demarcated areas. Rather spaces had
many uses and boundaries between different types of space within the home shifted to
permit mobility and interaction with different sorts of people. This examination of
interpersonal interactions within the home also suggests that while politeness could
encourage sociability and smooth disputes, polite inclusiveness did not characterise all
facets of domestic life. Diarists seeking moments of solitude or privacy provide an
opportunity to further consider the ideas of public and private in the eighteenth century.
Chapter 7 looks to letters and descriptions of events to reveal the language used to
ascribe value to social events. Though the propertied did not continually suffer from
crushing boredom as some scholars have suggested, there is evidence they did seek out
moderate amounts of novelty and fatigue. Pleasure was achieved through the experience
of physical and social brilliance, characteristics of people and events that were mutually
reinforcing in the minds of observers. The positive attributes desired in pleasurable
gatherings reflect values that sections of propertied society would have shared, but reveal
that the precise meanings of words and valued attributes of parties varied between
individuals. Descriptions written by women are particularly common suggesting that
hostesses paid greater attention to other events than did men. This further suggests that
vii
domestic hosting was an aspect of life where women in particular could demonstrate their
awareness of good taste. This chapter returns to the issue of social obligations by arguing
that despite people’s inability to avoid certain social commitments, expressing taste after
the fact offered opportunities for exhibiting proper judgment of aesthetics and sociability.
Although it is hard to extend an agent-centred methodology to non-diary keeping
groups, chapter 8 broadens the perspective to them to examine the ways that the
constraints on action in propertied society resulted of its particular social and economic
attributes and the ways those constraints operated within society as a whole. Trial
records show that trading and plebeian patterns of recreation differed from those found in
propertied society. The prominence of the pub in the lives of men and women of the
lower 75% of the population marked a point of difference further exaggerated by the
differences between pubs in terms of clienteles. Clienteles were largely self-selecting,
thereby avoiding conflict over proper behaviour in many public spaces. Despite the lack
of social mixing to be found in pubs, an examination of the shared spaces of parks and
theatres shows that people of different sorts did mix easily, in part because of shared
assumptions about behaviour and the ability of people at all levels of society to ignore
outsiders in their midst.
Chapter 9 begins by returning to the problems of definition. Because of the
demands placed on individuals by social obligations and other constraints, it is difficult to
see free choice as a precondition for recreation. Rather pleasure was often achieved as
people discharged obligations, though all obligations were not pleasurable. By looking at
what people found plesant, rather than at what they freely chose, we find people enjoying
their activities despite the impact of duty and obligation on those choices. The
boundaries between obligation and recreation dissolve when considered in this way. I
then review some particularly important findings on politeness, gender relations, and
domesticity before I argue for the ways that recreation offers new insight into the
relationships between activities, networks, and social classes. I propose that individuals
in propertied society fell into one of three groups. By looking at social networks within
those subgroups we can account for subcultures and individual variations. Recreation
was not a strong force for social cohesion, but at the same time recreational cultures were
not sites of antagonism as historians working from emulative or social control models
viii
have argued. Many of the divisions within society in relation to amusement resulted
from patterns of choice. By re-examining different sorts of activities from the
perspective of the agent we are able to enhance our understanding of the factors shaping
individual choice. We find that agents were often somewhat individual. Even as their
interests overlapped with those of other people in their network they exhibited original
characteristics that made them entertaining or amusing. Finally, I examine the utility of
my method. In particular I draw attention to the differences between my account and the
histories of recreation based on different sorts of sources, particularly print. I conclude
by suggesting that we need to be attuned to different registers of change in historical
processes. In this case the available activities and printed debates about how they should
be used and whether they were beneficial increased in this period. However these
developments were not matched by changes in the ways people made decisions about
what to do.
ix
Table of contents
LEISURE AND PLEASURE IN LONDON SOCIETY, 1760-1820: AN AGENT-CENTRED
APPROACH .................................................................................................................................................. I
SHORT ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... II
LONG ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................................... IV
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................................... XII
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... XIII
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... XIII
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................ XIV
1. PROBLEMS, CONCEPTS, AND SOURCES ........................................................................................ 1
THE LANGUAGE OF LEISURE ..................................................................................................................... 14
IDENTIFYING RECREATION ........................................................................................................................ 23
LEISURE ADVICE ....................................................................................................................................... 28
THE DIARISTS ........................................................................................................................................... 30
THE DIARIES ............................................................................................................................................. 38
2. TIME USE IN LONDON, 1757-1820 .................................................................................................... 49
THE LEISURE ELITES? ............................................................................................................................... 50
MERCHANTS, NOT ADVENTURERS ............................................................................................................ 59
WORKING: THE VIEW BELOW THE MERCHANTS ........................................................................................ 66
THE IMPACT OF PATTERNS OF WORK ON LEISURE AND RECREATION ......................................................... 70
5. BY CARRIAGE, SEDAN CHAIR, AND FOOT: TRAVERSING THE RECREATIONAL
METROPOLISS ......................................................................................................................................... 74
RESIDENTIAL LOCATION AND PATTERNS OF MOVEMENT .......................................................................... 87
TRANSPORTATION AND MOVEMENT ......................................................................................................... 93
THE DISTRIBUTION OF RECREATIONAL VENUES ........................................................................................ 99
MENTAL MAPS AND INDIVIDUAL MEANINGS ............................................................................................106
CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................................108
4. COMMERCIALIZATION, SPENDING, AND THE COST OF LEISURE ....................................110
RECREATIONAL VENTURES AND NON-SPECIFIC ENTERPRISES ..................................................................114
PATTERNS OF SPENDING ..........................................................................................................................116
PATTERNS AND VARIATIONS ....................................................................................................................129
MOTIVATING THE SPENDERS ...................................................................................................................132
SURVIVING AS A LEISURE ENTREPRENEUR ...............................................................................................135
x